Jenyar said:
In which case this entire thread is a waste of time.
Get some sleep J, it'll do you more good.
--- Ron.
Arguements against the Christian God
- Thread starter spiritual_spy
- Start date
In which case this entire thread is a waste of time.
Get some sleep J, it'll do you more good.
--- Ron.
It's lack of sleep that makes me make statements like those without checking them first...The usual attempt of deferment from a theist, but you are making it too easy for me Jenyar. I simply have to copy and paste the dictionary here to refresh my point.
Superstition:
- An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
- A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
- A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
- Idolatry.
The 'similarity' in question was "namely that they both have an absolute lack of any evidence suggesting their existence". It was being argued that Kenny's analogy failed because no 'rational, logical' adult ever believed in him, whereas apparently some logical and rational adults believe in certain gods. I disagreed on the basis that Kenny's post was concentrating on the similarity that they both lack any evidence and
that people want to believe for emotional benefits, not that there were similarities between what kind of non-existant entity they are.
Other than that they do actually have some similarity: *sings* They know when you are sleeping, they know when you're awake.. they know when you've been good or bad, but only god throws you in a fiery lake.
You're being pedantic. I would submit that you would know full well exactly what my statement was getting at. My statement was not concerned with what's written in a book, but evidence, (or total lack thereof), of mentioned entities actual existence.
To support the actual existence of gods, goblins and big fat jolly dude in red that owns some flying reindeer? Certainly.
Imagination. A wonderful thing as long as it's kept in check.
I don't disagree, no.. but it is a common religious statement that I returned to a religious person in the hopes they would see the worthless nature of it. You have, that's a good thing.
I agree, (other than to change 'fictional' to read.. the one with no evidence pertaining to it's actual existence). Who dismissed anything?
The position I put forward is relativistic, but it is not nihilistic.
It is relativistic in that it comes from the understanding that phenomena (including cognitive and experiential phenomena) are related to each other.
But it is not nihilistic, as it doesn't say that phenomena are worthless because they are related.
My position may seem nihilistic -- because it cuts off everything that is perceived to be a speculation. And thus leaves one with relatively little cognitive material to work with.
However, I am happier that way.
The lesser the speculation, the calmer the mind, the happier me.
So, only things that are superstitious is superstition? I don't see your definition in this list. The only reason Christianity exists is because it is logically related to the events of 30AD, and the only reason Judaism exists is because it is logically related to the events that created it.KennyJC said:
I get that you don't believe those events, and don't regard the evidence as evidence, but that doesn't make those who do superstitious. The Bible also discourages superstition (i.e. "idolatry").
Then neither would the theories of how to interpret them be, because phenomena can be cross-referenced and validated relative to each other. Nihilism (or solipsism) would say there is nothing to validate. If you agree, then we agree.water said:
And is that the measuring system by which you weigh evidence? The less to consider, the less to worry about - so something that doesn't satisfy you cannot be evidence of something that might? I hope I'm wrong. Serenity is a great agenda, but for that reason it's not great as a measurement of evidence.
There are other ways of investigating truth and minimizing speculation without being bewildered by all the variables and possibilities. A way to get "to the bottom of things". Some people find this security in science, others find it in moral or religious guidelines. Many find it in a combination of both. In a few cases these measurements led people to faith in God, but for most it leads to faith in science or ultimately, in themselves. Which is all good. But I think it's reasonable to give credit to those who were able to do the same throughout history, though many would dismiss historical conclusions as hearsay. Maybe because their current measuring system has no way of processing the data?
(As a matter of interest, science might also adopt such a pragmatic bias Giving a rule to abductive reasoning).
Last edited:
And I would submit that you know full well what I meant by evidence. If we go all the way back to premises, religion and science takes an equal leap of faith (that the universe - and our very own existence - can be fathomed in some humanly possible way). You might say they are similar that way. So it's naturally important what happens after those premises. I propose that just as scientific theories have been validated, so have many people's faith in God - and the growing awareness in both traditions have been written down for posterity to study. Granted, history is not reproducable, and eye-witnesses only live so long, but like I said: the question whether evidence exists doesn't depend on who believes it.Snakelord said:
Last edited:
water said:
Am I perceived to be a speculation?
Is that the beef?
water said:
So now you want proper jurisprudence.
Would it not be so much more peaceful without it, like if you believe whatever you want, to suit yourself?
--- Ron.
Ok, firstly, there was a huge gap between the death of the alledged Jesus and the first writings of Jesus in Mark, and the other three gospels are clearly influenced by the author(s) of Mark. So there is a gap of at least four decades were nothing happened. So how can you claim that they are logically related? They write about a man who was killed, then rose from the dead and bodily ascended to heaven... That is not logic in any way shape or form - It is superstition, just like all/most of the Bible. The main bullet points of Christianity are superstition, and I'd love to hear you explain why they are based in logic.
