Skeptical of my Skepticism

skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Skeptical of my Skepticism

Hey guys! So I'm new here, dig your site, interested in you message and stuff. I like to give you a bit of background on myself before I ask my question, seeing as this is my first post and all, but if you're not interested, please feel free to skip this next paragraph. Here goes:

Don't want to lead you on, I am a Christian, but I find myself more connected sometimes with atheists that I do my Christian friends because my atheist friends are always more concerned with WHY I believe something. "Is there evidence?" "What's the rationality behind that?" etc. I was never really an atheist myself, I was more like an "apathetic". I guess I believed in God in some abstract, white-glowy way, but I didn't really care if He existed or not. Then about four years ago I moved to NYC for school and my friends took me to this church, its called Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City, and the senior pastor is this guy Tim Keller. Has anyone on here heard of him before? Man, this guy is completely unlike what I was lead to believe that Christians were like. All he does is talk about the rationality behind the Christian faith and the historical context in which the Christian church arose. I'd like to ask maybe some of my literature atheist friends on here this question that was posed by him (Dr. Keller) in one of the first sermons I heard, cause it really threw me for a loop and was one of many arguments he posed that really lead me to believe the Bible is telling the truth.  I don't remember the exact wording, but here goes:

"Most people look at the accounts of Jesus in the gospels and think that they're just made up. That they're exaggerated (spelled right?). That they're myth or legend. This is because we're looking at the gospels through a 21st century lens. Look at the detail in the gospels. We see in one part that Jesus was on a boat, he was asleep, His head was resting on a pillow. Now if this is a legend written in first century Palestine, what on earth does the knowledge that Christ was asleep contribute to the narrative of the story? What does the account that there were 54 fish laying on the beach contribute to the narrative of the story? (If you're Christopher Hitchens or like him and you're reading this, you've probably begun to see my point, haven't you? For the rest of us less literate folk, we have to wait a few lines...) The answer is, nothing. Neither one of these pieces of information contributes anything to the "legend" or "myth". Now why is this important to point out? You're probably saying, 'I read books all the time with bits of information such as, '...and then he turned the knob slowly,' or, '...and the door creeked open,' and those are fiction, too!' This is true, they are fiction, but they are also a form of writing known as 'narrative-pros', a form of writing that was not around until 1,800 years after the Gospels were written. Go read Homer's 'The Iliad' and look for small details. Go read anything up until the Gospels appear and for 1,800 years after and you won't find narrative-pros or small details in fictional stories that do not contribute directly to the plot of the narrative anywhere.

"You will find plenty of writings, however, that contain a large number of small details - history books. So, we are left with two choices. 1) We were wrong in our assertion that the Gospels were fictional, myth or legend. They clearly contain the details of historical documentation. or 2) The worlds biggest miracle took place in 1st century palestine when 4 different authors created a form of writing that was unheard-of at the time and not copied again until almost 2,000 years in later."

So anyway, I'd be real interested in hearing what you guys have to say about this, cause I agree with most atheists when they tell me to believe something until the evidence leads in a different direction. So far I haven't been offered any evidence that has lead me to believe that the question posed by Dr. Keller up there is a misrepresentation of history. Thanks a lot! Can't wait to hear from you guys!

 Sincerely,

-Skeptnick 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
First off, none of this is

First off, none of this is evidence. It is assumption, nothing more.

Second, the story was not written at the time of the event. What are the odds that someone writing it, a mere mortal, would be sitting there 30+ years later and go "I remember there was exactly 54 fish!".

Similar to the story I will provide an assumption with no evidence: I believe that the story was passed on and passed on and grew with each telling. As it grew it took on a life of it's own. I don't have any evidence that supports 1800 years of a writing style not being used, and frankly I find it hard to believe but I don't know for sure.

At the end of the day, the story was not written by a Jesus. It is hard to believe that it was written first hand, and it was undoubtably not written at the time of the event with someone standing around counting fish and writing it down.  I find this simply absurd to think that the 54 number is accurate.

I should also add that though I believe it to be fictional, I question if the writer believed it was fictional.


matthewtole
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: "You will

skeptnick wrote:
"You will find plenty of writings, however, that contain a large number of small details - history books. So, we are left with two choices. 1) We were wrong in our assertion that the Gospels were fictional, myth or legend. They clearly contain the details of historical documentation. or 2) The worlds biggest miracle took place in 1st century palestine when 4 different authors created a form of writing that was unheard-of at the time and not copied again until almost 2,000 years in later."

Or a third choice, that it's fiction deliberately written to look like historical fact...

 This is a fairly common method of persuasion, to give people a set of options; one of them proves your point and the rest are unbelievable, when in fact they don't cover all the options. Sort of like the Liar, Looney or Lord argument. (The correct answer being option four, Legend).

Matthew Tole


JohnBTY
JohnBTY's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Okay, just gotta adress one

Okay, just gotta adress one particular part of your story:

skeptnick wrote:

So, we are left with two choices. 1) We were wrong in our assertion that the Gospels were fictional, myth or legend. They clearly contain the details of historical documentation. or 2) The worlds biggest miracle took place in 1st century palestine when 4 different authors created a form of writing that was unheard-of at the time and not copied again until almost 2,000 years in later.

This sort of rhetoric is the stock and trade of irrational religious leaders - the creation of false dichotomies, the attempt to polarize issues and force people into a yes-or-no choice. Watch any televangelist, listen to president Bush when he uses codified religious language, they'll borrow this same structure of communication ("You're either with Merica, or you're with the terrists (sp)" ).

If you're looking for rational discourse about anything, this sort of polarization should be seen as a red flag. By suggesting there are only two possible means of arriving at a state of affairs the speaker is clearly trying to drive you towards one by minimizing the other. If you want to examine the issue properly, it's better to develop a variety of theses and then investigate which is best supported by evidence. Why didn't the pastor bring up a third option, like "Clearly the people writing this material were moved by the subject matter to create a narrative unusually rich in detail for its time, thus revolutionizing the literary practices of antiquity and allowing their writings to spread remarkably far across the strata of society"?

Remember that just because someone sounds learned and speaks eloquently, does not make their reasoning sound or their methods rational. Beware of false dichotomies and polarizing speech. I do applaud your apparent openness to reason, though, and I hope you get something constructive out of your visits to this and other similar sites.

The lesson of history is that we do not learn the lessons of history.


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
oh, good point, another question then!

So if the account of Jesus are just legend, how do you explain how quickly they grew? Could you give me another example of a legend that grew up in as little a time as 30 years?

I saw a clip from this "The God Who Wasn't There" movie and in it they made an interesting point, that there are 30 years between Christ's life and the first written accounts from Paul of his (Christ's) life. Now at first I was like, "Wtf? 30 years! That settles it then, this is some of history's greatest BS." But then I learned how quickly it takes for legends to grow, and I was thrown back in my seat because of the implications --- What do I mean?

Well, I live in NYC. I'm not 30 years old, but imagine if someone who was 50 suddenly began to claim that in 1978 there were a group of people flying at the southern tip of Manhattan, among them was none other than my father. Furthermore, this person claims that there were 500 people who saw this happen, that some of these witnesses are still alive, and that you can go talk to them if you doubt the truth of the account put forth. Now if I wanted to sell this as, matthewtole put it, "fiction deliberately written to look like historical fact.." Then I would have to wait until not only my father was dead, but also everyone who knew him was dead, too. It also wouldn't help to start writing things like, "And there were 500 people who saw my father fly, go and talk to them if you don't believe me." Why? Because all you would have to do to disprove it would be to ask those people who were there and are still alive. You could ask my mother, or my oldest sister if there were any truth to it or if they had ever heard anything about it.

Now comes the hard part, for me, not you, because I hate quoting the Bible when I talk to atheists because it makes me feel cheese and I feel like I immediately lose them, but in this case it's worth the try because it gets me every time i read it, so please forgive me:

In 1st Corinthians 15: 5-6, Paul says (in a public document), "...and that he (Christ) appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."

