what is religious experience?

[Cris]

Kant,

….But Buddhists are atheists. How, then, can you compare them to Catholics, or even to Hindus?

Perhaps you missed the point slightly. All religions or at least all the major religions are identical. They all believe they have found a way to cheat death. That is the primary reason for the existence of all such religions. The details of how they think they will achieve their fantasy are so widely different because the idea of trying to cheat death originated in many places.

So as far as something being "factually supported", that all depends on what you regard as "facts". What are "facts", after all? Must something be "empirical" to be factual?

A fact is something that has the quality of being “actual”, or a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

It is a fact that I experience the taste of coffee, or chocolate, or pizza, but can you "observe" someone's internal "experience" of that taste? No; you can only base it on your own experience--but one can scarcely be 100 percent "sure" that another's personal taste-experience is exactly the same, or even remotely similar.

Sure we can. Try these links that show how taste cells are explained and how certain molecules generate specific neurons in the brain to fire.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000641D5-F855-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21

http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/pregastric/taste.html

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Taste.html

etc., etc. There are lots of links out there.

But I take your point and we can only be certain once science and technology develop the technology to analyze individual neural networks. You need to wait a while longer. But it does look like there is a significant understanding of how the human sense of taste operates and how each person will react the same way to each specific substance.

And so what of religious experience? Is it utterly impossible that mystics and intuitive people experience the presence of God?

Not if God exists. But you can’t show that such a thing exists. And having an unexplainable experience doesn’t prove a link to something allegedly supernatural. The cause might be something entirely different, including psychotic delusions which we do know exist. How can you tell the difference? It seems more credible to choose the known and explainable cause rather than invent an entirely unsupportable realm beyond human comprehension or detection.

Can science account for subjective emotion? Imagination, fantasy, you say? Yet who has undergone a change of heart from reading The Lord of the Rings?

Neuroscience can and has detected links between neural activity and emotions.

Moreover, (to be very pragmatic about it) we have said very little about what is to be regarded as true religion: true religion has its foundation not in objective, scientific knowledge, but in Love.

You mean evolutionary developed instincts that assist with human survival. I’m not sure I agree with calling evolution a religion though.

And what is love? I say it is Committment.

Hmm, well emotions do tend to play something of a dominant role here as well. I’m committed to keeping my car well maintained but I certainly do not love my car.

For the bottom line is that I would never believe the atheist who told me that he was in love with someone or some thing. Perhaps he has this "feeling"--but feelings are fleeting.

Wow. You really are far out. Now who is talking nonsense? Holy cow! Do you realize that you are in exhibiting the properties of bigotry?

Love is a committment.And if there is no God, then nothing is committed to anything else.

Looks like you are making this up as you go along.

Nature holds everything together, right? But what holds Nature together?

Umm I think you’ll find that the laws of physics seem to play a pretty big dominant role.

There are two possibilities, I'll grant you: 1) Coincidence; or 2) Providence. And while the scientist and skeptical philosopher are shouting "Chance!" and "Chaos!" and "There are NO cause/effect relationships!", the economist and the statistician are ostentatiously laughing at them.

Nope, just more nonsense. I’ll stick with the laws of physics.

Back to the note of love, how many people have died, willfully, honorably, for their Atheism?

Since there is no afterlife why would any rational person willingly give up the most precious thing they have, their life? But since atheism isn’t some kind of religion or cause then the analogy and implications are fallacious. People generally do not go around giving up their lives for not believing something. Can you say the same thing about secular humanists? But since such groups represent only a single digit percent of the population then finding the statistics needed will be difficult.

Yet why do Christians (to this day) continue to offer their lives for the Gospel? Ignorance? Or Conviction?

No, just gross stupidity. They believe they will survive death and enter paradise. If they understood that the afterlife is fantasy then they would not go to war in the first place and the world would be at peace.

One must consider that certain notions of our humanity are there for a reason; I mean conscience, fear, love, conviction, and the like. Shall we consider these things as trivial, as false, even though those who we have considered noblest throughout history embraced them with their all?

You are back to evolution again. These all contribute to our survival. There is nothing mystical about these things.

What I find odd is that, in an effort to become more human--that is, more "reasonable"--modern man rejects vital elements to his humanity (e.g., emotion, integrity, honesty, courage, honor).

He does? I suspect you are from another planet. Perhaps you have been mixing with too many religionists and it doesn’t sound as if you know many if any secular humanists.

