An athiest logical fallacy?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
“The purpose of forums such as this is to learn from each other. You consider my beliefs as “superstitious fantasy”, and I consider your beliefs as self-contradictory egomaniacal narcissism.”

So, do you consider your own beliefs to be antithetical to the purpose of forums such as this?

I don’t consider EITHER of our beliefs to be antithetical to the purpose of this forum.

As I said, the purpose of this forum is to learn from each other, which is that we each tell what we believe and why, and that we each tell the other why we’re right and the other is wrong.

I don’t think you even have a notion of what my beliefs are to make any claims about them. Unless you’ve researched what I’ve posted on these forums, all you know about me is what I’ve posted in this thread and that I’m an atheist. From the fact that I am an atheist all you can know is that I lack a belief in a god, you can’t know anything else about me. Sure you can say my beliefs are “self-contradictory egomaniacal narcissism” but anything but a lack of belief in god, as attributed by me and to me, are constructs of your own imagination. Perhaps that is the atheist you would most like to argue against. That is not me though.

I think it might behoove me to do some research on you then, eh?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
“You don’t even HAVE a concept of that which you say you are talking about (though in truth you do while not admitting of such).”

So what are you even saying, you seem to contradict your self within a single sentence. This is a much more efficient contradiction rate than even theists normally accuse me of “You don’t, but you do” So,which is it?

Since our two concepts of God/god are so utterly different, they can’t be used in a discussion of that which they are both SUPPOSEDLY refering to.

I absolutely agree with you that ALL the conclusions that you come to about your “god” are perfectly valid given the premises with which you base those conclusions on.

The problem is that you will not grant me the same right based on my initial premises, claiming that YOUR premises are the only valid ones usable by ANYONE.

My statement that “you don’t have a concept of what you say you’re talking about”, means that when you use YOUR concept of “god” (which is [consciously] empty) to disprove some “characteristic” (for want of a better word) of my concept of God your “proof” is meaningless due to our not even pointing at the same thing.

I do obviously have a ‘concept’ of what I am talking about. As far as I know it isn’t anything that is too outlandish as far as concepts of ‘god’ are concerned.

Your “concept” of god is “a nonexistent fantasy”. That IS your conscious concept of god. Your actual unconscious humanly-intrinsic concept of God (which of necessity MUST be correct) is the one that you, as a human being, USE while PROFESSING your “nonexistent fantasy” concept for “protective” reasons.

Quote:
“You are literally a conscious (though not unconscious) vaccuum speaking about nothing to no one, as no one can actually use your vaccuousness to form any conclusions about anything whatsoever.”

Are even you able to explain what you mean by this? I’m not trying to say that atheism has anything to say about much at all. All it is is a stance on one particular aspect of belief, nothing more. As per my signature.

Your sig:
“Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, nothing more.”

As I said, your sig is not only descriptive of atheists, as I also don’t believe in a god. It is also descriptive of monotheists, and MOST particularly descriptive of Catholic Christians (who just so happen to know the MOST of God).

Since you don’t SEEM to understand the utter incompatibility of God with “a god” or “the gods”, you can’t figure out WHY it is that your sig also describes Christians (and Jews and moslems and whatever other true monotheists there are out there).

Now, as to the meaning of what I actually said above:
You profess, consciously, that God is “unreal”, which is nothingness, a vaccuum. You believe, you ARE, in a vaccuum, talking about/professing this vaccuum to no one who can make any sense of your vaccuum, and who certainly can’t draw any conclusions based on this vaccuum your profess.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
“You’re not here to help us understand the “way of the (so-called) atheist”, but only to blither nonsense, as you never define your terms, about that which you are NOT talking about while pretending to talk about.”

There’s a “way of the (so-called) atheist”? News to me. I speak purely on my own behalf, there is no guiding dogma of atheism. There is only pure etymoloigcal and philosophical definition, as pertaining to atheism in the currently living language of english, which is the only language I am able to speak fluently. To be sure, this is dynamic, but there don’t seem to be any credible objections to ‘atheism’ as I use it, as per my signature, as per our modern context.

You are an “atheist” who defines “being an atheist” as “not being a theist”. That tells us what you aren’t, but not what you are.

I could define “human” as “not a grasshopper”, but while true it isn’t very helpful.

You are here solely to make us work, and largely spin our wheels as we never ever agree on terms of usage, to get you to open up about what you DO believe, which you will never do.

That is why you are of less than no value to converse with in the subject area of God-stuff.

I’m just ludicrously stupid in continuing doing so, though my stupidity may in fact be wearing off a bit.

What particular terms would you want me to define? Are you willing, in turn, to give some concrete definitions of God that we could verify by experiment, if you think such definitions pertain to a real entity that has an observable effect in our universe?

And the ultimate barrier of the so-called atheist rises!

It has been explained to you in the past how proof of God works. Since no one can convince you that YOU need to do the work necessary, and you simply refuse to do so, we can only hope that you’ll some day come around, which I personally KNOW you will, when the true meaning of YOUR MORTALITY occurs to you.