Why do you believe such a gap physically existed - or more to the point, that "nothing happened"? Is there good reason to believe that the material Mark wrote about arose at the time of writing? Here's something to consider: Paul's epistles predate the writing of Mark and describe current events. Do they, or the summaries in Acts, indicate 40 years of silence?KennyJC said:
I can claim there is logical progression since it's described by the people who were present before and after Jesus' death. They knew their faith depended on the reality of what happened (see 1 Cor. 15), and it fit logically (though unconventionally) into the greater context of prophesy and salvation history (heilsgeschichte). Until the original apostles began disappearing, believers were waiting for Jesus' imminent return (you can see that in Paul's own writings) and busy spreading the news. Professional writing (those not done on wax tablets or potshards) was expensive, and the priviledge of the few and literate - even Paul used an amanuensis. Only when it became clear things would take longer, it became necessary to have everything formally written down and attached to the letters they had been receiving from Paul and the apostles. That's how the Bible's canonization began. Before that, everything was "current events", not "scripture".
Finally, events, especially extraordinary ones, aren't either logical or illogical - things happen, and our understanding much catch up. It's that mental process of coming to terms with something in its context that can be logical or illogical. Otherwise we'd be much better at predicting the future.
Last edited:
Jenyar said:
Well if John was the last, he could simply be writing about what others before him had written about, all steming from Mark. Matthew and Luke clearly copied Mark, almost to the letter in many cases. You could argue that this was inspired by the 'holy spirit' and not actualy plagiarised from the author(s) of Mark. But the point is that the origins of the writings of Jesus are dubious to say the least, and the 'silence' of 40 years (give or take) is ample time for myths to spread. That is what I think happened. Had there been writings known to be during or shortly after the life of the alledged Jesus, it would make them only slightly less dubious.
So you are arguing that the stories written are based on actual events which could have been misunderstood by the authors and/or 'eye witnesses'?
For example: they write that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Perhaps Jesus was brought down from the cross alive making people think that he rose from certain death... and upon being brought down alive he left Jerlusalem... Making people think his abscence meant he went to heaven?
Anyway. We could argue about the authenticity of scripture all day and not get anywhere. The point is, that the things written about are fiction. The miracles of this alledged son of God can not happen. Not only are the events far-fetched but the dubious nature of the Bible does absolutely nothing to support them.
Your accusation of plagiarism is anachronistic. Building on someone's work was accepted practice - even under their name - and copyright laws didn't exist. If it was legitimate, it was accepted (much like peer reviewing), and if it was dishonest, it was rejected. The corpus of such legitimate thought was referred to as "doctrine" (see 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3; Titus 1:9). Another precursor to canonization.KennyJC said:
That explains their correspondence, but what about the differences between the gospels? Think of it as branches growing from the same trunk. In every gospel you have the branch - the core of "the gospel" - and various ways of tailoring it for different audiences and different purposes, and of including different sources. And they did consult different sources, or there would not be some material in each of these gospels that do not appear in the others, or that differs in minor details from the others (like the number of angels at the tomb or the differences in the Lord's Prayer). And John the the most independent of them all. It's ironic that many prefer to see these differences as "gross factual contradictions" rather than the more natural explanation of different, but complementary, accounts (which is what the word "synoptic" refers to). In fact, there are such difficulties to the claim that "they all stemmed from Mark", that scholars had to look for alternative explanations. Most accept a common "Q"-source (from Quelle, or "source"), others (in accordance with the early church) are convinced that an Aramaic Matthew came first. It is even more likely that there was an earlier passion narrative (the "gospel core" I referred to earlier).
I have explained why no official writings are likely to be found for the first generation. It was not a literary event for the people who were affected by it, but a real one. We first see the disciples huddled together in an upper room after Jesus' death, and then actively spreading his gospel to the poor and oppressed until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. But nobody has seen any evidence for 40 years of silence, which is why I asked why you believe it. You only answered with more assertions.
You refer to the "swoon hypothesis". But nobody could be taken down from a cross without the permission of the authorities, which is why Joseph of Arimathea had to "boldly" (Mark 15:43) ask Pilate for Jesus' body on the same day, before the evening when the Sabbath would begin (the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail suggested that Pilate was bribed). Jesus' mother and his closest disciple were there next to him at the cross. To suggest they, all the disciples, and a rich, prominent member of the Sanhedrin, were all orchestrating something that would mean Jesus was an incredible liar (since he predicted his own death), carries a heavy burden of proof.
Pilate was more concerned about the disciples stealing Jesus' body from the tomb and pretending he had risen from the dead, and had it sealed and guarded (Matt. 27:62-64). When that failed, he circulated the story that the disciples had stolen the body while the guards were sleeping (Matt. 28:13) - something many Jews believed. Like all conspiracy theories, it can't really be completely proven or disproven. But an article in the Medical Journal JAMA supports the fact of Jesus' death. Or as the theologian David Strauss put it:
"It is impossible that a being who had stolen half dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill and wanting medical treatment... could have given the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life: an impression that lay at the bottom of their future ministry."
Doubting something doesn't give it a "dubious nature". The first thing to consider isn't what the Bible supports or doesn't, but what supports or doesn't support the Bible. You don't seem to have considered any of it, and the way you can believe your own far-fetched hypotheses while dismissing the gospels as far-fetched is curious. Your argument seems to consist of how you think things should or would have looked like had it been true, without any good reason for why it should have been that way, and not the way it is.