So wait a second, here Paul is talking about the resurrection as if it's common knowledge, as if it's historical fact that you can investigate if you want to, in a public document that is open to be falsified by anyone who reads it. The odd thing tht struck me when I first studied this time period was not that this man was making outrageous claims as if they were true, but that here this man was, making outrageous claims as if they were true, to the public, and no one was contradicting him...

 Bringing it full circle - find a legend, just pick one, anyone, and study how long it took to become a legend. You will find that in every case, it took a significantly longer time than 30 years. It, in fact, took significantly longer than a single lifetime. No legend has ever been born that quickly in the history of the human race. So if Christ's life is simply a myth, can you please offer me parallel evidence of another myth or legend that arose in as short a time a 30 years.

 Excited for your input! Thanks again!

Sincerely,

- skeptnick 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote:

skeptnick wrote:

So if the account of Jesus are just legend, how do you explain how quickly they grew? Could you give me another example of a legend that grew up in as little a time as 30 years?

 

Interesting point.

I wonder if Joseph Campbell has anything to say on this. I understand the points made by Jesus skeptics, but even if Paul was entirel self serving, he had to start his new religion based on something. There had to be enough talk among people to lend plausability to his ideas. You can't start with "There was this guy named Jesus". You need to start with "You heard about that strange shit that happened in Jerusalem, right? We'll here's the straight scoop ..."


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Well for the sake of time I

Well for the sake of time I won't get into many of these issues such as

- just because 30 yrs. after (the supposed death)-may have been the 1st writings of the bible/New Testament does not mean that the large bulk of it did not come MUCH later & w/ considerable re-tellings, editings, embellishments, etc.....

- Paul never seems to refer to jesus as if he were actual history but as in all myths, as if he were "spiritual"...blah blah...

The 1st church of Scientology was established in 1953.. You'd think in this day and age people would be smart enough to reject alien beings in volcanoes and e-meters.. They're clearly NOT as evidenced by huge Scientology temples in most major cities, claims to be the world's fastest growing religion and supposedly 5 million members worldwide..  That's 5 million morons in 50 yrs..  About a million per decade not taking into account exponential factors.

You could apply this to the Unification church, Mormonism (12 million + people believe in golden tablets given to a drunk by an angel), pick your religion....& give it a marketing plan, etc. etc.

Or my favorite: "The Great Carlos"....The fake channeler James Randi created turned into a "myth", almost a legend in a matter of weeks w/ purportedly thousands of adherents.  A frightening portion of them refused to give up belief in Carlos even after he told them he was only fooling them. 

People WANT TO BELIEVE and it makes them easy fodder for whichever myth you want to sell them.  It takes genuine courage to be skeptical and reject ignorance and foolishness, skeptnick.  I hope you find your way.  

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: So if the

skeptnick wrote:

So if the account of Jesus are just legend, how do you explain how quickly they grew? Could you give me another example of a legend that grew up in as little a time as 30 years?

 Let me ask you, how quickly did these myths/legends form?

1. No one really landed on the moon, it was a hoax.

2. Elvis is not dead, and people still "see" him.

3. The government was smart enough to orchestrate the 911 attacks and was an "inside job."

4.  The government possesses alien technology in a bunker in the desert.


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
gah, not enough time

AmericanIdle, I came on here just to check up, but you've opened a door im eager to jump into. I'll flesh it out again tomorrow morning because of time restraints, but can I just ask a genuine question that i really do want an answer from - and from you since you brought it up:

Should a man who is searching for the truth be skeptical of everything? Of every religion? Of every world view? Of even skepticism itself?

In other words, should I be skeptical everything, including the idea that I should be skeptical of everything? That was the thought in my head when I titled this post.

Hope to hear back from you soon!

Sincerely,

- skeptnick 


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon

stuntgibbon wrote:
skeptnick wrote:

So if the account of Jesus are just legend, how do you explain how quickly they grew? Could you give me another example of a legend that grew up in as little a time as 30 years?

Let me ask you, how quickly did these myths/legends form?

1. No one really landed on the moon, it was a hoax.

2. Elvis is not dead, and people still "see" him.

3. The government was smart enough to orchestrate the 911 attacks and was an "inside job."

4. The government possesses alien technology in a bunker in the desert.

Good point. Urban legends can be born in just overnight. Demolition experts have been doubting the 911 attacks since day one. 30 years isn't "little time" when speaking of legends and myths. It's hard to know for certain how some myths and urban legends were born. No one knows how the internet meme "lol" was born, and who invented it. It just did, and it spread with word-of-mouth until it became impossible to know who made it. It could be the same thing with Jesus.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: Should a

skeptnick wrote:

Should a man who is searching for the truth be skeptical of everything? Of every religion? Of every world view? Of even skepticism itself?

In other words, should I be skeptical everything, including the idea that I should be skeptical of everything? That was the thought in my head when I titled this post.

Life is full of a-rational and irrational things that don't make much sense. If you are a normal, intelligent person you cannot be 100% rational all the time. It would be wise to have some kind of "irrational" belief about life. For example, I know that one can't be completely sure of anything. This is a paradox, because if I wasn't sure I wouldn't be making that claim. An irrational belief of mine is that there is no certainty about anything, except that I certainly know this claim is true. If you were to truly doubt everything there is, you would go insane. I don't recommend it.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Comparing the evolution of

Comparing the evolution of current urband legends with Jesus is weak on two counts:

 

1) The communication infrastracture today allows amazingly rapid propagation of information. Scientology grew as fast as it did in part because of this technology. Even in the 50's communications far outstripped what was available 2000 years ago.

2) Every conspiracy theory surrounds some actual event. Roswell is based on a crash of an aircraft (space ship), 9/11 conspiracies wouldn't be around if the Trade Center didn't collapse and the Pentagon wasn't damaged, John F. Kennedy assissination paranoia would not be here if Kennedy wasn't actually shot.

So even if all of Christianity is crap invented by Paul, what happened in Jerusalem that allowed him to create his "paranoia"? 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: Should a

skeptnick wrote:

Should a man who is searching for the truth be skeptical of everything? Of every religion? Of every world view? Of even skepticism itself?

Absolutely, but keep in mind that skepticism is NOT a world view or an ideology, so really does not belong in that particular list. 

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
gah, i just finished my

gah, i just finished my last post when i saw someone else had posted in the meantime. quick answer:

Compare the Christian church throughout history to the total number or people who believe the 4 legends you've listed. People today have something going for them that the Christians who bought into the "hoax" of the resurrection didn't have - the 1st amendment. Christian men and women were being burned at the stake. Anyone who professed a belief in the Resurrected Christ in certain parts of Rome had their heads drilled in and hot, liquid metal poured inside. Woman who professed the Risen Christ were forced to watch their children be fed, while still living, in front of thousands of spectators, to lions who had been starved for days ahead of time. All along, the only thing they had to do to make it stop was confess that Christ was not raised, and they didn't.

These are not just moving words, and these are not fiction or myth either. They are the practical, investigate-able, historical facts that can be verified using the same methods that tell us tht there was a Rome in the first place, and because of that, I ask the question, "Why? Why on earth would a woman watch her child be eaten alive when all she had to do was confess to a lie?" I've heard a lot of sneers (not on here) but in general when I pose this question to people, but no one has presented a clear, rational argument for why this was the case except the Christians, so I choose to believe them.

What's the Christian response? Simple. That Christ really did come back to life, that hundreds of people saw him, that word spread quickly, and that, because the same people who saw him raised to life also said they heard him speak of their resurrection as well, they could face anything, including death itself, because if Christ is raised, and if we are to be raised as well, then death isn't the end, it's temporary. It's momentary in the scope of things. And if Christ actually did literally, physically come back to life, and promises to bring you back to life, literally, physically, too - then there is nothing you can't face, including the lions.

Sorry again, this response was rushed but I hope I got the point across. Please, as a favor to me, don't respond to me with the, "This is the same old rehash of Christian arguments I've heard over and over again." Please, do what this website promised me. I believe in God - fix me! Rationally respond to me. You've promised you would, now here's your chance! I'm waiting eagerly!!

 Sincerely,

-skeptnick 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
He was simply asking for

He was simply asking for examples that under our current lens of myths that could have spread as quickly.  

