The 'no proof' argument against God

[ddarko]

I think you’ll find, if you do any research at all, that the Gospels are anonymous stories written by non-eyewitnesses written decades (at the earliest) after supposed supernatural events that are recorded nowhere else.

I believe that lots of events happened that I wasn’t there to witness, but we have much better evidence of those other events.

I think you will know if you were a proper historian that the gospels or Scripture was ORALLY handed down from the Apostles. It was only written down later on by “anonymous people”. So the scripture it-self is from the eye witnesses/ apostles. They were just written down by different people.

So I would appreciate it if you got your historical facts straight before you mention erroneous information.

God Bless

 

[paul_c]

I think you will know if you were a proper historian that the gospels or Scripture was ORALLY handed down from the Apostles. It was only written down later on by “anonymous people”. So the scripture it-self is from the eye witnesses/ apostles. They were just written down by different people.

So I would appreciate it if you got your historical facts straight before you mention erroneous information.

God Bless

don’t let him confuse you. While it is true that the gospel messages were passed down through word of mouth, the Gospels we have were alwasy meant to be written. Luke says as much in his preface

 

[AntiTheist]

For purpose. I am talking about objective purpose here and not subjective ones so don’t give me the typical atheist response of “hey I have purpose and I don’t believe in God”.

What makes you think that there is an objective purpose? What makes such objective purpose necessary?

Well if you THINK its dumb it doesn’t make it DUMB.

Of course not. The fact that it’s actually dumb is what makes it dumb.

You might be DUMB to think its DUMB. And who says being DUMB is wrong? I can’t see any EVIDENCE that being DUMB is objectively bad? Please share some evidence if you got some.

I’m not claiming that being dumb is “objectively bad.” I’m just saying that I don’t like it when people are dumb, and I think that overall, dumb people generally cause effects in society that the vast majority of us don’t like.

I could cite all kinds of examples of people accepting claims without properly using evidence to evaluate them, with disastrous consequences, both for themselves and others around them.

For example, there have been cases where airplane pilots accepted the claim that their planes had sufficient fuel because they omitted the pre-takeoff step of inspecting the tanks. Accepting this claim on the basis of insufficient evidence had disastrous consequences for everyone on that flight.

 

[AntiTheist]

They have been ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since the first century.

Ascribed to. By church tradition. There’s no good reason to think that the stories actually come unmodified from the mouths of eyewitnesses.

All honest scholars – including Christian scholars – admit that we don’t know who wrote down the stories.

Why would they be held so early if they were simply fantasies.

Because they were the oral teachings of a cult. People love them their cult beliefs.

Secondly, we know that the early Christians were persecuted heavily by Jews and Gentiles alike for 300 years. All of the original apostles were martyred for their faith. Why would they accept that for a lie.

Well, I have yet to see any good evidence outside of Church tradition that the original apostles were martyred.

But even if they were, it’s not certain that 1) they could have escaped death by recanting…a lot of people, when faced with certain death become even more recalcitrant in their claims…and 2) they weren’t “true believers” in the same way that the Hale Bop comet people were…the ones who willingly castrated themselves and committed suicide for their beliefs.

Have you read about Lourdes and Fatima. How about Padre Pio?

I have. Not any more convincing than any other tale of the supernatural I’ve ever heard.

 

[AntiTheist]

don’t let him confuse you.

I don’t need to. He’s doing a good enough job on his own.

 

[colmcille1]

What makes you think that there is an objective purpose? What makes such objective purpose necessary?

Of course not. The fact that it’s actually dumb is what makes it dumb.

I’m not claiming that being dumb is “objectively bad.”** I’m just saying that I don’t like it when people are dumb, and I think that overall, dumb people generally cause effects in society that the vast majority of us don’t like.

I could cite all kinds of examples of people accepting claims without properly using evidence to evaluate them, with disastrous consequences, both for themselves and others around them. **
For example, there have been cases where airplane pilots accepted the claim that their planes had sufficient fuel because they omitted the pre-takeoff step of inspecting the tanks. Accepting this claim on the basis of insufficient evidence had disastrous consequences for everyone on that flight.