But, just to be “giving”, here are the scientifically verifiable defintions of God:
*) He is omnipotent.
*) He is all-loving.
*) He is all-just.
*) He is all-merciful.

The process to verify these truths is:
*) Believe them. (Treat them as axiomatic.)
*) Have faith in those beliefs. (Hold those beliefs through time.)
*) Find the truths privately revealed to you which coincide with the public revelation of the Church to illuminate further truths to believe. (Confirm evidence against revelation to give reasons for further beliefs to be futher investigated.)
*) Rinse and repeat, forever and ever, amen.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
“Your a marvelous example of what (supposedly) holding to atheistic thought produces. Bravo, and do hang around as you’re quite useful to us in showing the sense of belief in God, and the degraded condition of those who don’t.”

Thank you. Yet, by definition of what I propose atheism to be, it cannot be an actual influencing factor in my thought processes. It can only be a lack of a particular belief. Yes it is true that not holding to a particular presupposition will unavoidably affect the conclusions that I am able to reach, it does still allow my unforced formations of belief to be a direct result of the available evidence.

The problem is that you DO believe in God, while claiming that you don’t. How can I say that? Because it is not possible to be human and not believe in God. That you choose to call God something, or many somethings, else so that you can pick fights with people who call Him God is just a nifty little game.

You DO believe in evidence that the world “holds together”, and the “time does move forward”, and that there is correctness and incorrectness. There is just some “I don’t WANNA!” involved with you somewhere which has you playing your cute little game.

I am perfectly comfortable to be an example in this sense, I mean why not? As an atheist the only thing I must have in common with another atheist is that particular lack of belief. Anything I say or do is applicable only to myself.

You are an excellent example, and not necessarily, by ANY MEANS, a bad one, of what being a so-called atheist means.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Those who do not rely on revelation are trying to discover, from natural law as perceived by them, an understanding of deity which is (for those with modern communication devices) readily available FROM revelation from the Church.

The great “razor” is whether one believes in revelation, or not. If one does not, then the goal of “blending ourselves closer to the ideal of (what) God (says we should be a human persons)” must first be FOUND and only then STRIVED FOR.

The goal has been found, as per revelation from the Church, and those who believe that are actually striving for the goal, and not merely looking for it.

My remarks were in answer to someone else. Your comments are not even on point to the issue we were discussing. Your comments that unless one accepts Revelation one is operating out of natural law are simply incorrect, certainly for everyone who professes any other faith in the world. The fact that we both profess the same faith, nowhere gives us claim that it is the only one! But more to the point, you are simply off the mark from the answers I was given ANOTHER PERSON.

Understanding of WHAT?

Theology is the search for why REVEALED TRUTH is true. It is NOT the search for that which IS true.

That which IS true is called “revelation”, and freely given by that which is authorized to give it, The Church.

Those in search of that which IS true will forever be without a true goal toward which to strive. That is the “tragedy” of isolated humanity, as they have only natural law from which to deduce the goals toward which they want to strive, should they WANT to strive for “good”.

Again you are stepping into another conversation and introducing an entirely new set of arguments to a differernt discussion. Your blinded by your own beliefs to the point that you cannot consider others. The actual definition of theology is “faith seeking understanding.” It does not proport to speak only to Christianity or Catholicism.

It is even a greater tragedy that some non-isolated humanity CHOOSES to isolate themselves as if they were unreachable by their brothers who are right there telling them of God’s revelation.

Of course, these “self-isolated” folk (generally) live within a society BUILT on “revealed truth”, and while they profess to “do it all themselves” they are more than happy to benefit from that which was built by those they mock.

The atheist can deny that which built what he relies on, but (luckily for him) can’t have those benefits taken away from him because he denies that which built those benefits.

The atheist, who is never REALLY a full-blown atheist, is always and everywhere inherently a hypocrit.

Your utter hatred for those who don’t agree with you is palable and does nothing to further either the conversation or the conversion of anyone. I would assume you wish conversion? It would stand you in good stead if that is your goal not to call them hypocrites and other such pejorative names. I can understand someone feeling bad for the atheist, though they seem quite happy to me, but I certainly don’t understand your barely disguised hatred.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And the reason that that can’t happen is that no person can prove to another what only God can prove to one who truly wants proof of Him.

The “burden” of the believer is simply to suggest to the unbeliever that it is possible to get proof from God about God, and that it’s a most wonderful thing to want and allow Him to prove Himself to him.

That is the best we can do, as believers. That so-called atheists want to be hand-fed that which they must get for themselves simply shows the so-called atheist to be “childishly narcissistic”.

Yet they do so so often, and anyone self-described as a so-called atheist will ALWAYS act precisely on his belief that “God does not exist” in practice.

Now, while the so-called atheist SAYS that “God is not God qua God”, he CAN’T fully believe that for the reasons SpiritMeadow has given, which is that it’s not possible to actually SAY that with conviction since it’s not a provable statement.