Why are such things not allowed to be compromised with so-called "reason"?

I don’t know. It is your fantasy. I have no problem seeing that love and integrity and honesty, etc are all perfectly reasonable and attractive.

And is it not just as likely that they are part of the package, that they are within the composition of Reason itself?

Sure, as an atheist I share the same values. But what has that to do with religion?

 

[Jenyar]

Unbelievers have jumped off a moving train because in an age of optics they couldn't see it, in an age of reason they couldn't reason it out, in an age of information they didn't have enough information about it, and in an age of science they couldn't measure it.

This is no different than when Adam and Eve, in the age of God, did not listen to Him. And ever since, people have tried to explain why they can't get back on a train that is was simply invisible because it's going somewhere where eyes are spiritual, where truth defies reasoning, everything is primary, and its meaurements are eternal.

Next stop - heaven.

 

[SVRP]

Actually there is a lot of hisorical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus and Christians through extra-biblical writings, like Pliny the Younger (circa 112 A.D.), Hadrian, emperor of Rome (117 to 138 A.D.), Josephus, (64 to 93 A.D.), Cornelius Tacitus (64 to 16 A.D.), and a few more writings, according to a report by Peter Jennings of ABC World News within his program "In Search of the Historical Jesus." Many of the modern historians Mr. Jennings had interviewed did not deny Jesus was an actual historical figure.

 

[Cris]

SVRP,

Yes I have seen the claims but when examined closely they are all highly dubious, especially Josephus. But that wasn't the target of my post.

While we have limited if any historical evidence for the existence of Jesus we have no evidence to support a resurrection, which was your claim. Just trying to show that Jesus existed is difficult enough but to actually find some real evidence for any of his actions or the nature of his death is another real challenge. To then extrapolate zero evidence to a resurrection is beyond any acceptable standards.

 

[Kant we all...]

"Perhaps you missed the point slightly. All religions or at least all the major religions are identical. They all believe they have found a way to cheat death. That is the primary reason for the existence of all such religions. The details of how they think they will achieve their fantasy are so widely different because the idea of trying to cheat death originated in many places."

Okay, but you shouldn't use Buddhism as an example, because Buddhism is not a religion: it is a philosophy.


"A fact is something that has the quality of being “actual”, or a piece of information presented as having objective reality."

What is "actual", then? What is "objective reality"?

"But it does look like there is a significant understanding of how the human sense of taste operates and how each person will react the same way to each specific substance."

Nevertheless, different people may have different arousals and different memories and different emotions when making association with "coffee" or "chocolate"--neurologists can never account for that, not unless, I suppose, they devise some sort of "Matrix" device to monitor each person's individual, subjective experience.

"Not if God exists. But you can’t show that such a thing exists. And having an unexplainable experience doesn’t prove a link to something allegedly supernatural. The cause might be something entirely different, including psychotic delusions which we do know exist. How can you tell the difference? It seems more credible to choose the known and explainable cause rather than invent an entirely unsupportable realm beyond human comprehension or detection."

Yes, and you cannot show that such a thing does NOT exist; because if God is God, then he has no empirical evidence, and if there is empirical evidence, it's not God. Again, it most certainly doesn't "prove" a link to the supernatural, but what can "prove" that it is not? Perhaps the supernatural will is that science cannot discern it in our alleged reality? Right, it 'might' be psychotic delusions, and you can't tell the difference...no one can, for that matter (so what's the argument, really?). Well said that "it 'seems' more credible to choose the known and 'explainable' cause rather than invent an entirely unsupportable realm beyond human comprehension or detection." However, just because the explanation is "simpler" does not mean that it is "right" (it might be simpler to leave the gas pump w/o paying for my gas, but does that make it right?). I say again, unsupportable BY WHAT STANDARD? It may be that some people have subjective experiences of so-called 'religion', but the fact that they have them is an objective truth.

"You mean evolutionary developed instincts that assist with human survival. I’m not sure I agree with calling evolution a religion though."

No that's not what I meant, that's what you meant. But I suppose that's a valid "theory". A "theory," just as many religious beliefs could be considered "theory"--therefore, you cannot prove it, therefore, it is a religion.