Dumbness leading to evil gave the world: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. All fine upstanding atheists, I think you’ll agree. Man, did they “cause effects in society that the vast majority of us don’t like”!!! No need to “cite all kinds of examples of people”. I just have.
God Bless you, lost sheep,
Colmcille1.

 

[AntiTheist]

Dumbness leading to evil gave the world: Hitler, Stalin, Mao.

I would agree that those individuals were dumb.

All fine upstanding atheists, I think you’ll agree.

That they were atheists is a fact, except for Hitler, who did profess to believe in the Christian god.

That they were “upstanding” is – for most definitions of “upstanding,” anyway – completely incorrect.

Man, did they “cause effects in society that the vast majority of us don’t like”!!!

Yes, they did. They were dumb – but they were dumb, and they did the horrible things that they did, not because they didn’t believe in gods but because they were driven by particular dumb ideologies.

Action is the result of beliefs, not non-beliefs. Stalin committed his actions not because he didn’t believe in gods, but because he did believe in an ideology that drove him to these deeds.

You really need to take some time to analyze your ideas before you post them in a public forum.

 

[Pieman333272]

Ascribed to. By church tradition. There’s no good reason to think that the stories actually come unmodified from the mouths of eyewitnesses.

All honest scholars – including Christian scholars – admit that we don’t know who wrote down the stories.

I must agree on that. However, it is likely Luke was written by Luke (or another of Paul’s Disciples) because of the way he uses “we” in the sequel to Luke - Acts.

Because they were the oral teachings of a cult. People love them their cult beliefs.

More likely than not, they are derived from written sources, There may be between 1 and 4 of said sources (Mark is one and John may be one)

Well, I have yet to see any good evidence outside of Church tradition that the original apostles were martyred.

Roman Writings points to the fact that Peter and the first few of his successors were martyred. I also remember reading recently in an article that a prison in Rome is almost certainly where Peter was before his death, and it matches tradition.

But even if they were, it’s not certain that 1) they could have escaped death by recanting…a lot of people, when faced with certain death become even more recalcitrant in their claims…and 2) they weren’t “true believers” in the same way that the Hale Bop comet people were…the ones who willingly castrated themselves and committed suicide for their beliefs.

I posted some info in your The Gospels Are Myths… thread on this, but anyway, according to the Gospels and Acts (and, should you choose to believe this one, tradition), they were certainly “true believers” post-resurrection (or, if you don’t believe in it, post-death). Also, they probably knew they would be hunted down, imprisoned and killed for believing (Jesus actually said so) and preaching. They could have converted before their arrest and dodged the whole thing. Or even in prison, they could have converted and said, “It wasn’t me! you have the wrong guy I’m Pagan/Jewish!” and have a small chance of getting out and surviving. Tradition (and, see above, possibly archeology) points to Peter even going as far as converting his jailmates and guards while in jail, before being tortured and crucified upside-down at his request for believing.

I have. Not any more convincing than any other tale of the supernatural I’ve ever heard.

I am also presuming you studied the arguments on both sides for their authenticity (and fakeness, if that’s a word), as with the Shroud of Turin, the many, many Eucharistic Miracles, the pieces of the True Cross, the Holy Lance, the Levitation of Saints, Thorns and Branches from the Crown of Thorns and their associated miracles, and healings that occurred from praying to saints. If not, I can point you to some good resources for most of them (I remember doing a 7th grade research project on the authenticity of the Shroud and independently studying a few others)

You don’t have to beleive tradition. But don’t dismiss it all as fake or assumptions, that makes you no wiser than those who most atheists claim believe “blindly”.

 

[JohnDamian]

Yes, they did. They were dumb – but they were dumb, and they did the horrible things that they did, not because they didn’t believe in gods but because they were driven by particular dumb ideologies.

Absolutely right!

The lack of a belief in God had no positive causal effect upon their actions; it did not compel that they act in a particular way. Even if one could claim that they would not have committed those crimes if they had the positive influence of an interalized Catholic faith; one could equally claim that people with a strong Catholic faith like Francisco Franco behaved in abhorrent ways; wheras many Atheists such as Baruch Spinoza behaved in very moral terms; in fact as a result of their philosophical beliefs.

