I believe there is God, I believe Christ was God, persuade me of the benefits of renouncing this belief

[PRmerger]

“I believe there is God” I believe there is Divine Presence.

 "I believe Christ was God" I don't know. Judaism believes differently. Islam believes differently yet they both believe "there is God" I'm no scholar but I'm of the belief there are plenty of religions/traditions that believe there is God or gods yet don't believe Christ is God. It seems this thread got derailed early on with a mentality of Christianity or atheism in my opinion.

 "persuade me..." I don't condemn I don't convert.

Either Christ is God or Christ is not God.

One of the above is true.

And any seeker of truth must choose one of the above and offer apologia for his choice.

 

[Kaninchen]

https://imgur.com/ldCUBKR

sigh

Bye, Kaninchen.

My goodness, a follower of the ‘when really stumped, try a fatuous animated gif’ school of apologetics as well!

 

[PRmerger]

The point being made is that many of the events that occurred in the ancient past have only the scantest of evidence that they even occurred. Socrates is a pertinent example, there are one or two primary sources for virtually 100% of what we know about him.

Indeed. If one is going to be cynical about events of antiquity, one should be cynical about events of antiquity.

One cannot have one bar for Socrates, but have a different bar for Christian events because…well, because it’s *Christian. *

It’s like you’re offering evidence to someone who denies we landed on the moon. You proffer the usual science, the usual data and she says, “Nope. I don’t believe that!”

You say, “But don’t you teach astronomy at the high school? Don’t you accept the science in your discipline?”

She responds with, “I have a different bar set for determining if we really landed on the moon. I don’t accept that data.”

Clearly, she has no reason for rejecting the data. She is simply recusant.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Either Christ is God or Christ is not God.

One of the above is true.

Oh, brother (or sister) .

All of a sudden it is not a BOTH/AND, it is now EITHER/OR. So, how about “Christ is BOTH God AND not God”. Sounds fascinating.

That is why Catholicism is so “formidable” to argue against, because it is not stuck in the “either/or” paradigm… it belongs to the “both/and” group… Let’s try a few combinations, for the sake of completeness. Next to “both/or” we can use “either/and”. Wonderful possibilities, aren’t they. Let’s expand our horizons, shall we?

One cannot have one bar for Socrates, but have a different bar for Christian events because…well, because it’s *Christian. *

No, that is not the reason. One would have the same “bar” for Socrates, and for alien abductions. Or Little Green Men - who are also not “Christian”.

Where does this persecution complex come from? As a matter of fact, your problem is NOT that Christian mythologies are measured by the same bar, the problem is that they are NOT measured by a more lenient “bar”.

 

[Vonsalza]

So what? The claims about Socrates are irrelevant. The claim about Jesus would be of paramount importance, IF they could be substantiated. Just out of curiosity: do you accept the claims about Mohammed’s ride to heaven as readily as Jesus’s resurrection? I suspect you don’t.

The claims about Socrates are perfectly relevant. You said that history doesn’t enjoy special privilege concerning burden of proof. As most history comes to us in recorded, testimonial form, I’m merely pointing out that Christ meets the same standard of proof for existence as Socrates.

With the next part we might finally be getting somewhere…

The claim concerning Muhammad is supernatural, thus axiomatic. I can freely accept it or reject it with no penalty either way.

I choose to reject it. In the same vein, I accept the axioms of Christianity.

Get it now?

What are those “sources” which affirm that Jesus walked on water, fed a crowd with a few fish, resurrected Lazarus, etc… Bring them on. Outside of the Bible, of course.

Unfortunately, the bible gets to count as a source as it is extant. If I took away the Iliad and the Odyssey, how could you prove Homer existed? If I took away the Anabasis, most of our basis for Socrates would go away.

Sorry bro. Written records get to “count”.

But if you’d like additional sources about Christ, see: Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Tannatic Talmud, Pliny, Thallus, Phlegon, Celcus-per-Origen, and several, several others (I got tired of listing).

If you assert that the supernatural claims cannot be substantiated, that is just fine by me. In that case they are just as irrelevant as claims about Nessie, or the Yeti or other imaginary creatures.

Eh?

You’re just inconsistent with the subjects you choose to be skeptical about.

Ever seen a -]miracle/-] quark? Did you just take it on good faith that the -]priest/-] scientist is telling you the truth about it? Do they have a large, complex, systemic -]religion/-] theory that seems to use the concept of the -]miracle/-] quark in harmony?

Axioms are the starting points of a deductive system. But if you wish to consider the claims about the supernatural to be “axiomatic”, that is your problem.

No it isn’t. Facts aren’t anyone’s “problem”.

As a matter of fact, the expression “super”-natural implies also “sub”-natural.

No. No it does not. The only implied term you can derive in basic modals is the non-term. In this case: non-supernatural.

but considering your general lack of understanding, it does not really matter.

 

[minkymurph]

The claims about Socrates are perfectly relevant. You said that history doesn’t enjoy special privilege concerning burden of proof. As most history comes to us in recorded, testimonial form, I’m merely pointing out that Christ meets the same standard of proof for existence as Socrates.