Whether or not there was a real Jesus or at the very least a real person the Jesus character was based on, it almost doesn't matter.  It's also a differently spreading story in the sense that it also was transmitted by force and ruling governments. 

Once leadership knows how docile the mind is locked into one of these systems of belief and how much easier it is to control people, while using their popular religions, the sky's the limit. 

 

 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
To your first point that

To your first point that the Gospels use a style of writing that seems historical:

1) It's pretty weak. Evaluating styles of writing is subjective and it is difficult to point to why something was written one way and not another.

2) The style of writing veers all over the place throughout the Gospels, which we would expect from different writers. The "historical" aspect you are pointing to is not present everywhere and in many places the Gospels gloss over important stuff that we might wish we had more detail on.

3) The Gospels have been translated and edited several times as they passed down to whatever version of the Bible you are referring to, so it is now impossible to say what the original style might have been. The 54 fish might have been added in in the 15th century.

4) Just because something was written as history by ancient people doesn't make it so. We have "historical" accounts from sailors and travellers in the Middle Ages of mermaids, dragons, sea serpents, people with no heads, trees that bear gems etc etc. We generally ask for more evidence before we accept these claims to be true.

5) The comment about fiction is just wrong. Ancient writers were often painstakingly detailed about matters that seemed to them important. Yes, overall they tended not to be as long-winded as modern writers because they had to save papyrus, but they could go on about minutia with the best of them when they wanted to. Look at Josephus.

Now, I and several others have posted some pretty detailed refutations of your OP. It would be nice if you would address them before moving on to another point, which you have already done. These are discussion boards, not soap boxes. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: gah, i

skeptnick wrote:

gah, i just finished my last post when i saw someone else had posted in the meantime. quick answer:

Compare the Christian church throughout history to the total number or people who believe the 4 legends you've listed.

Sure.  How many Christians were there between 30 and 80AD?  I'd imagine a current, modern whack-job meme would spread even wider now without regional boundaries (and the Internet.) 

 

skeptnick wrote:
 

These are not just moving words, and these are not fiction or myth either. They are the practical, investigate-able, historical facts that can be verified using the same methods that tell us that there was a Rome in the first place, and because of that, I ask the question, "Why? Why on earth would a woman watch her child be eaten alive when all she had to do was confess to a lie?"

Sweet, I'm sure you won't mind showing us the "practical, investigate-able, historical facts" then? 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: Compare

skeptnick wrote:

Compare the Christian church throughout history to the total number or people who believe the 4 legends you've listed. People today have something going for them that the Christians who bought into the "hoax" of the resurrection didn't have - the 1st amendment. Christian men and women were being burned at the stake. Anyone who professed a belief in the Resurrected Christ in certain parts of Rome had their heads drilled in and hot, liquid metal poured inside. Woman who professed the Risen Christ were forced to watch their children be fed, while still living, in front of thousands of spectators, to lions who had been starved for days ahead of time. All along, the only thing they had to do to make it stop was confess that Christ was not raised, and they didn't.

These are not just moving words, and these are not fiction or myth either. They are the practical, investigate-able, historical facts that can be verified using the same methods that tell us tht there was a Rome in the first place, and because of that, I ask the question, "Why? Why on earth would a woman watch her child be eaten alive when all she had to do was confess to a lie?" I've heard a lot of sneers (not on here) but in general when I pose this question to people, but no one has presented a clear, rational argument for why this was the case except the Christians, so I choose to believe them.

 

 In simple terms, fanatical religious belief makes you a fucktard... ^_^

 

Such scenarios played through out history... Ever wonder why Vikings craved battle and conquest? Because if they died a Warriors death... thats right, their lil god sends them to Heaven(Valhalla).

Aztecs would sacrifice themselves in the names of their gods (gods who had to eat >.&gtEye-wink in a most gruesome manner (you know, the whole rip your heart out of your chest thing while your still alive and its beating etc etc).

Samuria and ritual suicide (Seppuku) to restore their honor after a severe failure (Keep in mind this was part of their warrior code, Bushido, which is in essence a religion of sorts) btw, this ritual suicide, the samuria would plunge his "tanto" into his stomach and swirl it around dicing up his intestines... a very slow painful death >.>.... hmm i wonder what other examples i should give...

 Oh oh! how about we go with the ever popular SPARTANS! aaaaooowh!

Mothers and "Doctors" tossing babies over cliffs if they were suspected of being "inferior" in any way (except for children of nobility... but hey, who says wtf to a king those days right?)

 

I suppose by now you know where im going with this, its HER belief (in whatever fantasy she holds dear) that makes HER refuse to say the magic words and have HER CHILDREN LIVE.

 

But hey, i could be wrong >.>

 

So i pose to you a question,

Why would Viking's become suicidal beserkers in the name of everlasting glory?

Why would Aztecs wish to see their own hearts ripped out of their bodies and held to the sun?

Why would Samuria commit suicide in one of the most horrific ways?

Why would mother Spartans discard their own children at the PROSPECT of inferiority?

In short, WHY do these people, do the things they do, in the name of their beliefs?

What Would Kharn Do?


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
To your second point about

To your second point about the growth of the legend:

Actually, most of the Gospels were written much more than 30 years after Jesus' death. 30 years is the most generous figure given to one or two of them.  

Leaving that aside, your point is that how could Paul and others get away with publishing false eyewitness accounts of miracles when the eyewitnesses were still around to refute them. You are ignoring a number of things:

1) Average life span at the time was probably around 30. So anyone who was an adult at the time Jesus was killed would probably be dead 30 years later.

2) There was far less communication between areas than we are used to. You could tell a story about an event 50 miles away and most of the people listening to it would never visit that area before they died, much less seek out and question the eyewitness you named. Most people's information about anywhere but where they lived came from the occassional traveller, and if that person didn't know about the topic you were interested in, you were out of luck. You could go to New Jersey and tell everyone that people routinely flew to work in Manhattan and it would probably be years before your story would be refuted. By which time it would have spread far beyond NJ.

3) If the "eyewitnesses" have all gotten together and gotten their story straight (well, mostly straight) then you have no fear of anyone refuting anything you say. Certainly the disciples had ample opportunity to compare notes.

6) Saying that "500 people" witnessed something doesn't count as corroboration at all. Which 500 people? You could as 5,000 people if they saw anything and never know if you got a member of the right 500. Paul's 500 people is the ultimate "they." They are like lottery winners: there seem to be lots of them, but they are never anyone you know. Again, imagine travelling to Miracle Ground Zero and asking around for someone who saw the miracle:

John: "The miracle? Oh, I think Bob saw that!"

Bob: "Well, I didn't actually see it, but my sister did!"

Bob's sister: "Actually I heard about it from some friends. Uh, I think Luke was one of them." 

Luke: "I don't know what the hell she's talking about, but I heard John saw the miracle!"

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I admit that it is with

I admit that it is with some amount of timidness that i begin knowing that I must offer Tilberian and all other atheists a minor correction on my part.

This site is >> rationalresponders.com << It has text on its home page with the words, "Believe in God, we can fix that!" So when I signed up, I was hoping to get rational responses to questions that I posed. I'm here, asking simple questions, because I've heard of this new atheism movement and I want to give it a fair hearing. I don't want to live a lie, but I'm not going to make commitments to anything without first thoroughly investigating the evidence. Part of the includes listening to people and learning from them.

And perhaps that's where the problem has begun to crop up. The questions I'm asking are not to enlighten you or anyone else on these boards. Quite the opposite - I'm here to learn from you, and to know why you believe the things you do. I want to learn your rationality to see if it's the most compatible with the reality im confronted with every day i walk outside my apartment. Now in light of this, I'm at a loss, because I am a Christian based on the evidence that has been presented to me, therefore, I can only offer you, in these discussions, the perspective of a Christian. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that will require effort on someone's part because I can only know what I learn from outside sources, and it makes listening to someone a bit difficult when I read things like, "It would be nice if you would address them (the questions posed to me) before moving on to another point, which you have already done. There are discussion boards, not soap boxes."