Thus; we can say that certain religious beliefs; such as Catholocism may; if fully internalized and truly understood cause an individual not to become a genocidal murderer; we can easily say the same of other faiths such as the Quakers; and even of Atheists, Humanists and so forth.

There is no causal compulsion elicited in the belief in a particular faith. Even if there is causal compulsion elicited in the strict following of that faith - there is equal (or at least significant) ethical compulsion elicited by strict following of other faiths, worldviews and ideologies.

 

[AntiTheist]

However, it is likely Luke was written by Luke (or another of Paul’s Disciples) because of the way he uses “we” in the sequel to Luke - Acts.

You are making judgments about who wrote a text by the pronouns the author uses?

Roman Writings points to the fact that Peter and the first few of his successors were martyred.

Which writings? How is it phrased? I

Also, [the apostles] probably knew they would be hunted down, imprisoned and killed for believing (Jesus actually said so) and preaching. They could have converted before their arrest and dodged the whole thing.

Well, assuming that they actually existed and aren’t just characters made up by tradition, then they were true believers. Of course they wanted to “spread the good word.” That doesn’t demonstrate that their beliefs were correct.

Or even in prison, they could have converted and said, “It wasn’t me! you have the wrong guy I’m Pagan/Jewish!” and have a small chance of getting out and surviving.

There are several things there (again, assuming that they were real and not just made up characters):

1. They might have tried all sorts of methods to escape that were never reported and are lost to time.
2. They might have known that they would be executed regardless of whether or not they recanted.
3. They might have thought that glorious martyrdom would make them famous in their little communities, where they would become folk heroes.

It’s not hard to see why someone would be willing to become a martyr.

You don’t have to beleive tradition. But don’t dismiss it all as fake or assumptions

I’m not dismissing it. I simply see no reason to accept it as valid.

Think of it this way: would you accept the tradition of the Church of Scientology regarding the deeds of L. Ron Hubbard, if that tradition were 1) somewhat incredible-sounding and 2) not supported by any other evidence?

 

[colmcille1]

I would agree that those individuals were dumb.

I would be seriously worried if you didn’t. ALL were maniacal.

That they were atheists is a fact, except for Hitler, who did profess to believe in the Christian god.

The only evidence for this is his official endorsement of the Passion Play at Oberramergau. This, btw, is an ongoing source of controversy because he was interested in any anti-Semitic angle the play’s producer would take. Other than that this madman sent countless Catholics to the gas chambers. I suggest you read the harrowing yet ultimately inspiring life of Saint Maximilian Kolbe.
That they were “upstanding” is – for most definitions of “upstanding,” anyway – completely incorrect.

You obviously possess no sense of humour, sir! (The tone was sarcastic.)

Yes, they did. They were dumb – but they were dumb, and they did the horrible things that they did, not because they didn’t believe in gods but because they were driven by particular dumb ideologies.

Are you really trying to suggest that they actively crushed religious and adherents not because they didn’t believe in God? Are you for real?
Action is the result of beliefs, not non-beliefs. Stalin committed his actions not because he didn’t believe in gods, but because he did believe in an ideology that drove him to these deeds.

Wrong. Stalin was an atheist par excellence (as if such a mild epithet could convey this scum’s reality).
You really need to take some time to analyze your ideas before you post them in a public forum.

Oh, I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that this is YOUR forum and you can thereby dictate to others about the right approach!
Nah, my “ideas” are fine. Its your sad lack of learning that’s the problem.
God Bless, lost sheep,
Colmcille1.

 

[AntiTheist]

The only evidence for [Hitler being Christian] is his official endorsement of the Passion Play at Oberramergau.

Well, that and his claiming to be a Christian in Mein Kampf and making various supernatural claims (including believing in a literal force called “destiny”) at multiple points in his life. There is also the fact that he never changed the German soldiers’ belt buckle, which read “Gott Mit Uns” (God With Us).

Anyway, that’s really neither here nor there.

Are you really trying to suggest that they actively crushed religious and adherents not because they didn’t believe in God?

That is exactly what I’m saying – they actively crushed religious and adherents because they subscribed to an ideological belief that “religions are bad and should be crushed.”