So, so-called atheists say what they don’t really believe, and believe that they can’t say what they do say.

No wonder they are constantly “fidgety”.

You are making little sense. And as I said before, your anger is so intense that it overcuts your argument and makes it nearly unintelligible. I assume you have a point, but I am unclear of what it is. If as I think you said at the top, God is the only one who can cause belief, then why are you so angry at those who have not been so blessed? I don’t even know what a “so-called” atheist is or why you think they want to be hand-fed anything.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Those who do not rely on revelation are trying to discover, from natural law as perceived by them, an understanding of deity which is (for those with modern communication devices) readily available FROM revelation from the Church.

The great “razor” is whether one believes in revelation, or not. If one does not, then the goal of “blending ourselves closer to the ideal of (what) God (says we should be a human persons)” must first be FOUND and only then STRIVED FOR.

The goal has been found, as per revelation from the Church, and those who believe that are actually striving for the goal, and not merely looking for it.

My remarks were in answer to someone else. Your comments are not even on point to the issue we were discussing.

You are not obligated to respond to my responses of whatever it was I read. If you have nothing to say about something I say about something you say, then don’t say it.

Your comments that unless one accepts Revelation one is operating out of natural law are simply incorrect, certainly for everyone who professes any other faith in the world.

God communicates to us in one of two ways. Natural law and divine revelation (in two parts, being public through the Church and private through personal “contact”).

Those are the only two ways possible. What do you propose are the other ways that He communicates with us?

The fact that we both profess the same faith, nowhere gives us claim that it is the only one! But more to the point, you are simply off the mark from the answers I was given ANOTHER PERSON.

There are many faiths, but only one God and only one public revelation (not derived from natural law of course), and any faith (religion) is only TRUE in as much as it is congruent with the one source of public revelation which is the Church (Catholic).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Understanding of WHAT?

Theology is the search for why REVEALED TRUTH is true. It is NOT the search for that which IS true.

That which IS true is called “revelation”, and freely given by that which is authorized to give it, The Church.

Those in search of that which IS true will forever be without a true goal toward which to strive. That is the “tragedy” of isolated humanity, as they have only natural law from which to deduce the goals toward which they want to strive, should they WANT to strive for “good”.

Again you are stepping into another conversation and introducing an entirely new set of arguments to a differernt discussion.

Once again, comment or not on what you wish. I claim the same right. Thanks and have a lovely day!

Your blinded by your own beliefs to the point that you cannot consider others. The actual definition of theology is “faith seeking understanding.” It does not proport to speak only to Christianity or Catholicism.

What beliefs of mine are blinding me, and to what are they blinding me from seeing?

Faith [not meaning “religion”] is an activity. It is a verb. It is the holding of a set of beliefs in hope that those beliefs are correct and will (hopefully!) be confirmed by holding them “long enough” to be confirmed.

Understanding comes from putting “the pieces” together so that they make sense. What are “the pieces”? They are the TRUTHS given by revelation.

To have faith in truths (hopefully true beliefs) in search of an understanding of why those truths are true is the exercise of theology, and the results of theology are confirmations, aka reasons, of the relationships between those (revealed or deduced from NatLaw) truths which we can understand.

“Faith seeking understanding” means WHAT to you?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
It is even a greater tragedy that some non-isolated humanity CHOOSES to isolate themselves as if they were unreachable by their brothers who are right there telling them of God’s revelation.

Of course, these “self-isolated” folk (generally) live within a society BUILT on “revealed truth”, and while they profess to “do it all themselves” they are more than happy to benefit from that which was built by those they mock.

The atheist can deny that which built what he relies on, but (luckily for him) can’t have those benefits taken away from him because he denies that which built those benefits.

The atheist, who is never REALLY a full-blown atheist, is always and everywhere inherently a hypocrit.

Your utter hatred for those who don’t agree with you is palpable and does nothing to further either the conversation or the conversion of anyone. I would assume you wish conversion? It would stand you in good stead if that is your goal not to call them hypocrites and other such pejorative names.

I don’t hate atheists. I hate what being an atheist does to the person professing atheism.

Atheists, so-called, are interested only in making their “theist” monkey-pets (that would be us, by the way) jump for their amusement.

I can understand someone feeling bad for the atheist, though they seem quite happy to me, but I certainly don’t understand your barely disguised hatred.

My basic contention is that there are really very very few real atheists, and that ALL the so-called atheists who come here are merely people who call themselves atheists because God (and their mortality), at this point in their lives, are not important to them because they’re quite comfortable in life, and they like being one of the “cool kids” whose hobbies include bashing God and anyone who believe such “rubbish”.

Once again, love the sinner, hate the sin. I’m lovin’ the so-called atheist for his wit and intellect (as well as inherent dignity as a person of course), and hatin’ the evil that is atheism that has hold of him and digs more of a habitual rut for the poor sinner to have to deal with later in life every day.