I don’t understand use of the phrase the ‘burden of proof.’

‘Burden of proof’ is a duty placed on party in civil and criminal proceedings. History interprets the past in order to learn from it and doesn’t essentially seek to ‘prove’ anything. Evidence that is available is evaluated, but in historical endeavors evidence is characteristically not available, and that which is comes from a wide spectrum of sources that is pieced together like a jigsaw. In the overall picture many pieces may be missing. This would be problematic in a legal forum but not an historical one as history does not seek a specific judicial decision.

There is no record of billions of people who have lived, that does not mean they did not exist. It is perfectly feasible a guy called Seamus Murphy was hanged for horse stealing in 17C Ireland, yet there is not only no record of this but no record of this birth, and nothing is known about this childhood.

If Seamus Murphy was alleged to have rose from the dead I reckon someone, somewhere would have written something, and what they wrote may in fact be the only historical record of him. Should this fact lead us to conclude Seamus Murphy did not exist?

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t understand use of the phrase the ‘burden of proof.’

‘Burden of proof’ is a duty placed on party in civil and criminal proceedings. History interprets the past in order to learn from it and doesn’t essentially seek to ‘prove’ anything. Evidence that is available is evaluated, but in historical endeavors evidence is characteristically not available, and that which is comes from a wide spectrum of sources that is pieced together like a jigsaw. In the overall picture many pieces may be missing. This would be problematic in a legal forum but not an historical one as history does not seek a specific judicial decision.

There is no record of billions of people who have lived, that does not mean they did not exist. It is perfectly feasible a guy called Seamus Murphy was hanged for horse stealing in 17C Ireland, yet there is not only no record of this but no record of this birth, and nothing is known about this childhood.

If Seamus Murphy was alleged to have rose from the dead I reckon someone, somewhere would have written something, and what they wrote may in fact be the only historical record of him. Should this fact lead us to conclude Seamus Murphy did not exist?

In my experience it’s not exclusively a legal term. But you’ve made a good point.

 

[ANV]

Renouncing such beliefs would be based on conviction and reasons that you figure or conclude not on any benefits from renouncing them, because if that is the case, then renouncing them would be dishonest and not sincere or real, whatever benefits may be introduced if you are not actually convinced you would be lying to yourself and to your god, claiming something you are not, this is why it’s a strange and an illogical argument when some people say “you become an atheist to do whatever you like” no, you can do whatever you like and still be a believer because that’s who you are and what you believe, without having to pretend renouncing such beliefs, because you can’t lie to your god who knows it all about what you actually believe. Renouncing your beliefs won’t exclude you from sin.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I hope that eventually someone will explain to you the concept of “axioms”.

I choose to reject it. In the same vein, I accept the axioms of Christianity.

You’re just inconsistent with the subjects you choose to be skeptical about.

Pot… kettle? But thank you for the laugh of the week.

 

[Vonsalza]

I hope that eventually someone will explain to you the concept of “axioms”.

Perhaps goout can straighten me out as he did you on materialism.

The word per Oxford:
A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

But then again, you reject Oxford. Correct?

Pot… kettle? But thank you for the laugh of the week.

I don’t go around calling myself a skeptic. You do.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Perhaps goout can straighten me out as he did you on materialism.

I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t read that poster.

The word per Oxford:
A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

I have never heard of anyone who considered the existence of God to be self-evidently true. All those philosophers who tried so hard to establish God’s existence just wasted their time… they just should have asserted that God is self-evidently true.

I don’t go around calling myself a skeptic. You do.

So you accept the story of Mohammed to be self-evidently true? Strange. What about the golden tablets that contain the Book of Mormon? Or the Loch-ness monster? If you don’t believe them, then you ARE a skeptic.

 

[minkymurph]

In my experience it’s not exclusively a legal term. But you’ve made a good point.

I cannot say it is exclusively a legal term, but here it is being used inappropriately. The burden of proof us distinct from the standard of proof. Here we are talking about the standard. Not burden.

The standard of proof in criminal law us beyond reasonable doubt. In civil law if is the balance of probability. In an historical endeavour certain evidence may be considered sufficient to satisfy the balance if probability pertaining to certain facts; but the overall picture may be different.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have never heard of anyone who considered the existence of God to be self-evidently true.

In all due respect and absolute seriousness, you haven’t conversed with very many theists, then. The purported “self-evidence” of God is a point that atheists have lobbed critique after critique against. I forget the name of the fellow that said it, but there’s an old quip that goes something like “As a book has an author, so too does creation”.

So you accept the story of Mohammed to be self-evidently true? Strange.

What is it about axiom being “free to accept” or “free to deny” that you have difficulty realizing?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In all due respect and absolute seriousness, you haven’t conversed with very many theists, then. The purported “self-evidence” of God is a point that atheists have lobbed critique after critique against. I forget the name of the fellow that said it, but there’s an old quip that goes something like “As a book has an author, so too does creation”.

You are mistaken. Not only have I conversed with many theists, I used to be one… and not one of them asserted that God’s existence is “self-evidently true”. They all referred to faith or revelation or some long (and incorrect) line of reasoning… but none of them had the audacity to declare that God’s existence is “self-evident”.