Atheism is not the belief that religions are bad and should be crushed. It’s just a lack of belief in gods. I’m an atheist, and I don’t believe that religions should be crushed. The vast, vast, vast majority of atheists in the Western world today don’t believe that religions should be crushed.

Now, the ideology that religions are bad and should be crushed is consistent with atheism, but it’s not derived from atheism. You need to be very careful in distinguishing these, and the fact is that you’re being very sloppy in your thinking here.

 

[colmcille1]

Well, that and his claiming to be a Christian in Mein Kampf and making various supernatural claims (including believing in a literal force called “destiny”) at multiple points in his life. There is also the fact that he never changed the German soldiers’ belt buckle, which read “Gott Mit Uns” (God With Us).

Anyway, that’s really neither here nor there.

That is exactly what I’m saying – they actively crushed religious and adherents because they subscribed to an ideological belief that “religions are bad and should be crushed.”

Atheism is not the belief that religions are bad and should be crushed. It’s just a lack of belief in gods. I’m an atheist, and I don’t believe that religions should be crushed. The vast, vast, vast majority of atheists in the Western world today don’t believe that religions should be crushed.

Now, the ideology that religions are bad and should be crushed is consistent with atheism, but it’s not derived from atheism. You need to be very careful in distinguishing these, and the fact is that you’re being very sloppy in your thinking here.

Here’s what I’ll do for you. I’m going to suggest just ONE book to kickstart your enlightenment. There’s no particular reason for this book other than the fact that it’s a slim volume and you should have it finished in a couple of days (maybe an evening!)
It’s called ‘Runaway World’ by Michael Green. It’s very plainly written and I’m sure you’ll be moved one way or the other to speak about it. Is that ok? It’s just that I can’t proceed in a debate where my “opponent” is at a clear disadvantage.And, just to even things up, feel free to cite some work from your camp (providing it’s a slim volume, easily accessible!).
Then, after perusing, we can resume. What say you?
God Bless, lost sheep,
Colmcille1.

 

[Pieman333272]

AntiTheist - We know, at least, many disciples and friends of Jesus were real. We found St. Peter’s tomb and a jail where he was kept through archeology. We also have relics of Andrew the Apostle, John the Baptist, and Thomas the Apostle found through archeology and excavation of ancient churches and monasteries. There may be relics for other Apostles, but these are the ones I know have relics in the RCC. I can offer you some resources on these, as with the miracles and relics mentioned in my other post.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
They have been ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since the first century.

It strikes me that if the Gospels are true that anyone who was a witness would become part of the church. But you dismiss anything from the Church as unreliable, hence you eliminate all potential witnesses from consideration. Hardly an enlightened approach. And what do you mean that all honest scholars admit they don’t know who wrote down the stories. Are you stating that any realiable person would state that the Gospel of Luke emaniated from anyone other than Paul’s companion, the doctor Luke or that the Gospel of John was the work of someone other than the Apostle John. If so, what would be their rationale for this point of view. How would they know better than a universal tradition that can be tracted down to the first century.

Quote:
Why would they be held so early if they were simply fantasies

so now you are dismissing a 2000 year old religion with over 1B adherants of being a cult. How would a cult have survived 300 years of vigorous persecution and grown to encompass 25% of the entire Roman population by the time of the edict of Milan.

Quote:
Secondly, we know that the early Christians were persecuted heavily by Jews and Gentiles alike for 300 years. All of the original apostles were martyred for their faith. Why would they accept that for a lie.

Again, you dismiss chruch witnesses out of pocket as being unreliable. Do you deny that the Roman’s persecuted the Christians? There are plenty of secular records to support that, going all the way back to the first century.

Quote:
Have you read about Lourdes and Fatima. How about Padre Pio?

That’s a relatively week argument. How many tales of the supernatural have you seen with a panel of independent doctors verifying the miracles like they do at Lourdes?

Your positions strike me as being lazy scholarship. You simply deny any proof of divinity as unreliable without investigating it on the grounds that you don’t believe in anything other than what you can experience first hand through your own senses.

 

[ddarko]

What makes you think that there is an objective purpose? What makes such objective purpose necessary?