I'm sorry, I feel I've given you the wrong impression, if I jump from point to point it's not to evade you or your questions, it simply because I'm running through stream of thought. I'll try harder to pay more attention and answer any questions I can, but I'm really hoping you guys can answer my questions too!

If you need a place to start, maybe you could offer an answer to my original question. Name another legend that grew up in 30 years. And to understand that question and how it applies to Christianity, take a quick peak at the context into which the Christian church began.

Thanks again, hope this clears things up (probably doesn't, does it?) I'll try to answer any questions you might have to the best of my ability!

Sincerely,

- skeptnick 


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
not so, Paul's letter to

not so, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was dated 24-36 months after the events of Jesus's life, something that "The God Who Wasn't There" segment didn't address. Sections of the Gospel of Mark were dated to within 7 months of the events - 7 months.

Sorry, just read the first line of that last post and wanted to comment. Also, regarding your last point - this is a "legend" that 12 people started....? 12? That they started in 1st century palestine? All of the members were Jewish....and yet they were professing to have seen a risen body...a risen, physical body. Do you understand why I'm a little skeptical about this assertion that this is a "legend" now? These were Jews. No offense, but anyone who knows anything about the Jewish religion knows that, while modern atheists certainly are skeptical about the resurrection, there would be no one more skeptical and thoroughly rejecting the idea of a resurrected human body than a 1st century Jew. Richard Dawkins would probably have an easier time being convinced, and yet it happened - overnight. Suddenly, for some reason, hundreds of 1st century jews were confessing that they had seen a risen Christ. The only rational explanation that I've been given is that it actually happened.

 More tomorrow, more tomorrow, gah i hate these forums, they're very fun and i want to spend all day but i cant! See you all in the morning.

 Sincerely,

- skeptnick 


JohnBTY
JohnBTY's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-01-05
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: In other

skeptnick wrote:

In other words, should I be skeptical everything, including the idea that I should be skeptical of everything?

That's a reductio ad absurdum, that you should "be skeptical of skepticism". Skepticism isn't a worldview itself, just a propensity to not take the word of others at face value. I suggest you take the maxim "Consider the source" to heart - anybody with a vested interest in swaying your worldview, anybody who stands to profit from perpetuating a particular belief, is more likely to be skewing results to their favor, even subconsciously. Do your own research when possible (and it is usually possible on the internet), demand evidence when possible, and don't dismiss new evidence out-of-hand on the basis of older theories. Nobody has perfect knowledge of the workings of the universe, but our comprehension of it surely grows with time....so of what use are the rigid, inflexible scrawlings of desert herdsmen and nigh-illiterate farmers from thousands of years ago when trying to evaluate truth claims? Consider the source... 

The lesson of history is that we do not learn the lessons of history.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I have to disagree there.

I have to disagree there. Being skeptical of one's skepticism is a valid and useful practice. From time to time we should stop to ask ourselves 'why do I question?', if only to remind ourselves of why we seek truth. There's no one answer, as root causes for needing the truth vary from person to person, and my answer won't give you your causes.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: not so,

skeptnick wrote:

not so, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was dated 24-36 months after the events of Jesus's life

 

 Proof?

skeptnick wrote:
Sections of the Gospel of Mark were dated to within 7 months of the events - 7 months.
 


Proof?

 I remain skeptical of bible stories, because it seems that all the evidence is inside the bible.   It'd be like using the star wars films to "know" the reality of a Jedi's power or the story of Beowulf to "know" how to defeat a "real" Grendel.   


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon

stuntgibbon wrote:
skeptnick wrote:

not so, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was dated 24-36 months after the events of Jesus's life

Proof?

skeptnick wrote:
Sections of the Gospel of Mark were dated to within 7 months of the events - 7 months.


Proof?

I remain skeptical of bible stories, because it seems that all the evidence is inside the bible. It'd be like using the star wars films to "know" the reality of a Jedi's power or the story of Beowulf to "know" how to defeat a "real" Grendel.

Can you prove that the writings of Plato were actually written by Plato? Or that Plato actually existed? There is no direct proof such as in the existence of electrons. But there is an accepted level of circumstantial evidence that allows us to confidently conclude that Plato existed and that writings attributed to him are likely his.

So, in the realm of ancient texts, what would constitute sufficient proof? 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't live my entire life

I don't live my entire life by Plato.  Also, I wasn't the ones making assertions about exact dates of writing and events.  I'm simply asking for the supporting evidence to back his assetions.

There's a big difference from looking at ancient writing and abstracting some information from it and declaring it's "true."   


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: There's

stuntgibbon wrote:

There's a big difference from looking at ancient writing and abstracting some information from it and declaring it's "true."

Agreed. But a problem that atheists have is that they appear to have a higher standard of proof regarding Christianity than other scholars have. Is there an academically accepted standard that can be objectively applied to this question? There is some consensus among scholars about the origins of much of the New Testament texts. This is assuredly not definitive, but is definitive proof required for other ancient texts?


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Agreed.

wavefreak wrote:

Agreed. But a problem that atheists have is that they appear to have a higher standard of proof regarding Christianity than other scholars have. Is there an academically accepted standard that can be objectively applied to this question? There is some consensus among scholars about the origins of much of the New Testament texts. This is assuredly not definitive, but is definitive proof required for other ancient texts?

I don't know about other atheists, but I'm equally dismissive of similar Islamic, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu, etc. texts.   If people make farout claims of magical powers, deities, and other far out possibilities I simply ask for proof.   If magic was a reality of our universe, it should be clearly demonstratable somehow. 

Most religions are based on illogical building blocks that have no basis in reality.  If your claim involves magic, show me how magic works and how I might be able to repeat this demonstration.  

No one reads a book when I recommend it, but I'm going to once again.  Check out Hector Avalos' book "The End of Biblical Studies"  for a look at a lot of the historical and textual problems with what we have left from the bible. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon

stuntgibbon wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

Agreed. But a problem that atheists have is that they appear to have a higher standard of proof regarding Christianity than other scholars have. Is there an academically accepted standard that can be objectively applied to this question? There is some consensus among scholars about the origins of much of the New Testament texts. This is assuredly not definitive, but is definitive proof required for other ancient texts?

I don't know about other atheists, but I'm equally dismissive of similar Islamic, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu, etc. texts. If people make farout claims of magical powers, deities, and other far out possibilities I simply ask for proof. If magic was a reality of our universe, it should be clearly demonstratable somehow.

Most religions are based on illogical building blocks that have no basis in reality. If your claim involves magic, show me how magic works and how I might be able to repeat this demonstration.

No one reads a book when I recommend it, but I'm going to once again. Check out Hector Avalos' book "The End of Biblical Studies" for a look at a lot of the historical and textual problems with what we have left from the bible.

 

The texts as expositors of truth is a different question than the genuiness of the authors. Did Paul actually write the portions of the New Testament attributed to him? Did he write about events that really happened, but embellished through multiple layers of hearsay? Something happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago that allowed these texts and their ideas to capture the imagination of enough people to allow a whole new religion. Maybe it was just some rabble rousing crazy man, but something provided the seed for Paul's "grand vision".   


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The texts

wavefreak wrote:

The texts as expositors of truth is a different question than the genuiness of the authors. Did Paul actually write the portions of the New Testament attributed to him? Did he write about events that really happened, but embellished through multiple layers of hearsay? Something happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago that allowed these texts and their ideas to capture the imagination of enough people to allow a whole new religion. Maybe it was just some rabble rousing crazy man, but something provided the seed for Paul's "grand vision".

I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that the fact that it may have been "just some rabble rousing crazy man" is the entire point.

Nobody cares if Plato actually sat in a cave and stared at a fire; it doens't really affect his argument.  However, the reality of Jesus is rather relevant to the claims made by Paul.  In order for Paul to have any credibility, you would need to show that Jesus was not a rabble rousing crazy man.  Without such evidence, Paul's writing becomes a myth, which wouldn't be all that strange a thought, as people make up stories all the time (some of which are believed to be the truth).


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: I may be

Fish wrote:

I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that the fact that it may have been "just some rabble rousing crazy man" is the entire point.