Bigotry, by the way, is what has made America so great. (At least a form of it.) And was most certainly not making it up as I went along. God, as we define him, is a "purpose", an "end", a "meaning"--therefore, if there is no God, then life is meaningless; if life is meaningless, then there are no laws; if there are no laws, nothing is committed to anything else (trees let go of their leaves at any time, electrons could spin off of their atoms, a man can leave his car, house, or his wife, and it would not matter).

"I think you’ll find that the laws of physics seem to play a pretty big dominant role."

Okay, fine. Who, or what, commands the laws of physics? And if it is a mere evolutionary trait, who or what directs evolution, why, pray tell, is it "working" so well?

"Since there is no afterlife why would any rational person willingly give up the most precious thing they have, their life? But since atheism isn’t some kind of religion or cause then the analogy and implications are fallacious. People generally do not go around giving up their lives for not believing something. Can you say the same thing about secular humanists? But since such groups represent only a single digit percent of the population then finding the statistics needed will be difficult."

You do realize that your take on life or no-life after death is just as unsupported as mine, right? None of us can possibly "know" whether or not there is life after death. Again, atheism is a matter of faith, just as much as any religion, because you cannot prove the non-existence of God. (Why do they represent only a single digit of the population? It nearly resemble a cult does it not? Aren't cults pretty small, too? And what about beings which are nearly extinct, they're pretty small, methinks...? Are there less, or more, atheists now than at the turn of the last century? And while we're at it, do you consider Einstein an idiot because he acknowledged a cosmological "presence" of God which, he said, most only scientists and astrophysicists could really understand? was he a fool too?)

"You are back to evolution again. These all contribute to our survival. There is nothing mystical about these things."

Are they? What is forcing evolution? And if you can't tell me, then you have no argument.

"He does? I suspect you are from another planet. Perhaps you have been mixing with too many religionists and it doesn’t sound as if you know many if any secular humanists."

No, I'm not. Should I be convinced that what I see on television and see in the movies and hear on the radio is not the progression of the utter dinigration of our society simply because I do not know any "secular humanists", and because you did not agree with me?

"I don’t know. It is your fantasy. I have no problem seeing that love and integrity and honesty, etc are all perfectly reasonable and attractive."

Right. But 'why' do you see what are called love, integrity, honesty, &c., as perfectly reasonable and attractive?

"Sure, as an atheist I share the same values. But what has that to do with religion?"

It has everything to do with religion. If life has no real meaning, and if there is no God, why have any values at all? Yet you continue to share these values? In the eyes of an atheist, from what I understand, all values are relative; "do what you feel" as they say. But if there is no God, and thus nothing to tell Nature what to do (or to tell the laws of physics what to do), and thus no order, and thus nothing is committed to anything else, why have any values at all? Yet you still continue to have them? Why? Because they "feel right"--but have you ever wondered "why" they "just feel right"? And you may tell me that these human attributes of "who, or what, controls nature or evolution" are just a magnified reflection of something human such as "who, or what, controls the factory truck" or "the roller coaster" or something else we have conjured up. Yet it is just as likely that we ask these things because they will lead us to that Ultimate End as it is that they are but a relfection of our current situation. It is just as likely. And as far as I am concerned, atheism is a blatant cop out; quite simply, you do not want to be held accountable to anything. That may be a bit of a personal attack, but you'll have to excuse me. I suppose Plato was a moron like me as well.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

But of course for believers the train must exist since that is their only hope of escaping the reality that they cannot and do not want to face. When presented with the ugly inevitable realization that at some time in their not too distant future they will cease to exist then any hope no matter how tenuous will be more acceptable than having to find the courage to face death.

But mental institutions are filled with people who see imaginary trains, an example of people who also cannot comprehend reality. But for believers the imaginary train is just their elaborate excuse to justify their cowardice.

This is reality, deal with it. There is no next stop, you have arrived and you will die, there is no escape no matter how powerful your imagination and your fantasies.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Kant we all...
Nevertheless, different people may have different arousals and different memories and different emotions when making association with "coffee" or "chocolate"...
Yet they all agree that the coffee is actualy there. The flavor is just akin to which religion they are.

Yes, and you cannot show that such a thing does NOT exist; because if God is God, then he has no empirical evidence, and if there is empirical evidence, it's not God.
If there is no link to this world then what makes you believe?

Right, it 'might' be psychotic delusions, and you can't tell the difference...no one can, for that matter (so what's the argument, really?).
You can tell if something is a delusion by seeing if it has an effect on others reality. I'd say the Christian God is a fantasy in the same way Santa is.