Oh I am not here to debate whether there is an objective purpose. I am just saying in your position there are no objective purposes. Only made up ones. So stop pushing your subjective stuff on to me

Of course not. The fact that it’s actually dumb is what makes it dumb.

But what is dumb? Is it anything that doesn’t match your view or that you can’t logically comprehend? Is it what the majority will call DUMB? Are you on the verge of committing the naturalistic fallacy ?

I’m not claiming that being dumb is “objectively bad.” I’m just saying that I don’t like it when people are dumb, and I think that overall, dumb people generally cause effects in society that the vast majority of us don’t like.

I could cite all kinds of examples of people accepting claims without properly using evidence to evaluate them, with disastrous consequences, both for themselves and others around them.

So? Whats so bad about that? I am not asking if being DUMB causes effects or not. I am sure it has its effects. I am questioning your grounds to call an effect a good effect or a bad one. There really isn’t any ***evidence ***to show that one effect is bad and the other is good. So in this specific case, I fail to see any evidence from you that the effects of being dumb are OBJECTIVELY bad. The majority of the society not liking it doesn’t make anything GOOD or BAD. If you do believe that, then atheism is DUMB considering the amount of religious people on the planet. So if you don’t have evidence, then its just your own opinion and I don’t CARE!

For example, there have been cases where airplane pilots accepted the claim that their planes had sufficient fuel because they omitted the pre-takeoff step of inspecting the tanks. Accepting this claim on the basis of insufficient evidence had disastrous consequences for everyone on that flight.

So? How is this objectively bad? All you are telling me from this is that acting stupidly or without necessary precautions has effects (which at the time the Pilots never thought of so can’t really call them DUMB but lets do for your arguments sake). You don’t present any real evidencethat the effects are objectively bad. So unless you have evidence, you are only trying to convince me of your subjective view that YOU THINK ITS BAD. So come back with evidence or keep your opinions to yourself .

God Bless

 

[zdon011]

Well, that and his claiming to be a Christian in Mein Kampf and making various supernatural claims (including believing in a literal force called “destiny”) at multiple points in his life. There is also the fact that he never changed the German soldiers’ belt buckle, which read “Gott Mit Uns” (God With Us).

Hitler supported any elements of Christianity which he could co-opt into anti-semitism. The Oberammergau Passion has been criticized as leaning towards anti-semitism.

Yeah, Hitler never repudiated his Catholicism outright, but neither do most ‘cafeteria Catholics’. He himself said: ‘I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.’
Hitler was neither the first or last politician to ‘use’ religion when it suited him:
Cicero was an atheist, but that didn’t stop him from speculating on divine forces or holding office in the Roman civic religion.
Thomas Jefferson was agnostic (as your signature attests), but remained a nominal Anglican all his life.

 

[AntiTheist]

Then, after perusing, we can resume. What say you?

I say that you obviously don’t want to respond to my clearly well-thought out objection to your point.

Again: atheism, being a lack of a belief in gods, cannot logically be said to lead to any actions, let alone atrocities, because action has its root in beliefs, not non-beliefs.

This is trivially easy to demonstrate when we note that almost all the atheists in the Western world today do not subscribe to an ideology that believes that religion should be destroyed – and thus, there are no atheists running around trying to destroy religion.

“destroy” in the sense of literal political oppression of the kind found in regimes that operate under Stalin’s brand of ideology]

The thing that motivated Stalin to want to destroy religion was not the fact that he didn’t believe in god – because, again, that non-belief cannot logically lead to an action – but rather, the thing to motivated him to want to destroy religion was the fact that he subscribed to an ideology (i.e. Stalin’s brand of communism) that has as one of its tenets the idea that religion should be destroyed.

You don’t want to address what I’m saying, and it’s obvious why you don’t – because it completely and totally knocks your assumptions about atheists to pieces.

 

[AntiTheist]

So come back with evidence or keep your opinions to yourself

Ddarko, of course, thinks he’s being clever, but what he’s actually done is given me an excellent chance to discourse on the difference between fact claims and value claims.

There are two broad kinds of claims: facts and values. Fact claims are the ones that you can decide with evidence. For example, it’s a fact that objects fall on this planet at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. We can discover all kinds of evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, you can make fact claims out of your own observation of your emotional state (your claim “I feel happy” can be supported by your observation of your emotional state).