 

[phooney]

@RyanL

"Then it wasn’t “confirmed” now, was it?

And I assume you’re only talking about the carbon dating and not about the manner of weaving, pollen samples, physiological structure and pathology, VP-8 image and likelihood of forgery, etc… is that correct?"

Well, it was confirmed for a while, but yes I don’t think we can still say that. And yes, in that brief paragraph I was just talking about the carbon dating. The manner of weaving I’m not overly sure about, the pollen samples have been discredited as having been tampered with: “However, these researchers, Avinoam Danin and Uri Baruch, were working with samples provided by Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist who had previously been censured for faking evidence. Independent review of the strands showed that one strand out of the 26 provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps pointing to deliberate contamination.” Nickell, Joe: “Pollens on the ‘shroud’: A study in deception”. Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1994., pp 379–385.

Not sure what you are trying to get at with 'physiological structure and the VP-8 image, I mean we’re already aware that there appears to be an image of a face and body on the shroud.

Pathology? I guess here you are referring to the ‘blood stains’? One study concluded that these were most likely due to pigment materials used in medieval times, another identified them as type AB blood. Which one of these conclusions were reached by a forensic serologist and pigment expert, do you think? Analyst John E. Fischer demonstrated how results similar to Heller and Adler’s (they identfied the stains as blood) could be obtained from tempera paint. And nobody has confirmed that the blood dates from the same time as the original shroud/image itself.

Regardless, the fact remains that the authenticity of the shroud is far from confirmed. Even if the original carbon dating was messed up by all three independent teams, and messed up in such a way that they all got similar medieval dates rather than completely random incorrect dates, that doesn’t mean it comes from the first century.

“1. Why the heck should the Church allow a bunch of folks to put their grubby hands all over one of the most sacred relics we have, particularly after she’s already allowed it time and again, and the last time being so badly botched?”

Why wouldn’t they prefer to know for sure? Ultimately it is just a piece of cloth, why would it offend your god to test it? Why are you so sure that their hands would be ‘grubby’ and that they would destroy it or somehow do something to it that would remove its ‘sacred’ quality? The only way they could do that would be if they did manage to confirm that it was a forgery, in which case you would at least know the truth. If they prove that it comes from the right time period, then great. The church doesn’t even have an official position on the shroud, you’d think they might if the evidence was really good enough.

“2. “So-called”? Do you have information proving it’s not an actual “restoration” or are you just foaming at the mouth?”

All I have to go on at the moment regarding the restoration is the Wikipedia article, and the oxford dictionary of the christian church. The wikipedia article lists sources regarding the criticism of the restoration. In a nutshell “It has been labeled unnecessary surgery that destroyed scientific data, removed the repairs done in 1534 that were part of the Shroud’s heritage, and squandered opportunities for sophisticated research.” You can read a book by William Meacham called “The Rape of the Turin Shroud” as well if you want.

The dictionary, in this case the third edition with revision in 2005, has only a very short entry for this shroud, and concludes that “carbon-dating tests carried out in 1988 indicated a date between 1260 and 1390 for the harvesting of the flax from which it is woven.”

It may very well have been a “restoration” but the intentional or unintentional side effect is that it has now closed off many avenues of investigation for those of us who prefer to have evidence rather than a presupposition that makes us feel good.

Here’s some quick reading for you in regards to the shroud:
skepdic.com/shroud.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin

Ignore them if you want shrug

“Look into it on your own, but for starters there are some 120 points of convergence between the Shroud and the Sudarium (not including other forensic evidence like blood type and composition) and the Sudarium can be verified as having been in Spain since the 600s (ruling out your “confirmed” medieval forgery idea).”

Both the above links mention the Sudarium as well.

“Why is it always about tests with you atheists? If you can’t put it in a beaker, you think it’s not true. How silly. I’m afraid that’s just not the way archeology works – and I think you know that”

Why is it always about begging the question with you theists? Sure, not everything fits in a beaker, but there is no reason I should have to believe in something like this without objective evidence. Nice strawman though.

How do you think archaeology works? The methodology is incredibly sophisticated these days, much more advanced than just putting things in ‘beakers’.

What was done to confirm the claim? That’s all I asked, why dodge the point and instead try to convince me that I should just accept something for no good reason?

 

[phooney]

continued @RyanL

“1. You haven’t proved “decades of oral tradition”. You’ve alleged it and haven’t cited a single person who agrees with you.”

Bart D. Ehrman. You can read about his credentials here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Now, if I may take a few points from his book “Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Constantine” which is the only book of his that I have to hand at the moment:

In regards to the accounts of Jesus

“Strikingly, these writers to not appear to have been among Jesus’ own immediate followers. Take the four Gospels of the New Testament … These are written in Greek, by highly educated and well trained authors, some thirty to sixty years after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ followers, however, were Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee who evidently did not speak Greek, let alone know how to compose lengthy acounts (or even to read) in Greek. The Gospels of the New testament were apparently written not by his closest followers in his own day but decades later by more highly educated Christians hwo based their narratives on oral traditions that had been in circulation in the intervening years” p108-109.