Nobody cares if Plato actually sat in a cave and stared at a fire; it doens't really affect his argument. However, the reality of Jesus is rather relevant to the claims made by Paul. In order for Paul to have any credibility, you would need to show that Jesus was not a rabble rousing crazy man. Without such evidence, Paul's writing becomes a myth, which wouldn't be all that strange a thought, as people make up stories all the time (some of which are believed to be the truth).

Which is getting closer to my point. The standard of proof required by an atheist (or perhaps and empiricist is a better term) is not the same as that of a fundamentalist. This difference will never be "solved". As far as the fundementalist is concerned, enough schloarly work has been done to validate the writings of Paul as genuine. From there it is an easy leap to accepting them as true. Basucally it works like this:

 

1) Did Paul write parts of the new testament

    Fundamentalist: Yes

    Athiest: Maybe

2) Did Paul write the truth?

    Fundamentalist: Yes

    Athiest: Definitely not.

Once a fundamentalist has accepted Paul's writing as truthful, logic is moot. It ceases to carry weight in their thinking. 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Another question I have, is

Another question I have, is if the miracles and the tales were real..  why weren't the Jews convinced?  They were seemingly right there, yet not all of them were convinced.  Wouldn't the reappearance and miracles of A GOD WALKING ON EARTH be rather obvious to people contemporary to the claims?  Would they not have seen it fit to write about this stuff too?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: Another

stuntgibbon wrote:
Another question I have, is if the miracles and the tales were real.. why weren't the Jews convinced? They were seemingly right there, yet not all of them were convinced. Wouldn't the reappearance and miracles of A GOD WALKING ON EARTH be rather obvious to people contemporary to the claims? Would they not have seen it fit to write about this stuff too?

 

The story goes that the religious leadership accused Jesus of using the powers of darkness to perform his wonders. He managed to piss them off when he cleared the temple of money changers and called them things like vipers. It makes a certain amount of sense politically. If somebody challenges the core of your authority you either have to accept the "miracles" and abandon your perch atop the hierarchy or "Swift Boat" the guy challenging you. 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Or... the miracles never

Or... the miracles never happened?  (just another option to float out there)

 Maybe I missed it... but didn't the "core of [jewish] authority" look toward the coming of the messiah in their teachings as well?  Analyzing these miracles you'd think would have been the number one priority for them as this might have fulfilled their own prophecies, no?  


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: Or...

stuntgibbon wrote:

Or... the miracles never happened? (just another option to float out there)

Maybe I missed it... but didn't the "core of [jewish] authority" look toward the coming of the messiah in their teachings as well? Analyzing these miracles you'd think would have been the number one priority for them as this might have fulfilled their own prophecies, no?

 I'm digging through memories because it's been more than 20 years since I was around fundamentalists, but I think the big issue for the religious elite at the time is that they were expecting the messiah to deliver them from Rome and re-establish Judaism as the preiminent political force so they interpreted prophecy in a way that suited that vision. Jesus came to deliver them from sin. He upset their view of the future. So they axed him. 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: So if the

skeptnick wrote:

So if the account of Jesus are just legend, how do you explain how quickly they grew? Could you give me another example of a legend that grew up in as little a time as 30 years?

 

Look up Cargo religions.

 

Lets also consider the fact that the components of the religion had been formed for thousands of years before from other religions.  They just changed a commonly used theme and commonly used characters and even commonly used stories. 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: If you

skeptnick wrote:

If you need a place to start, maybe you could offer an answer to my original question. Name another legend that grew up in 30 years. And to understand that question and how it applies to Christianity, take a quick peak at the context into which the Christian church began.

I gave no fewer than seven points addressing your point about the swift growth of the Jesus legend and you have completely ignored them in this post by pretending that no one has addressed them. If it is really your intention to learn you should start by reading and understanding what people post in response to you, even if you disagree with it. As I and many others have told you, the Jesus legend did not grow any faster than many other legends and religions, and in fact most of the christian religion was around for thousands of years before Jesus.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: 1) Did

wavefreak wrote:

1) Did Paul write parts of the new testament

Fundamentalist: Yes

Athiest: Maybe

2) Did Paul write the truth?

Fundamentalist: Yes

Athiest: Definitely not.

It's mythology, they have to prove it's anything but, then we can talk. 

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: wavefreak

BGH wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

1) Did Paul write parts of the new testament

Fundamentalist: Yes

Athiest: Maybe

2) Did Paul write the truth?

Fundamentalist: Yes

Athiest: Definitely not.

It's mythology, they have to prove it's anything but, then we can talk.

 

 

They don't have to prove anything in their minds. Doesn't matter if it's mythology. 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: not so,

skeptnick wrote:

not so, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was dated 24-36 months after the events of Jesus's life, something that "The God Who Wasn't There" segment didn't address. Sections of the Gospel of Mark were dated to within 7 months of the events - 7 months.

I know that these dates are wrong but its getting late and I lack the energy to dig up the real data. 30 years is the closest, most generous date for the earliest Gospels. If you don't believe me, I triple dog dare you to start a thread in Rook's section making these claims. Rook is a biblical scholar who knows more about the Bible than anyone else on this site. 

skeptnick wrote:

Sorry, just read the first line of that last post and wanted to comment. Also, regarding your last point - this is a "legend" that 12 people started....? 12? That they started in 1st century palestine?

I don't know how many people started the Jesus myth. The Bible claims 12, but the Bible is not historically accurate, or a valid source of historical facts. If Jesus was crucified in front of crowds in Jerusalem, I imagine that hundreds of people took the story away.

skeptnick wrote:

All of the members were Jewish....and yet they were professing to have seen a risen body...a risen, physical body. Do you understand why I'm a little skeptical about this assertion that this is a "legend" now? These were Jews. No offense, but anyone who knows anything about the Jewish religion knows that, while modern atheists certainly are skeptical about the resurrection, there would be no one more skeptical and thoroughly rejecting the idea of a resurrected human body than a 1st century Jew. Richard Dawkins would probably have an easier time being convinced, and yet it happened - overnight. Suddenly, for some reason, hundreds of 1st century jews were confessing that they had seen a risen Christ. The only rational explanation that I've been given is that it actually happened.

No that is not the only rational explanation or even the most likely explanation. First of all, you can find people in any group with widely divergent beliefs. The disciples were already in the cult of Jesus before his death and, as religious fanatics with views that were already divergent from other Jews, it is unsurprising that they would make up new, crazy stories.

No one was convinced overnight. No one even bothered to write about it for 30 years...even the supposed eyewitnesses.

There is no reason why Jews would be especially skeptical about the Jesus story. It was their Messiah legend, after all.

But you have a much bigger problem. Bodies can't rise from the dead. It is physically impossible. It is more likely that aliens landed and used their advanced technology to make Jesus look like he was alive than it is that he actually came back to life. Your story requires a massive violation of everything that we know about biology, and, as such, should require equally compelling evidence before anyone should believe it. One uncorroborated account from the Middle Ages (if we are using the KJV) doesn't cut it. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


superlucky20
superlucky20's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-01-08
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote:   These

skeptnick wrote:
 

These are not just moving words, and these are not fiction or myth either. They are the practical, investigate-able, historical facts that can be verified using the same methods that tell us tht there was a Rome in the first place, and because of that, I ask the question, "Why? Why on earth would a woman watch her child be eaten alive when all she had to do was confess to a lie?" I've heard a lot of sneers (not on here) but in general when I pose this question to people, but no one has presented a clear, rational argument for why this was the case except the Christians, so I choose to believe them.

What's the Christian response? Simple. That Christ really did come back to life, that hundreds of people saw him, that word spread quickly, and that, because the same people who saw him raised to life also said they heard him speak of their resurrection as well, they could face anything, including death itself, because if Christ is raised, and if we are to be raised as well, then death isn't the end, it's temporary. It's momentary in the scope of things. And if Christ actually did literally, physically come back to life, and promises to bring you back to life, literally, physically, too - then there is nothing you can't face, including the lions.