Last edited:
I was not saying for one second that Jesus was taken down from the cross alive (if indeed he ever was on a cross, or ever existed in the first place). My example was to say that there may be a rational explanation behind alledged miracles but nobody chose to write about them as they actually happened. Opting instead to indulge in blowing everything out of proportion to make their preacher sound more divine. The simple fact is that they couldn't write about the event as it actually happened anyway - If someone says this man walked on water, it will be believed with no questions asked - And you should know this.
Come on Jenyar, how can you be so willfully ignorant? If I was to list all of the miracles and far-fetched acheivements of Jesus here, you would truely have to be an idiot to believe them.
I don't know if this covers all of them but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus
I don't care what anybody says, these things never happened. At least not as they were written. It's amazing how 40 years of word of mouth and chinese whispers could end up with such far-fetched fantasies.
There's no need to make a list miracles, as if more miracles are somehow less likely than a single miracle.
Jesus didn't let his ministry rest on miracles - they were solely meant to confirm his identity within the Jewish prophetic context, and to demonstrate its meaning - it rested on his personal integrity. And in the end it does come down to just that: whether you believe in the integrity of the people involved, or think they were liars. If they were liars, it doesn't matter if it took 40 or 400 years to spread, it would be myth. If they were telling the truth, then it has remained intact in its various forms during that 40 years, because they were still alive for that time.
Jesus didn't consider his miracles so extraordinary - in fact, he said people after him would do much greater things with their faith. I certainly don't believe him because I saw something miraculous. What's divine is the practical, rational significance of what he said and did. Jesus being God, in fact, whoever God is, would be irrelevant except for that fact, and the disciples of all people proved they knew this. They had nothing to gain politically or spiritually by creating such a grand fiction - most of them died for believing it was true. Judging from that alone, your "rational" explanation makes no sense.
*edit* And now 40 years of silence has become 40 years of word of mouth? I really would be interested in whatever sources you've been using.
Jesus didn't let his ministry rest on miracles - they were solely meant to confirm his identity within the Jewish prophetic context, and to demonstrate its meaning - it rested on his personal integrity. And in the end it does come down to just that: whether you believe in the integrity of the people involved, or think they were liars. If they were liars, it doesn't matter if it took 40 or 400 years to spread, it would be myth. If they were telling the truth, then it has remained intact in its various forms during that 40 years, because they were still alive for that time.
Jesus didn't consider his miracles so extraordinary - in fact, he said people after him would do much greater things with their faith. I certainly don't believe him because I saw something miraculous. What's divine is the practical, rational significance of what he said and did. Jesus being God, in fact, whoever God is, would be irrelevant except for that fact, and the disciples of all people proved they knew this. They had nothing to gain politically or spiritually by creating such a grand fiction - most of them died for believing it was true. Judging from that alone, your "rational" explanation makes no sense.
*edit* And now 40 years of silence has become 40 years of word of mouth? I really would be interested in whatever sources you've been using.
Last edited:
The 'miracles' are important as they bring into question the truthfulness of the people who wrote about Jesus. It doesn't matter if you try to distract from the miracles to focus on his teachings, the simple fact is that these miracles happened according to what the authors say. No doubt the quotes from Jesus (or whoever wrote his lines) are usually morally sound, however these miracles using all rational logic, never happened. So since the miracles never happened in actual events, how much of the rest of the story do you trust from these indulgent authors?
I have always thought that the 40 year gap may have been filled with chinese whispers. Although I think it's also a strong possability that it never really got off the ground until many years after the alledged death of Jesus, meaning that 'eye whitnesses' would be irrelevant.
However as I already explained, decades worth of word of mouth (or chinese whispers) are totally unreliable as I stated in my last post with the Jesus walking on water thing.
And if the whole story stemmed from the first author to pedal religious writings on the matter, then the whole event need not have been witnessed by anyone as it could simply be fiction.
You put so much stock in your rational explanations that you don't realize how anachronistic your "rationality" is. Miracles weren't the invention of the Bible authors, there were other prophets, miracle workers, oracles (like the one at Delphi) and exorcists around. These things were a reality to these people. What made Jesus' miracles significant is that they fit a specific model, served a specific purpose, and displayed an undeniable authority - so much so that instead of questioning their validity, his detractors and sketics argued (for long after his death) that it was either borrowed from God (Toledoth Yeshu) or by the help of the devil (Matt. 12:24). Unlike us, they took it for granted miracles were possible. Even if they were mistaken about what they witnessed, they would still not be lying.
And how do you account for this belief? What makes it any more valid than someone who have "always thought" the Bible was verbally inspired from start to finish?
I'm not entirely sure how you got from us discussing the similarity between gods and santa to some kind of attempted comparison between religion and science. How you claim it's on faith, (which shows a serious lack of understanding of science) - which is not only entirely irrelevant, but wrong as well.
Your proposal is gibberish if, as you are, trying to make a comparison between the two.
Indeed, and yet to date there is no evidence to suggest the exstence of gods.