I can use the bold function as well

in regards to the Gospels of the New Testament:

“But aren’t these accounts written by eyewitnesses, people who were actually there to see Jesus say and do the things that are recounted in their narratives? As I’ve already indicated, that does not appear to be the case. In fact, contrary to what you might think, these Gospels don’t even claim to be written by eyewitnesses. We call these books, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And for centuries Christians have believed they were actually written by these people: two of the disciples of Jesus, Matthew the tax collector (see Matt. 9:9) and John, the “beloved disciple” (John 21:24), and two companions of the apostles, Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul… But what most people don’t realise is that these titles were added later, by second-century Christians, decades after the books themselves had been written, in order to be able to claim that they were apostolic in origin… Gospels that were widely read and accepted as authoritative but that in fact were written anonymously, as all four of the New Testament Gospels were?” p110-111

“these four authors are all highly trained, Greek-speaking Christians living near the end of the first century, not the Aramaic-speaking peasants that Jesus had as his own disciples” p112

“Ultimately, since the followers of Jesus were not writing down the things he said and did during his life, the stories about Jesus must to back to oral traditions” p114

“This oral circulation of the accounts of Jesus’ life went on for years -decades- until someone bothered to write down the stories …]
our earliest surviving written accounts, and the written sources they were dependent on, go back to stories that were being passed around by word of mouth for year after year, decade after decade” p114-115.

“2. Decades aren’t enough time for legends to develop. Telephone game or not, someone would notice changing a detail like a guy rising from the dead or being God.”

On page 115 of the same book (slightly after Ehrman himself mentions the Telephone game, I now notice) he says:

“Could such a thing have happened to the stories of Jesus, in circulation throughout the Roman empire during the years and decades after his death, before they were written down? Not only are scholars of antiquity sure that such a thing could have happened, but they have evidence to indicate that in fact it did happen.”

He goes on for a couple more pages about this.

Quite frankly, given the differing languages and locations where the stories proliferated to, decades is plenty of time for legends to develop. They could be made up, intentionally and unintentionally changed. There would have been few around that many decades afterwards, and in those distant lands, to correct them.

 

[phooney]

Continued @ RyanL

Now, on to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. For the entry on the Gospel of Mark:

“The Gospel may have been written by John Mark; there is no obvious reason why tradition should have wrongly assigned it to so nimportant a character. ‘Mark’, however is a common name. Speculation has sometimes identified the young man in Gethsemane (14: 51 f.) with the author.”

“A date soon after the death of Peter (commonly put in AD64) and during the seige of Jerusalem has been accepted by many scholars; others prefer a date soon after AD70.”

None place the authorship to be contemporaneous with Jesus.

“With the rise of Form Criticism it came to be held that in oral tradition the material was used and preserved in small units, and that Mark, or someone before him, put them together ‘like beads on a string’.”

And an interesting little tidbit of information

“Mark’s Gospel concludes abruply at 16:8, perhaps because Mark intended it to end there, possibly because the end has been lost. 16:9-20 is one of two supplements, not in the oldest MSS, which were added to the Gospel at an early date.”

9-20, just added, and you contend that ‘decades aren’t enough time for legends to develop’

In regards to the Gospels of Matthew/Luke,

“Since the nineteenth century, New Testament scholars have recognised that Mark was our fist Gospel written, possibly around 65 or 70CE, and that both Matthew and Luke, writing ten or fifteen years later, used Mark for many of their stories about Jesus.” p113

The authors didn’t witness the events themselves, at least one of the main sources was a non-contemporary account that was written down after the decades of oral tradition I mentioned earlier.

“From the time of St Irenaeus it was regularly ascribed to the Apostle Matthew by name.”

Not from when it was written, but from the time of St Irenaeus, and he was born, what, 130CE? And he probably wasn’t an active theologian right out of the womb either, so it is more like 160-180CE? The entry goes on to say

“The Gospel is probably to be dated c. AD80-90, and unlikely to have been written by an eye-witness.”

For Luke:

“Its authorship has been attributed to St Luke, the companion of St Paul. The tradition has been widely accepted on the ground that there is no reason why a Gospel should have been falsely assigned to a comparatively unimportant person.”

Don’t you think that this is one of those assumptions that should be questioned more, as you are so adept at advising others to do? Particularly in light of the perfectly plausible reason for assigning a name to a gospel that Ehrman gave and I have already mentioned above.

More reading can be done on the topic of the “Synoptic Problem” if you want to have a look around. Many of the solutions to said problem rely on hypothetical documents, which I don’t see as being very robust solutions.

For John,

“To most modern scholars direct apostolic authorship has therefore seemed unlikely; and only a few would favour a date before c. AD80 or 90.”