 

You could then say the same for the Islamic suicide bombers. Why would they strap bombs to their persons and forsake their families and future? Did that automatically mean that Islam is the true religion because its adherents would stoop to extreme measures to further their cause? Of course not! You ask why a mother would allow her children to be eaten by animals by not forsaking Christianity. The answer is simple: the woman is deluded like the suicide bombers. She didn't see Jesus resurrected. She just heard stories from people who heard from other people that Christ allegedly risen from the dead. It doesn't mean that Christ actually has risen and all that crap. Don't underestimate the gullibility of the listener and bullshit-creating ability of the preacher especially in the ancient times. Geez! These people thought the Earth was the center of the universe!


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:

Tilberian wrote:
skeptnick wrote:

not so, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was dated 24-36 months after the events of Jesus's life, something that "The God Who Wasn't There" segment didn't address. Sections of the Gospel of Mark were dated to within 7 months of the events - 7 months.

I know that these dates are wrong but its getting late and I lack the energy to dig up the real data. 30 years is the closest, most generous date for the earliest Gospels. If you don't believe me, I triple dog dare you to start a thread in Rook's section making these claims. Rook is a biblical scholar who knows more about the Bible than anyone else on this site.

Minor quibble, but Paul's epistles were likely written before the Gospels were written down, while Christianity was still largely an oral tradition. This doesn't mean Paul was writing anything even he felt to be true, as his own accounts of his conversion vary (in fact, his inconsistency is damn near the only consistency in his recountings of his conversion), and by and large, he comes across in a critical reading as an ambitious tax collector who, as he got further from his bosses in Jerusalem, decided that he had more to gain by getting in on the ground floor of a splinter sect and making it into a cult of personality, his personality, in the guise of his characterisation of Jesus.

Quote:
One uncorroborated account from the Middle Ages (if we are using the KJV) doesn't cut it.

You've actually got to push the account's origins back much farther than the Middle Ages. The Eastern and other Orthodox Churches don't use the King James. There were, in fact, 5 major patriarchates of the early Church (called the Pentarchy) as of the Council of Chalcedon (and 3, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, before the Council of Nicea), and the moden canon of the Catholic Bible (and thus, the KJV) traces back to the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, as well as the original definitive Latin translation of the earlier Greek and Hebrew accounts by Jerome in about 400 AD at the behest of the Pope of Rome (as opposed to the Pope of Alexandria, head of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria).

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: If you

Tilberian wrote:

If you don't believe me, I triple dog dare you to start a thread in Rook's section making these claims.

Wo ho ho ho ho hooo!!!

Tilberian has officially thrown down!

What's that!? what's that? he got an arm out from under his jersey!

 

Sorry Skeptnick but you got served by a triple dog dare...not since my adolescent years have I seen such a harsh challenge.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: Minor quibble,

BMcD wrote:

Minor quibble, but Paul's epistles were likely written before the Gospels were written down, while Christianity was still largely an oral tradition. This doesn't mean Paul was writing anything even he felt to be true, as his own accounts of his conversion vary (in fact, his inconsistency is damn near the only consistency in his recountings of his conversion), and by and large, he comes across in a critical reading as an ambitious tax collector who, as he got further from his bosses in Jerusalem, decided that he had more to gain by getting in on the ground floor of a splinter sect and making it into a cult of personality, his personality, in the guise of his characterisation of Jesus.

Well, tell this to skeptnick, as he seems to think that one of the Gospels was written within a few months of Christ's death. So when was Paul written? I've heard dates ranging from 30 years to as much as a century after the crucifixion. 

BMcD wrote:

Quote:
One uncorroborated account from the Middle Ages (if we are using the KJV) doesn't cut it.

You've actually got to push the account's origins back much farther than the Middle Ages. The Eastern and other Orthodox Churches don't use the King James. There were, in fact, 5 major patriarchates of the early Church (called the Pentarchy) as of the Council of Chalcedon (and 3, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, before the Council of Nicea), and the moden canon of the Catholic Bible (and thus, the KJV) traces back to the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, as well as the original definitive Latin translation of the earlier Greek and Hebrew accounts by Jerome in about 400 AD at the behest of the Pope of Rome (as opposed to the Pope of Alexandria, head of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria).

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant was if you are using the KJV as your source of information about Jesus, you are referring to an uncorroborated Middle Ages text. There were so many changes made in the KJV from the earlier documents that you can't consider it to be a direct translation of what went before but rather a new account unto itself. Speaking from a historian's perspective, that is.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Didymos
Didymos's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Skeptnik,

Skeptnik,

I applaud you for keeping an open mind and for actually taking the time and effort to research both sides of the argument. One thing you might want to consider, however, is that by recognizing the value of skepticism and questioning, you are contradicting fundamental Christian values of faith and obedience. I, like you, believe in asking questions and demanding evidence, and this is precisely why I reject Christianity, a religion that condemns to hell anyone who gives in to whatever doubts they have rather than simply "having faith."

If accepting or rejecting Jesus is an academic question to be decided on the basis of research, then why would a just and loving God condemn someone to hell for being an unbeliever? Would you not grant that there are intelligent, thoughtful, sincere atheists and other non-Christians who spend much of their time researching these issues and who have come to the conclusion that the evidence in favor of the Christian religion is inadequate? Or are you going to take the rather implausible position that anyone who rejects Jesus does so out of stubborness and selfishness and comes up with intellectual rationalizations to avoid admitting to themselves and others that this is so?

My view is that if you really think there's a good chance that Christianity is true, then you should ignore your doubts and simply "have faith." By hanging around atheist websites, you are endangering your eternal soul. You would be better off burying your head in the sand and seeking answers from Christian apologists only. Now if you can see how completely irrational and ignorant such an approach would be, then hopefully you will also see the true extent of the irrationality of the Christian religion.

As others have pointed out in this thread, it would have been very easy for Paul, writing to communities in Greece and Asia Minor, hundreds of miles from Palestine, to tell people (who are already Christians mind you) that 20 to 30 years ago (Paul's earliest epistles were written around the year 50 if I'm not mistaken) some people in a distant land saw the risen Jesus. This would be like me writing to a poor village in India, whose inhabitants are likely to never travel beyond the village in which they live, that 20 to 30 years ago I and several other unnamed individuals saw a man rise from the dead in Manhattan. How are they going to verify the truth of this? They don't have the means to travel, and even if they did, how would they know whom to ask about this unless I give them names? Does Paul name any of these 500? Even communication would have been difficult in those times. People generally did not correspond with anyone they didn't already know, and even if they did, they would have needed to know someone willing to travel the distance necessary to deliver the letter.

It's important to remember that Christianity was most successful in areas outside of Palestine, and that it was also most successful among the lower economic classes. So we're talking about people who are the least likely to have the means to corroborate what they've been told. The fact that Christianity was least successful among people living in Palestine who might have had access to surviving witnesses, and the fact that Christianity was also very unsuccessful among the educated elite who would have the means to check the details, tells us that quite likely the evidence simply wasn't there.

You're forgetting too that Paul is not announcing this to the general public or to skeptics or non-believers. He's writing to people who are already Christians, who already buy this story about the resurrection. They're not likely to even want to corrorborate the details Paul is providing them. In fact, anyone who would do so might be given pause by the realization that this might be construed by God as a faithless act. It's an admission of doubt.

Further, some scholars contend that Paul is not referring to people actually seeing Jesus walking around and talking. Paul doesn't seem to differentiate between his own experience of the risen Jesus, a vision, and the experiences of others. Hence, the possibility exists that the original post-resurrection appearances were vague visionary experiences that by the time of the Gospels had become exaggerated to the point of being actual flesh-and-blood appereances. Maybe the 500 simply "felt" Jesus's presence, or something similar to that.

I'd recommend you read an online work by Richard Carrier called "Was Christianity Too Improbable to Be False?", written in response to an essay by Robert Turkel (aka James P. Holding) called "The Impossible Faith." It addresses a number of the points you have brought up. Here is a link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/index.html

As for this issue of the Gospels containing details not present in other legendary accounts, I'd have to say that this is an interesting point, but I remain unconvinced. I've learned to take anything Christian apologists say with a grain of salt until I've seen the issue properly addressed by skeptics. Christian apologists have a way of distorting the truth. I suppose Christians would level the same accusations at skeptical writers. However, at the very least I can say that I reserve judgment on this issue until I've seen it argued from the other side.