What is it about axiom being “free to accept” or “free to deny” that you have difficulty realizing?

That is also not an axiom. If something is self-evident, then only an idiot would deny it.

 

[Vonsalza]

I cannot say it is exclusively a legal term, but here it is being used inappropriately. The burden of proof us distinct from the standard of proof. Here we are talking about the standard. Not burden.

The standard of proof in criminal law us beyond reasonable doubt. In civil law if is the balance of probability. In an historical endeavour certain evidence may be considered sufficient to satisfy the balance if probability pertaining to certain facts; but the overall picture may be different.

The question is one of “historicity”.

As I recall the “Jesus Seminar” pointing out (dubiously as some may feel), various historical claims of all stripes enjoy varying degrees of proof/certainty. As we may likely agree, there is more evidence of the WW2 bombing of Hamburg than there is evidence of the Homeric Sack of Troy.

Ergo these two events are considered historical by different standards. One who believes the bombing of Hamburg is factual may not view Troy in the same light, as their view on burden of proof for those claiming Trojan historicity hasn’t been met. As the phrase means only “the obligation to prove one’s assertion”, the Troy-doubter feels that this obligation hasn’t been satisfactorily met by the pro-Homeric-Troy camp.

[Note: “The ‘burden of proof’ being ‘met’” is a banally familiar phrase in both law and philosophy]

I do agree that the purpose of the burden is to meet a standard. In that way, one can then know the burden has been met. As to who determines the “standard” in “standard of proof” for history or whether the claimants carrying the “burden of proof” have met that standard; enter we into the grey realms of relativism and subjectivity. What satisfies one “jury” may not satisfy another.

They are inseparably linked as one implies the other. But if you feel I’ve erroneously switched them at any point in the dialogue, then my concession and apology is offered.

 

[Vonsalza]

You are mistaken. Not only have I conversed with many theists, I used to be one… and not one of them asserted that God’s existence is “self-evidently true”.

Ever heard of a guy named Thomas Aquinas?

Jump onto Amazon or any large book-vendor site and type “God self evident” and prepare to be amazed by all the “pro-” titles you’ll encounter. They’re not even exclusively Christian in orientation.

That is also not an axiom. If something is self-evident, then only an idiot would deny it.

Once upon a time, the “Right of Kings” was supposedly self evident. By your broken standard, we are idiots all.

 

[minkymurph]

They are inseparably linked as one implies the other. But if you feel I’ve erroneously switched them at any point in the dialogue, then my concession and apology is offered.

No, no, no. That’s not where I was coming from.

My post was intended to be an expansion of what you were saying in response to the statement history doesn’t enjoy special privilege concerning burden of proof made by Vera L, not a contradiction. Sorry for the confusion. :console:

Where I was coming from - badly - is an historical endeavor is not a ‘proof’ endeavor in the same sense as a legal endeavor. Both seek to establish facts but for different reasons. A legal endeavor seeks to obtain a judicial decision. An historical endeavor seeks to discover and interpret the past. As such it is not that history has special privilege but rather the bar is not so high in terms of the standard of proof, and neither can it be as history cannot rely on oral testimony and recent, well documented records to the extent Law can and is required to.

 

[minkymurph]

No, no, no. That’s not where I was coming from.

My post was intended to be an expansion of what you were saying in response to the statement history doesn’t enjoy special privilege concerning burden of proof made by Vera L, not a contradiction. Sorry for the confusion. :console:

Where I was coming from - badly - is an historical endeavor is not a ‘proof’ endeavor in the same sense as a legal endeavor. Both seek to establish facts but for different reasons. A legal endeavor seeks to obtain a judicial decision. An historical endeavor seeks to discover and interpret the past. As such it is not that history has special privilege but rather the bar is not so high in terms of the standard of proof, and neither can it be as history cannot rely on oral testimony and recent, well documented records to the extent Law can and is required to.

To illustrate my point:

We know prior to 17C English historians were not that concerned with accuracy - mainly because they wanted to keep their heads attached to their body. Kings asked them to write history because they could write in great prose that flattered them. Accuracy didn’t come into it. Do we conclude there are no facts and we can discount it all as a fairy story or a pack of lies? No.

Concerning ancient history, what sculpture would have written on an obelisk Pharaoh may have won the battle but his military strategy was rubbish, he messed up big time and loads of slaves died needlessly? One who had a death wish. Can we conclude the battle never happened? No.

 

[Vonsalza]

My post was intended to be an expansion of what you were saying in response to the statement history doesn’t enjoy special privilege concerning burden of proof made by Vera L, not a contradiction. Sorry for the confusion. :console:

Sometimes my basic literacy is in question. Justly so.

Allies to the bitter and bloody end!:knight1::knight1:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Once upon a time, the “Right of Kings” was supposedly self evident. By your broken standard, we are idiots all.

“Supposedly”??? Just because some people declare something to be “self-evident” it does not make them so. A proposition is self-evident if EVERY rational human accepts it to be self-evident.

And God’s existence is not one of them.