The ODCC is extensively referenced. Richard Carrier is another modern historian who would agree with this, Earl Doherty, Frank Zindler, John P. Meier, Randel Helms, Robert Funk, Herman N. Ridderbos, J. C. Fenton… in fact modern historians that support what seems to be your position are pretty thin on the ground. I apologise if you weren’t meaning that the names tacked to the front of the gospels is definitely the author of the respective gospel. You can stop holding your breath now

 

[phooney]

continued @RyanL

“3. Decades after the crucifixion, there were still eyewitnesses present to correct these “oral traditions” on which people exclusively relied, rather than their own or even other eyewitness testimony”

Wait a minute, this directly contradicts point number 1 in this same list of yours, as I don’t think you would have even raised point number 1 if you did agree with me.

“4. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, the standard of evidence doesn’t change because of the claim. There’s not a higher standard because the claim subjectively seems less reasonable. The same evidence sufficient to prove the existence of Alexander the Great should suffice to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Obviously the actual evidence required to verify a claim must necessarily be different depending on what the claim is. The claim that a map depicting the supposed location of monster island exists and the claim that monster island exists requires completely different evidence. As said by the man who I have the utmost respect for, Carl Sagan “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. I agree that the same standard of evidence sufficient to prove the existence of Alexander the Great should suffice to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the existence of somebody named Jesus who’s family was from Nazareth and the existence of Jesus the earth-walking, death-defying, miracle-performing man-god are two phenominally different claims. The former might just be an ancient wandering preacher, the latter requires defiance of the laws of physics, and I’m inclined to believe that it is more likely that people were mistaken in these fantastic claims than this happened, without some pretty impressive evidence to back it up.

The best evidence that theists seem to come up with is that ‘legends like this couldn’t have spread so far so quickly!’ but there are certainly other non-canonical gospels of comparable time frames that also have some pretty far fetched claims, like a child-Jesus repeatedly withering his playmates when they displeased him, and Jesus emerging from the tomb as tall as a sky scraper and followed by a self-propelling, and talking, cross. These aren’t recognised as authoritative because they aren’t orthodox, but they are just as old, and I guess if you don’t believe in them, you might say they must have been made up. Interesting.

“1. Your skepticism is completely unfounded as a scientific matter.
2. I’m aware of Paul’s claims.”

OK?

“1. If they were fictional accounts, why were people being martyred?”

Other religions have their martyrs as well, you can’t all be right, so what is your point?

“2. If they were fictional or the authors were unaware of things, why so much congruence between the books, why the books referencing each other”

You answer your own question here.

“why the leaders of Churches like Clement of Rome (he was ordained by Peter and was head of the Church at Rome, so I’d say he was likely aware of what happened to Peter) quoting these books approvingly to others,”

I can’t comment very much on this specifically at the moment, but I guess I’ll just do what you did and say “You’ve alleged it and haven’t cited a single person who agrees with you.” According to this ‘catholic encyclopedia’ site newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm he was, in fact, the fourth pope, not the immediate successor to Peter and “the early evidence shows great variety”

“You should question your assumptions more.”

Definitely.

Jesus was only a public figure for the last three years of his life. How contemporaneous are you expecting?

Within 10 years. You know, contemporary.

"Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus both said that Mark wrote Mark - and that’s fine by me.

Oh, and would you be so kind as to state the name of a “modern historian” specializing in Biblical history who doesn’t think that the Gospels were written by those alleged?"

Already covered.

“If I had anything new to bring to the table I’d be publishing it and not speaking with you. I bring only the things which are old.”

Fair enough.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
And the reason that that can’t happen is that no person can prove to another what only God can prove to one who truly wants proof of Him.

The “burden” of the believer is simply to suggest to the unbeliever that it is possible to get proof from God about God, and that it’s a most wonderful thing to want and allow Him to prove Himself to him.

That is the best we can do, as believers. That so-called atheists want to be hand-fed that which they must get for themselves simply shows the so-called atheist to be “childishly narcissistic”.

Yet they do so so often, and anyone self-described as a so-called atheist will ALWAYS act precisely on his belief that “God does not exist” in practice.

Now, while the so-called atheist SAYS that “God is not God qua God”, he CAN’T fully believe that for the reasons SpiritMeadow has given, which is that it’s not possible to actually SAY that with conviction since it’s not a provable statement.

So, so-called atheists say what they don’t really believe, and believe that they can’t say what they do say.

No wonder they are constantly “fidgety”.

You are making little sense. And as I said before, your anger is so intense that it overcuts your argument and makes it nearly unintelligible. I assume you have a point, but I am unclear of what it is. If as I think you said at the top, God is the only one who can cause belief, then why are you so angry at those who have not been so blessed? I don’t even know what a “so-called” atheist is or why you think they want to be hand-fed anything.

Nice folks, such as youself, see hatred anytime anyone speaks the truth which might be a liitle tough to take, even if it’s not you that is “taking it”.

I feel for you. It must be really hard to need to have everyone love you at every occassion.

There was no hatred in what I said, and if you took just a little bit of time to actually read what I wrote, you’d probably find it makes sense logically, if not perhaps conclusively, as the conclusions rely on agreement with certain basic premises, which you most likely don’t share with me.