However, just because the explanation is "simpler" does not mean that it is "right"
Just because believing in God makes you feel good doesn't make it "right". The end may come and you may be correct about an afterlife, but it'll be pure luck.

I say again, unsupportable BY WHAT STANDARD?
By the standard that they affect reality. Super-natural, by definition, doesn't affect reality.

It may be that some people have subjective experiences of so-called 'religion', but the fact that they have them is an objective truth.
People also have 'subjective experiences' with rabbits named Harvey. To them it may be real, but it has no affect on reality (other then through the actions of the fantasizer).

A "theory," just as many religious beliefs could be considered "theory"--therefore, you cannot prove it, therefore, it is a religion.
A theory has facts that support it, and can be disproven by other facts. Religion doesn't have this. Evolution does.

God, as we define him, is a "purpose", an "end", a "meaning"--therefore, if there is no God, then life is meaningless;
For you possibly. Not everyone needs to look to the outside for a purpose.

if life is meaningless, then there are no laws;
Not all laws have devloped because of 'divine inspiration'. They have devloped to keep society running.

if there are no laws, nothing is committed to anything else (trees let go of their leaves at any time, electrons could spin off of their atoms, a man can leave his car, house, or his wife, and it would not matter).
Just because you believe God is the only reason, doesn't mean you are right.

Okay, fine. Who, or what, commands the laws of physics?
Why does anyone have to?

And if it is a mere evolutionary trait, who or what directs evolution, why, pray tell, is it "working" so well?
Natural Selection. It doesn't work perfectly, as most of the species it produced were not fully viable.
Unless you want to go and attribute this non-perfection to God.

You do realize that your take on life or no-life after death is just as unsupported as mine, right
The support that we don't know (and it doesn't matter if we know) is fully supported by 2000 years of debates.

None of us can possibly "know" whether or not there is life after death.
Thank you

Again, atheism is a matter of faith, just as much as any religion, because you cannot prove the non-existence of God.
No. Atheism does not attempt to prove the non-existance of God. If someone walks up to you and tell you that there was a green martian in their head talking to them would you try to disprove it? Do you think you would succeed?

Why do they represent only a single digit of the population?
Please don't say "More people agree with me so I'm right". It's a weak argument and can be demonstrated to historically be wrong.

Are there less, or more, atheists now than at the turn of the last century?
more

And while we're at it, do you consider Einstein an idiot because he acknowledged a cosmological "presence" of God which, he said, most only scientists and astrophysicists could really understand? was he a fool too?
Lol, you are taking him slightly out of context.

Are they? What is forcing evolution? And if you can't tell me, then you have no argument.
Natural selection and mutations.

No, I'm not. Should I be convinced that what I see on television and see in the movies and hear on the radio is not the progression of the utter dinigration of our society simply because I do not know any "secular humanists", and because you did not agree with me?
Should we agree with you simply because it is written in a book that has been translated/edited so many times that any original meaning may be lost?

Right. But 'why' do you see what are called love, integrity, honesty, &c., as perfectly reasonable and attractive?
Can't answer for Cris, but for me it's the same reason I can find purpose without looking to God. Love, integrity, and honesty are traits that make life better to live. I don't care what a false god may say about them.

It has everything to do with religion. If life has no real meaning, and if there is no God, why have any values at all?
Because it makes the life we experience better.

In the eyes of an atheist, from what I understand, all values are relative; "do what you feel" as they say.
Yet another broad generalization. Atheists can follow the laws too and can even belive in something called ethics.

But if there is no God, and thus nothing to tell Nature what to do (or to tell the laws of physics what to do), and thus no order, and thus nothing is committed to anything else, why have any values at all?
Because it makes life better. Sure, we could all go around freely killing people, but then we'd all be nervous and looking behind our backs. There are many reasons to obey certain values that have no requirement of a god.

Because they "feel right"--but have you ever wondered "why" they "just feel right"?
It has nothing to do with 'feeling right'. It has to do with solving problems that used to exist by creating laws.

And as far as I am concerned, atheism is a blatant cop out; quite simply, you do not want to be held accountable to anything.
I hold myself accoutnable for all actions. I do not require a God to do this for me. I could look at the saviour of Jesus as a 'blatant cop out'. Going to a better place solely because you believe?