The correct way of understanding our existence is as conceptually created entities superimposed upon our changing mental and bodily states.


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Didymos

Didymos wrote:

 Skeptnik,

I applaud you for keeping an open mind and for actually taking the time and effort to research both sides of the argument. One thing you might want to consider, however, is that by recognizing the value of skepticism and questioning, you are contradicting fundamental Christian values of faith and obedience. I, like you, believe in asking questions and demanding evidence, and this is precisely why I reject Christianity, a religion that condemns to hell anyone who gives in to whatever doubts they have rather than simply "having faith."

Quote:

 

Not so - I'm sorry, again, you can reject "Christian" churches that tell you to not think an just accept things based on "faith", but that's a Biblically ignorant statement to make, regardless of whether you're a Christian or no.

1 Peter 1:13 - "Think clearly and exercise self control."

The Bible calls us to, "Reason together," and think clearly. It by no means tells us to take things based on blind faith, but rather, on the same faith that we use when we give a sick person medicine - faith that the medicine will work because there is evidence and rationality to back it up!

Unfortunately, most atheists have a bias against the supernatural from the word go - but the Bible says that if you're ever going to understand the truth of the context in which humanity exists, you must first come to the table without a predisposition to the supernatural, keep and open mind, and think clearly. 


Didymos
Didymos's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-01-18
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: Didymos

skeptnick wrote:

Didymos wrote:

Skeptnik,

I applaud you for keeping an open mind and for actually taking the time and effort to research both sides of the argument. One thing you might want to consider, however, is that by recognizing the value of skepticism and questioning, you are contradicting fundamental Christian values of faith and obedience. I, like you, believe in asking questions and demanding evidence, and this is precisely why I reject Christianity, a religion that condemns to hell anyone who gives in to whatever doubts they have rather than simply "having faith."

Quote:

 

Not so - I'm sorry, again, you can reject "Christian" churches that tell you to not think an just accept things based on "faith", but that's a Biblically ignorant statement to make, regardless of whether you're a Christian or no.

1 Peter 1:13 - "Think clearly and exercise self control."

The Bible calls us to, "Reason together," and think clearly. It by no means tells us to take things based on blind faith, but rather, on the same faith that we use when we give a sick person medicine - faith that the medicine will work because there is evidence and rationality to back it up!

Unfortunately, most atheists have a bias against the supernatural from the word go - but the Bible says that if you're ever going to understand the truth of the context in which humanity exists, you must first come to the table without a predisposition to the supernatural, keep and open mind, and think clearly.

 

You failed to address my other points.  Specifically, what do you think of people who research the evidence and conclude that Christianity is false?  If Christianity is true and people are condemned to hell for rejecting Jesus, then are people who sincerely believe Christianity to be false condemned to hell despite their sincerity?  

What if Christianity is true, but someone does insufficient research and comes to the opposite conclusion as a result?  How can this person be condemned?  Not everyone is able to dedicate all of their time to researching these various issues, especially people who are beset with poverty, lack of education, health problems, responsibility for family members which eat up all of their free time, etc.  

Skepticism implies that you might be wrong because you don't know as much as you would need to.  And this is partly why different people believe different things, i.e. some people just happen to be more educated or knowledgeable than others.  But as a result, it's reasonable that not everyone is going to know as much about Christianity as they would need to know to make a truly informed decision.   

The correct way of understanding our existence is as conceptually created entities superimposed upon our changing mental and bodily states.


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I was a bit tired

Sorry, I was a bit tired and went back to sleep, only leaving myself time enough for your first part. These are all fair questions - let's take them in stride:

What do I think of people who research the evidence and conclude that Christianity is false? Well what about people who research Christianity and conclude that it is true? I'm certainly not going to say that I know for an absolute fact that Christianity is 100% true, nor would I really take to heart the idea that someone has 100% proven it to be false.

In mathematics, there is only one true answer to the question, "What does 2+2 =?" And there are plenty of wrong answers. Why would this not be true of ultimate reality? Regardless of the amount of different opinions out there, could it not be the case that there is a true answer to the question, "What is the ultimate truth?" and plenty of wrong ones?

Richard Dawkins, at this point, usually gives the illustration of the "tea pot that orbits Neptune" (or is it Saturn, I forget.) His point basically being that religious people believe what they believe in spite of the evidence, which is probably true in at least some cases. What Richard Dawkins, and people who use this line of reasoning, fail to understand, and refuse to give a fair hearing to, is the notion that people like myself, believe in God in light of the evidence, not in spite of it.

In short, as a Christian, I believe that people who do research and come to the conclusion that Christianity is false are wrong. I hate to say it, and I in no way condemn people for coming to this conclusion because I do not dictate ultimate reality, IT dictates us. Therefore, an individual is only right or wrong when you measure how close or far away they are to the truth of ultimate reality. And, my friend, is this not the case for anything real?

If someone came to the conclusion that gravity did not exist, would that person have as valid a claim to truth as the people who claim that gravity does exist? No. They're not a bad person because they've concluded that gravity doesn't exist, they're merely incorrect.

I disagree with the way you phrased the question, I do not believe people are condemned to hell for rejecting Jesus, I believe the Bible, I believe that people condemn themselves to hell for putting themselves in the place of God.

Allow me at this point, if you're still with me, to illustrate that I believe there is an underlying assumption with your next question. "...Then are people who sincerely believe Christianity to be false condemned to hell despite their sincerity?" I believe that you think a person can be objective about the Bible and it's claims, and research them without a bias. This cannot be the case for anyone really looking at the texts and hearing what they say, think. What if there judge in this country who was brought a case that dealt with a company that was being sued and could potentially go bankrupt? Now what if it was found out that that judge held stock in that company? He/she would not be allowed to try the case, and why? Because that judge would be personally invested in the company, creating a conflict of interests.

Friend, if this is true about mere stocks, how much more would it be true about you and me if the Bible is real? We can't judge the Bible objectively because we stand to loose control of our entire lives if it is! I believe that deep down, this is really grabbing at the heart of a lot of frustration towards the Bible coming out of this New Atheism movement. I hear people shout that there is no evidence, but there is plenty of evidence, in fact, that's Christianity's strong card - the amount of historical evidence going for it. No, instead, what I hear from a lot of atheists is perfectly rational and coherent, I hear people who aren't scared of God because He has no evidence backing him up, but rather, people who are scared of God because of how much evidence there is to back Him up, and yet if that's true then we've lost control of our lives.

Paul says in Romans that since the beginning of the world, God has made Himself known to us through nature, therefore, there will be no excuse of the day God returns and holds people accountable for their actions. And by the way, this is not a static answer, the Bible does absolutely account of the impoverished, the uneducated, the diseased, and people without free time. But in regards to "time to do research" can I make a suggestion?

Say you got a letter from some royal family in Europe telling you that you were, in fact, the heir to the throne of wherever, and that you were about to inherit $100,000,000,000 in US dollars. Now you may think that this was silly, but are you telling me you wouldn't even make a phone call? Just to be sure? Or put it another way, say you got a letter from the IRS saying that you owed $400,000 in back taxes - would you just brush it off? Would you say, "But I don't have enough time to find out if this is right or wrong?" Of course you wouldn't - and why? Because the MAGNITUDE of the claim demands that you just not think it's could be wrong, you had better KNOW that it's wrong, because if it's true, and you miss it - you stand to loose everything.

Likewise, a man about 2,000 years ago stood up and claimed to be God. Not only that, but thousands of people claimed to have seen him do what appeared to be miracles. Not only that, but after his death, hundreds of people at the same time claimed to have seen him risen back to life. This same man also convinced other people, including those closest to him, that he was God come to earth, keeping in mind that the last group of people in history who would have believed that God could become a man were 1st Century Jews, because they had had the first commandment beaten into them for some 2,000 years prior - "Thou shall have no other gods before me." Furthermore, this same man convinced his own family that he was God. Think about that, how many people have claimed to be God throughout history? How many have convinced their entire family, their relatives and all of their closest friends that this was true? Only 1.