Though, you’d probably rather just call me a hate-monger than discover what those premises of mine are.

Best to you!

 

[milde]

Yes, there is a problem there. How is it that an Athiest can know or not if a non-belief in God isn’t irrational or demonstrative of some psycological defect? The beginning premise is that the Athiest is the rational one, and that’s no more or less likely than the Christian being rational, in strictly anthropological terms.

I wasn’t aware that most non-Christians believe that Christianity is the result of a psychological defect. Do you have references to research that has led you to believe this? I’m also not sure that an athiest on average is any more or less rational than a Christian.

What you are trying to do is lower the credibility of your opponent instead of discussing their argument. You’re setting up the atheist as irrational and as one who believes that religion is the result of a psychological defect. I truly believe you just simply made those two points up yourself.

 

[milde]

My basic contention is that there are really very very few real atheists, and that ALL the so-called atheists who come here are merely people who call themselves atheists because God (and their mortality), at this point in their lives, are not important to them because they’re quite comfortable in life, and they like being one of the “cool kids” whose hobbies include bashing God and anyone who believe such “rubbish”.

So atheists really aren’t intelligent enough to discuss Christianity with you. They’re just acting out and trying to be “cool”?

I wasn’t even aware that being an atheist was “cool”. Maybe you just live on the other side of the tracks from me. Your arrogance is amazing. But it’s not unique. I have literally read hundreds of messages in these forums where Christians are putting themselves above non-Christians. It’s amazingly non-Christian behavior. But those sorts of contradictions are ok if you don’t recognize them, right?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Athiest: religious belief is nothing more than a result of deep-rooted social conditioning.

Theist: How did you come about with that belief?

Atheist: Well, it wasn’t the result of deep-rooted social conditioning, but the result of my own rational thinking.

Theist: Did your process of thinking come naturally without any influence?

Atheist: I went to school and read books on my own.

Theist: Where do you suppose the material you read came from? Did it fall out of the sky or come from other people?

Atheist: It came from other people.

Theist: Then your beliefs are also a result of social conditioning. Don’t be a hypocrite. For a person who basis their belief on rational thinking, you certainly are inconsistent.

===================================

Athiest: religious belief is nothing more than a result of deep-rooted psychological conditioning.

Theist: How did you come about with your belief that there is no God?

Atheist: Well, my parents were devout theists, but I had an experience when I was very young which made me think that there is no God, and I have held on to that belief ever since.

Theist: So do you believe our experiences can affect our psyche?

Atheist: Of course.

Theist: Then your belief is also a result of a deep-rooted pscyhological conditioning. Don’t be a hypocrite.

===================================

Athiest: religious belief is nothing more than a result of deep-rooted psychological conditioning.

Theist: How did you come about with your belief that there is no God?

Atheist: Well, my parents never believed in God and thankfully I was never exposed to that thinking.

Theist: So you did not believe because you were never exposed to a belief in God?

Atheist: That is correct…

Theist: Then your belief is also a result of a deep-rooted pscyhological conditioning. Don’t be a hypocrite.

Blessings,
Marduk

**The atheist’s position, stated thus, may be inconsistent; but he’s not being a hypocrite, because he is not putting it about that he is a better man than he knows he is. **​

---

**If he were a thief, & sought to be recognised as honest - that would be hypocrisy; for he would be trying to deceive others into thinking him to be a better man than he was. **

---

**That’s a long way from being mistaken about how consistent one’s intellectual position is; for we all make mistakes - which is not the same as deception of others for our own self-aggrandisement. **

---

Maybe there are ways to free the atheist’s position from the flaws seen in it; one way to do so would be to examine the structure of other POVs. If they are no stronger than the atheist’s position (& there is more than one kind of atheism, after all; just as there are several theisms) or are weaker, then his position would be tenable.

 

[Camron]

@Camron
Truly, your mastery of the bold function knows no bounds

Thanks. But I think your comprehension of what I’ve bolded may require some keener perception on your part. Let’s try italics this time.

Unfortunately that seems to be where your mastery ends. Yes, yes, bold this and bold that, and I must admit your vampire bat example is an excellent one that I haven’t heard before, so thank you.

You’re welcome.

I must apologize. You are correct, perhaps evolutionary biology doesn’t have much to say about the kind of altruism you are talking about. Mind you, you have a lot of work ahead of you to argue that that kind of altruism exists.

Yes, and this is exactly where the atheistic fallacy comes in.

Atheism, as a world view, is more or less built upon the foundations of being skeptical toward anything that cannot be empirically proven. In other words, there really is a deep-seated mistrust of anything that the atheist feels they cannot tangibly measure and evaluate, such as spiritual things like “god” on the one hand, or even normal things like “true altruism” on the other, something which many cultures have believed in for a long time.