I suppose Plato was a moron like me as well.
Plato was Christian?

 

[New Life]

Originally posted by Cris

While we have limited if any historical evidence for the existence of Jesus we have no evidence to support a resurrection, which was your claim. Just trying to show that Jesus existed is difficult enough but to actually find some real evidence for any of his actions or the nature of his death is another real challenge. To then extrapolate zero evidence to a resurrection is beyond any acceptable standards.

actually there is a lot of evidence, through archaeology that shows many details written in the bible to be correct.

Some examples:

from the OT:
In Genesis (mostly in chapter 19) comes the story of Sodom and Gamora (sp?). These two cities were reportedly destroyed when God rained down fire from Heaven as punishment......archaeological digs have found both cities, in the locations stated in the bible and both appear to have been destroyed by fire and meteor-type things.

Fragments of chariots have been found in the Red Sea (refering to the Exodus of Isreal from Egypt, lead by Moses who parted the Red Sea, etc)

now the NT

Luke 3:1 refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in approx 27AD....an inscription was found from the time of Tiberious (from 14AD to 37AD) which names Lysanias tetrarch in Abilene near Damascus -- just as Luke had written.

In Acts 17:6, Luke refers to "politarchs" (city officials) in Thessalonica. An inscription was found on a first-century arch that begins "In the time of the politarchs..." Archaeologists have found more than thirty-five inscritions that mention politarchs...several from Thessalonicea... from the time period Luke was refering to.

John 5:1-15 talks about Jesus healing an invalid by the Pool of Bethesda...John says the pool had 5 porticoes. Recently the Pool of Bethesda has been excavated (its approx 40 feet below ground) and has 5 porticoes.

they have also found the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7), Jacobs Well (John 4:12) and the Stone Pavement near Jaffa Gate where Jesus reportedly met Pilate (John 19:13)

a fragment of a copy of John 18 was found in Egypt, papyaologists have dated it to 125AD showing that it was written close enough to Jesus' life to still be accurate (allowing for the time needed for the story to get as far as Egypt)

also, there has been dispute over whether the census actually took place or not.......an official government order dated 104AD proves that census' were held often and people did indeed have to go back to their birth place (hence Jesus would have been born in Bethlehem during the census)

I could go on for a very long time like this but I wont, the point is that if the writers of the bible were so careful about getting these small, insignificant details right, then it stands to reason that they would be even more careful about the big details of Jesus' life and teachings.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by New Life
and both appear to have been destroyed by fire and meteor-type things.
Could you please provide a reference?

Fragments of chariots have been found in the Red Sea...
Not very convincing. You can find just about anything in the Red Sea.

Luke 3:1 refers to Lysanias -- just as Luke had written.
In Acts 17:6, Luke refers to "politarchs" (city officials) in Thessalonica. --- thirty-five inscritions that mention politarchs ---several from Thessalonicea...
John 5:1-15 talks about Jesus healing an invalid by the Pool of Bethesda...John says the pool had 5 porticoes. Recently the Pool of Bethesda has been excavated (its approx 40 feet below ground) and has 5 porticoes.
they have also found the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7), Jacobs Well (John 4:12) and the Stone Pavement
The places mentioned in Greek, Roman, and Cletic myths have been shown to exist to. This does not provide proof that it was more then a story. These aren't proof of Jesus' existance, but that the places exist.

a fragment of a copy of John 18 was found in Egypt, papyaologists have dated it to 125AD...
Now this is interesting... got a reference?

I could go on for a very long time like this but I wont, the point is that if the writers of the bible were so careful about getting these small, insignificant details right, then it stands to reason that they would be even more careful about the big details of Jesus' life and teachings.
There are 3 counter-arguments.
1) Jesus existed but was only thought to be a saviour. In this case the basic story is true, but expanded upon to include 'miracles'.
2) Jesus was 'created' later in order to provide a figurehead.
3) Jesus' story has been created using others as a baseline, with miracles thrown in for good measure.

I'm not sure which of these is right, or if you are right. To me, there is no reason to believe that it is anything but a myth that was created around the events of the time.

 

[Kant we all...]

Persol,

I haven't the time to answer all of your replies, but I do want to say this about Plato:

No, of course he wasn't Christian; yet Plato came as close as any Christian--without any revelation--to the reality of the Triune God, simply by the use of Reason.