You're telling me you're not going to make a phone call? You're not going to find out whether or not, to the best of your ability, that this claim is false? Friend, because if it is, if it is true - think of the implications.

Whew, that was long, and I need a breather - let me know what you think! 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: Likewise,

skeptnick wrote:

Likewise, a man about 2,000 years ago stood up and claimed to be God. Not only that, but thousands of people claimed to have seen him do what appeared to be miracles.

Did thousands of people really claim to see it?  Or did you read a story about thousands of people seeing it?   Such an important thing to see, did even 10 of these "thousands of people" decide to write their own account about it outside of the bible?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
  You are one needlessly

 

You are one needlessly verbose motherfucker.

skeptnic wrote:
Sorry, I was a bit tired and went back to sleep, only leaving myself time enough for your first part. These are all fair questions - let's take them in stride:

What do I think of people who research the evidence and conclude that Christianity is false? Well what about people who research Christianity and conclude that it is true? I'm certainly not going to say that I know for an absolute fact that Christianity is 100% true, nor would I really take to heart the idea that someone has 100% proven it to be false.

Shifting the burden of proof. The claimant has to provide evidence for the claim.

skeptnic wrote:
In mathematics, there is only one true answer to the question, "What does 2+2 =?" And there are plenty of wrong answers. Why would this not be true of ultimate reality? Regardless of the amount of different opinions out there, could it not be the case that there is a true answer to the question, "What is the ultimate truth?" and plenty of wrong ones?

A false analogy that begs the question for an undefined term: ultimate truth.

skeptnic wrote:
Richard Dawkins, at this point, usually gives the illustration of the "tea pot that orbits Neptune" (or is it Saturn, I forget.) His point basically being that religious people believe what they believe in spite of the evidence, which is probably true in at least some cases.

Bertrand Russell originated the teapot scenario to demonstrate the importance of evidence. It's only by succumbing to the fallacy of special pleading that you're not forced to address all truth claims with uniform scrutiny. If uniform criteria were given by a believer to all claims, there would be either no basis for skepticism toward any prospect, or a fallacious basis -- like authority, emotion, etc.

skeptnic wrote:
What Richard Dawkins, and people who use this line of reasoning, fail to understand, and refuse to give a fair hearing to, is the notion that people like myself, believe in God in light of the evidence, not in spite of it.

Look up his interview with Allister McGrath on YouTube. We're all aware of the claim, it's just never been substantiated.

skeptnic wrote:
In short, as a Christian, I believe that people who do research and come to the conclusion that Christianity is false are wrong.

This contradicts your claim that you don't assume certainty about it, since you've decided that no data, even that unknown to you, could legitimately contradict your conclusion.

skeptnic wrote:
I hate to say it, and I in no way condemn people for coming to this conclusion because I do not dictate ultimate reality, IT dictates us. Therefore, an individual is only right or wrong when you measure how close or far away they are to the truth of ultimate reality. And, my friend, is this not the case for anything real?

Since this hinges on your undefined term, you haven't yet said anything.

skeptnic wrote:
If someone came to the conclusion that gravity did not exist, would that person have as valid a claim to truth as the people who claim that gravity does exist? No. They're not a bad person because they've concluded that gravity doesn't exist, they're merely incorrect.

There aren't any punitive measures defined in gravitational theory, so I fail to see the parallel. Gravity is also substantiated.

skeptnic wrote:
I disagree with the way you phrased the question, I do not believe people are condemned to hell for rejecting Jesus, I believe the Bible, I believe that people condemn themselves to hell for putting themselves in the place of God.

Allow me at this point, if you're still with me, to illustrate that I believe there is an underlying assumption with your next question. "...Then are people who sincerely believe Christianity to be false condemned to hell despite their sincerity?" I believe that you think a person can be objective about the Bible and it's claims, and research them without a bias. This cannot be the case for anyone really looking at the texts and hearing what they say, think.

No true Scotsman fallacy. You've defined arbitrarily objectivity according to a preferred outcome.

skeptnic wrote:
What if there judge in this country who was brought a case that dealt with a company that was being sued and could potentially go bankrupt? Now what if it was found out that that judge held stock in that company? He/she would not be allowed to try the case, and why? Because that judge would be personally invested in the company, creating a conflict of interests.

Congratulations on eliminating the possibility of your own supposed skepticism, then. You can't have it both ways.

skeptnic wrote:
Friend, if this is true about mere stocks, how much more would it be true about you and me if the Bible is real? We can't judge the Bible objectively because we stand to loose control of our entire lives if it is! I believe that deep down, this is really grabbing at the heart of a lot of frustration towards the Bible coming out of this New Atheism movement.

The use of that term is another subject, but suffice it to say it's a misnomer.

skeptnic wrote:
I hear people shout that there is no evidence, but there is plenty of evidence, in fact, that's Christianity's strong card - the amount of historical evidence going for it. No, instead, what I hear from a lot of atheists is perfectly rational and coherent, I hear people who aren't scared of God because He has no evidence backing him up, but rather, people who are scared of God because of how much evidence there is to back Him up, and yet if that's true then we've lost control of our lives.

Empty assertion.

skeptnic wrote:
Paul says in Romans that since the beginning of the world, God has made Himself known to us through nature, therefore, there will be no excuse of the day God returns and holds people accountable for their actions. And by the way, this is not a static answer, the Bible does absolutely account of the impoverished, the uneducated, the diseased, and people without free time. But in regards to "time to do research" can I make a suggestion?

Say you got a letter from some royal family in Europe telling you that you were, in fact, the heir to the throne of wherever, and that you were about to inherit $100,000,000,000 in US dollars.

I got one from a President Umbutu the other day, but he needed a "transfer fee" of $1,000. I'm waiting to hear back to see if it got there OK.

skeptnic wrote:
Now you may think that this was silly, but are you telling me you wouldn't even make a phone call? Just to be sure? Or put it another way, say you got a letter from the IRS saying that you owed $400,000 in back taxes - would you just brush it off? Would you say, "But I don't have enough time to find out if this is right or wrong?" Of course you wouldn't - and why? Because the MAGNITUDE of the claim demands that you just not think it's could be wrong, you had better KNOW that it's wrong, because if it's true, and you miss it - you stand to loose everything.

I don't have anything to say except to call this a terrible and inept analogy.

skeptnic wrote:
Likewise, a man about 2,000 years ago stood up and claimed to be God. Not only that, but thousands of people claimed to have seen him do what appeared to be miracles.

No, you have a copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of a scroll, turned into a book, with no independent corroborating data, that talks about thousands of people.

skeptnic wrote:
Not only that, but after his death, hundreds of people at the same time claimed to have seen him risen back to life. This same man also convinced other people, including those closest to him, that he was God come to earth, keeping in mind that the last group of people in history who would have believed that God could become a man were 1st Century Jews, because they had had the first commandment beaten into them for some 2,000 years prior - "Thou shall have no other gods before me."

Well, if some people who may have existed, as described by an anonymous author in a time of overwhelming ignorance say so.

skeptnic wrote:
Furthermore, this same man convinced his own family that he was God. Think about that, how many people have claimed to be God throughout history? How many have convinced their entire family, their relatives and all of their closest friends that this was true? Only 1.

You're telling me you're not going to make a phone call? You're not going to find out whether or not, to the best of your ability, that this claim is false? Friend, because if it is, if it is true - think of the implications.

Whew, that was long, and I need a breather - let me know what you think!

*Cries*

 


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: skeptnic

magilum wrote:

skeptnic wrote:
Likewise, a man about 2,000 years ago stood up and claimed to be God. Not only that, but thousands of people claimed to have seen him do what appeared to be miracles.

No, you have a copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of a scroll, turned into a book, with no independent corroborating data, that talks about thousands of people.

Yeah, good point. I once heard on a religious website that Jesus' miracles are one of the most observed events in history, because the bible mentions of Jesus' witnesses. It's by far the biggest bastardization of logic I have ever heard. 

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.