And since there is nothing within nature itself, according to the atheist’s mind, which specifically promises that all things which can be understood will be understood in tangibly measurable terms, this ultimately leads to the extreme danger of concluding that all things are ultimately meaningless precisely because we cannot understand all things in tangibly measurable terms.

As a species that uses information as a commodity, it is pretty much impossible to perform an act in the spirit of your “true altruism” and then have somebody like you argue about its inexplicable and selfless nature.

Ayn Rand would be proud of your speech right now.

By the very fact that you know about it and promote how admirable it is, you nullify any semblance of selflessness it may have had about it.

I mean no disrespect, but this is more rubbish from the hardened atheist heart. Simply because we know about it (and promote how admirable it is), this does not necessarily nullify any semblance of selflessness it may have had about it. One can simply do something because it is good simply because it is good with no strings attached. And if you really don’t believe this then I truly feel sorry for you.

Bold all you want, it still doesn’t help your non-existent case. You’ve confidently bolded that we perform acts with absolutely no secondary motives, so do you have an example, especially in light of the above?

See, and there you go again. You don’t even believe that true altruism exists to begin with—which is really up to you to see in the first place because I cannot see that for you. And this really is the perfect example of the atheist fallacy—if you can’t see it then you don’t believe it exists. In fact, your entire philosophy is built in some degree on this premise. This is, in itself, an a priori assertion that you yourself cannot empirically prove yet you hold to it precisely because you feel it is more philosophically secure.

This is a feeling that you have. Not a fact.

Wrong again, as far as I’m concerned. Let’s look at another social animal. What do we have to compare to the humble worker-ant that doesn’t even have a chance to reproduce, and who is on the frontline of the ant clump when there is flooding?

Actually, the ant is a very good example to explore further, an animal which the Bible addressed in Proverbs 6:6-8.

Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!

It has no commander, no overseer or ruler,

yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest.

As far as selflessness is concerned, human examples usually pale in comparison, but not from the genetic level. From within the perspective of a species as defined by those with which one can reproduce, the benefit of another within one’s species is the benefit of 99+% of one’s active genome.

I would agree with you if I actually believed that the ant was actually consciously aware of the fact that it was leaving the benefit of 99+% of its active genome.

I’m still talking about another kind of altruism by the way. Remember when I made the distinction between true altruism and that other kind of altruism you keep bringing up?

 

[Camron]

I admit, I have a lot more to read about evolutionary morality, but if human morality is in any sense nature rather than nurture or even a tiny bit nature and mostly nurture, then the only current explanation that currently meshes with all available evidence is evolution.

And, for the record, I will not claim to be an expert either. I’ve read some little tidbits. And, so far, anyway, I’m not impressed with what I’ve read. It seems to be mostly wild conjecture and unverifiable hypothesis which reflects the minds of those who put it forward as a fact.

By Social Darwinism, I guess you are talking about something like Eugenics? I agree that something like that insults the theory of evolution. It insults the theory of evolution by assuming an ultimate goal of evolution, which is not an intelligently guided process.

If you’re talking intelligently guided in the political sense then I would kind of agree with you. Nonetheless, I do believe that evolution’s ultimate goal was to develop the latent image of Christ impressed upon it from the beginning (like a roll of film being gradually developed over billions of years) so that Christ Jesus, who bore the image of the invisible God, could eventually Incarnate onto Earth.

But that’s for another thread.

So… what is your empirical verification of any of the God concepts? Or is this some more special pleading?

No special pleading is required, at least no more than atheism requires.

I’ll tell you what: When you can correctly give me a valid example of true altruism (and explain why it is considered true altruism) then we can talk seriously. Until you can at least see this I strongly suspect that we will be talking past each other and mostly wasting each others time.

Until then, TTFN (sans bold)

Thanks for your permission and instruction

You’re welcome!

Oops…I bolded those last words, didn’t I? :blushing:

 

[RyanL]

Phooey,

About the Shroud…the article from Skepdic was laughably bad so I didn’t even bother with the Wikipedia article (a dubious source for such things anyway). By was of example, here’s one of the first reasons presented for rejecting the authenticity:

the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long.

Got it? No human looks like that. Ok. Further down, another reason for rejecting the Shroud’s authenticity is given:

One theory is that “a male model was daubed with paint and wrapped in the sheet to create the shadowy figure of Christ.”

Well…which is it? Does no human look like that or is it reasonable to believe a paint-covered human made the shape? Self-contradictory hypothesis just don’t strike me as a persuasive way to argue in most contexts. The pollen objections (including those regarding Dr. Frei) were equally bad if not worse.

In any case, if you’re actually interested in how much about the Shroud you don’t know and aren’t addressing (including the wrap-around distortion problem, which we’re not too dumb to notice BTW), you might give the following lecture a listen.

If you’re not interested and are content to wallow in self-imposed and rather irresponsible ignorance…that’s up to you.

As for Ehrman, I plan on giving the following debate a listen:
William Lane Craig v. Brian Ehrman

If he has anything of value to say, it should likely come up. Wanna’ join me in listening?

God Bless,
RyanL