The problem with you atheists is that you see yourselves as intellectually superior while placing just as much faith in the work of other people (e.g., scientists) as religious folk place in their authorities. But this is what it comes right down to:--

Entering the inquiry from assumption A (that there is a God), one shall find sufficient evidence to support assumption A.

Likewise, entering the inquiry from assumption B (that there are no gods at all), one shall find sufficient evidence to support assumption B.

Hard as we try, we can never be objective, because we are all humans, and thus perfectionists, and thus do not wish to be shown that we are wrong. It is not a matter, in this situation, of yourself demonstrating to me something which is objectively illogical, but of yourself demonstrating to me something that your life is riding on. I honestly do not think that, with any of us, it is a matter of being "right" or "wrong", objectively; but rather a matter of "I don't want to be wrong"--not because of any matter of "truth-seeking", but as a matter of perfectionism and arrogance...i.e., everyone wants to win the argument.

Yet when we speak of belief in God, or a god, the fact that he would be infinitely wise, and thus capable of doing whatever he wanted, whenever, however, it is wholly impossible that any human being that did not want to discover his truth would ever discover it. For example, why should President Bush want Saddam Hussein to grasp his plans for war?

That God cannot be discovered by empirical science does not necessarily "prove" that God does not exist:--

It most likely proves Kant's theory that God is Transcendent; that he cannot be fully known.

 

[Persol]

My side of the argument is not that God doesn't exist, but that we can never know while we are alive. I have no clue if there is a God or not... but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe it just because the majority does.

If God does not affect this world in ways we can see, then we should act as if he doesn't affect it at all. This said, we are able to form our own laws using our own rationale. Just because a God isn't watching doesn't mean we should suddenly decide to abandon all our current laws.

 

[New Life]

Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by New Life
and both appear to have been destroyed by fire and meteor-type things.
Could you please provide a reference?

~ at the moment no, I cant find the book I got it from, but I am looking and will get back to you on that one


Fragments of chariots have been found in the Red Sea...
Not very convincing. You can find just about anything in the Red Sea.


true, but its not often that you find chariots where there shouldnt be chariots....thats something special........kinda like the palm trees frozen in the arctic....

Luke 3:1 refers to Lysanias -- just as Luke had written.
In Acts 17:6, Luke refers to "politarchs" (city officials) in Thessalonica. --- thirty-five inscritions that mention politarchs ---several from Thessalonicea...
John 5:1-15 talks about Jesus healing an invalid by the Pool of Bethesda...John says the pool had 5 porticoes. Recently the Pool of Bethesda has been excavated (its approx 40 feet below ground) and has 5 porticoes.
they have also found the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7), Jacobs Well (John 4:12) and the Stone Pavement
The places mentioned in Greek, Roman, and Cletic myths have been shown to exist to. This does not provide proof that it was more then a story. These aren't proof of Jesus' existance, but that the places exist.


no it doesnt show that he existed, it shows that the authors were paying attention, it shows that they were very careful about what they were writting and in being correct about it

a fragment of a copy of John 18 was found in Egypt, papyaologists have dated it to 125AD...
Now this is interesting... got a reference?


its in the same book as the other one.......still looking....

I could go on for a very long time like this but I wont, the point is that if the writers of the bible were so careful about getting these small, insignificant details right, then it stands to reason that they would be even more careful about the big details of Jesus' life and teachings.
There are 3 counter-arguments.
1) Jesus existed but was only thought to be a saviour. In this case the basic story is true, but expanded upon to include 'miracles'.
2) Jesus was 'created' later in order to provide a figurehead.
3) Jesus' story has been created using others as a baseline, with miracles thrown in for good measure.

I'm not sure which of these is right, or if you are right. To me, there is no reason to believe that it is anything but a myth that was created around the events of the time.

number 1 doesnt make sense to me.......if he's the saviour why are the miracles just thrown in?


also, in responce to your other post, how do you know that God doesnt affect our world??? it has been my experience (i think this is what was originally asked about) that God DOES affect our world, and does so quite often!