Different fact claims require different kinds of evidence. Claims about things outside of you, like, “There is a vast conspiracy against me,” of course, can’t be supported merely by an observation of your emotionally paranoid state. You’d need to obtain different kinds of evidence to support it. Similarly, the claim, “There is a disembodied intelligence who intervenes in nature” cannot be supported by an observation of the warm fuzzy feelings you get when you say your prayers.

Now, value claims, on the other hand, are not facts. It’s a fact that there is a bowl of spinach in front of me, but my claim that “Spinach tastes gross!” isn’t a fact. It’s a judgment I’m making about facts, and it is thus a value claim.

Donnie’s error here is a category error: he thinks that someone who insists on supporting his fact claims with evidence is somehow running into some kind of contradiction when he makes value judgments. Donnie is wrong here, as usual.

I can’t produce evidence of my value judgment that the Mona Lisa is beautiful or that your favorite TV show is ridiculous tripe. Those are value judgments. I’m not making claims about the world that we can investigate: I’m declaring opinions about that world.

Similarly, a statement like, “People should use evidence-based inquiry when it comes to fact claims” is a value.

Where do values come from? Some of them come from reason and tradition (stuff that people have reasoned out in the past), and other values come from our natural programming and our internalization of society’s mores, and some probably come from other sources we don’t know of yet.

Now, I can point out that evidence-based inquiry aids us in surviving, and that the vast, vast, vast majority of all people want to survive, but as donnie is nicely demonstrating in his impression of a ridiculous three year-old, you can play the “why?” game indefinitely: “Why do you value that? Why do you value that? Can’t you give me any evidence why you value that?? I want my mom!!!”

Our desire to survive (i.e. “survivng is good”) is a value naturally programmed into us by evolution. Humans have come up with methods of helping themselves survive, and the best method to do so is evidence-based inquiry.

The value that humans place on survival and the various tools that aid it are so ubiquitous that we can take it as a given in all conversations, thus making it something of a rather different species than the “subjective opinion” that our poor little darko is clumsily trying to pawn it off as.

I’m off – sleep well, my poor lost little Christian sheep. One day you will see the light of reason! [No, I’m not being a jerk – I’m just taking a page from Colmcille’s book]

 

[colmcille1]

I say that you obviously don’t want to respond to my clearly well-thought out objection to your point.

You are free to say anything you like, sir! (within the forum rules, of course), and still remain deaf to others arguments.

Again: atheism, being a lack of a belief in gods, cannot logically be said to lead to any actions, let alone atrocities, because action has its root in beliefs, not non-beliefs.
This is trivially easy to demonstrate when we note that almost all the atheists in the Western world today do not subscribe to an ideology that believes that religion should be destroyed – and thus, there are no atheists running around trying to destroy religion.

Of course it’s “trivially easy”! Thank God even atheists have learned that their one-time pin-up boys (Hitler et al) were WRONG. Their actions, grounded FIRMLY in “non-beliefs” have shown us the inherent EVIL that is wrought on the world when atheistic ideology is acted upon. (You, if you call yourself a debater, ought to know the drill by now: read the books, dash your delusions etc etc.)

“destroy” in the sense of literal political oppression of the kind found in regimes that operate under Stalin’s brand of ideology]

The thing that motivated Stalin to want to destroy religion was not the fact that he didn’t believe in god – because, again, that non-belief cannot logically lead to an action – but rather, the thing to motivated him to want to destroy religion was the fact that he subscribed to an ideology (i.e. Stalin’s brand of communism) that has as one of its tenets the idea that religion should be destroyed.

See my reply above. Not only did Stalin not believe in GOD and murdered millions to show it, he wanted to put himself forward as a god. “Uncle Joe” was the the most evil avuncular figure to draw breath.

You don’t want to address what I’m saying, and it’s obvious why you don’t – because** it completely and totally knocks your assumptions about atheists to pieces./**QUOTE]

Careful now! Sounds like your terminology is taking on a veneer of militant atheism. And you’re against that of course…aren’t you?
God Bless, lost sheep,
Colmcille1.