I've seen and experienced many healings that by all logic really shouldnt have happened.........thats a religious experience I guess........and there are far too many things that happen "coincidentally" to just be coincidence.........sometimes i've prayed about/for something and its happened even as I was praying for it........things like that.......I think it would be a safer assumption to assume God DOES watch us and to act accordingly.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by New Life
number 1 doesnt make sense to me.......if he's the saviour why are the miracles just thrown in?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. That option meant that Jesus existed, but was just a normal human. The miracles were later added to the story to make it 'epic'.

also, in responce to your other post, how do you know that God doesnt affect our world?
The lack of evidence. Other theists have on many ocassions resorted to 'gving up' and saying that evidence will never be found because He is 'super-natural'. If God does affect our world evidence would be found.

it has been my experience (i think this is what was originally asked about) that God DOES affect our world, and does so quite often
I'd say that religion convinces people to affect our world. How do you think God affects our world?
EDIT: Lol... never mind... you answered it

I've seen and experienced many healings that by all logic really shouldnt have happened
From studies that have been done 'healers' only 'cure' terminal illness (for good) the same percentage of time that happens in a control group. Healers do however have a great placebo affect, that it slightly stronger then an pill placebo. I would guess this is just because the belief is stronger in religion then the pill.

there are far too many things that happen "coincidentally" to just be coincidence
I've noticed that too... but I don't see this as proof of God. It may just be my mind looking for patterns where there are none.

sometimes i've prayed about/for something and its happened even as I was praying for it........things like that.......
I think this falls into the coincidence thing, but there is no way of knowing. I wouldn't call the 'possible coincidence' evidence of a God, because it happens to me and I don't worship the God. If the 'coincidences' in my life actually are the work of a supreme being, he evidently doesn't mind me questioning his existance

I think it would be a safer assumption to assume God DOES watch us and to act accordingly.
My theory is that I am a good person (by most standards ). If I knew that God existed and was watching I wouldn't act any different. I do not believe that a God worth worshipping would punish good people for questioning his existance.

 

[Persol]

Sorry, didn't realize you had comments in the quoted text...

kinda like the palm trees frozen in the arctic....
Never heard of this either

The places mentioned in Greek...have been shown to exist to.
no it doesnt show that he existed... it shows that they were very careful about what they were writting and in being correct about it
But just like the myths listed, this doesn't mean that the writers of the Bible didn't embelish the story.

a fragment of a copy of John 18 was found in Egypt
its in the same book as the other one.......still looking....
No problem. I'm just surprised hat more theists wouldn't bring this evidence up to support the Bible.

 

[Jenyar]

Persol, Christians can dig up evidence all they like, it isn't going to prove God exists any more than what we already have... and it will always be insufficient evidence for you to take the Bible seriously.

You can have all the information you like about an arrow, explore all its dimensions and composition scientifically, philosophize over its origin, credibility and function, but if you never look up to where it's pointing to, it's no use.

 

[Darwin Disciple]

Sodom and Gomorrah Rediscovered
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm

 

[MarkM]

Religious experience argument...

I know an older wise lady who teaches The Bible and God. One day a man came to her to challenge her (because his wife was going to her classes). He took her out to lunch to confront her. He went on and on about how there is no God and how he went to a Jew and got one story of who God is. He went to a Catholic and got another story. He went to a Protestant and got another one, a Charismatic Christian, a Moslem... (By the way this is a true story). After going on and on for about 30 minutes he finished by saying to her "and now, what do you say?" The lady paused a moment while looking the man straight in the eyes and then said "The problem is, you did not ask God, who God is." Then the game was over and she left.
This is the problem with all these people arguing against Gods existence. They never truly asked God who God is. (With a humble enough spirit) Of the wide array of things a human can know; that there isn't a God, isn't one of them.

 

[Jenyar]

Welcome MarkM! Have you ever looked for your car keys with your hand over your eyes while repeating "there are no keys, there are no keys..."?

 

[Darwin Disciple]

When I was a little boy I asked my mother why Santa Claus didn't give me what I wanted and then I asked my father the same question and got a different answer, then asked my grandfather and got a different answer, then asked my uncle and got a different answer and then asked some old lady and she said, "The problem is you didn't ask Santa Claus why you didn't get what you wanted.". Then the game was over and she left.

This is the problem with all these people arguing against Santa Claus' existence. They never truly asked Santa Claus what they wanted. (With a humble enough spirit) Of the wide array of things a human can ask for; they can only ask so much from Santa Claus.

 

[Jenyar]

You will soon enough find out that Santa Claus doesn't exist from the lack of conviction of his followers (parents), the lack of historical information (whether it claims to be evidence or not), and above all, the glaring the lack of presents at your bedside.