Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

18990929495327

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. For someone who claims to be a historian you seem to have real difficuloty with understanding what it is written in front of your eyes.

    My one straightforward point (in response to himnextdoor) was that Christianity was pivotal to the development of so much of modern life. You appear to be trying to argue against some other position that neither myself nor anyone else here has taken - namely that Christianity came up with everything as original ideas.

    You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing if you had actually taken the time to read my post.

    Oh dear - is that really the best you can do?

    Is that what passes for debate and discussion in this particular forum?

    Anyone who demonstrates that your pontifications on European history have no basis in historical fact is treated to some thinly veiled insults, a few slight digs followed by some bizarre claim that they have proven your point.




    Your needlessly highlighted passage are an attempt to link educated people to the church - I believe I mentioned the monopoly Christianity had on education in Europe so of course scholars were educated in church controlled universities. There weren't any other kind - the church forbade it.

    Would you also claim that all Irish people are Catholics - or just the 99% who attended national schools under the control of the Catholic Church?

    Your assertion was that Christianity was responsible for the technological advances in Europe - your 'proof' of this is that every intellectual in Europe was apparently a Christian. Considering that prior to the Reformation every Christian in Europe was also a Catholic (or risked a visit from the Inquisition) shall we also try and say that all advances prior to 1521 were Catholic advances?

    If that was the case - makes you wonder why Luther (and Hus and Wycliffe and Calvin, and the Cathars, and the Anabaptists, and the Lollards etc etc ) had such a problem with Rome - patron of the arts and sponsor of technological advances as you claim it was.

    You have, I noticed, completely missed the point that advances such as the Renaissance occurred after information suppressed by the Christian authorities became available again in Europe. Including the Reformation.

    That these rediscovered ideas led to scientific experimentation and new political theories which undermined the domination of Christianity as the only game in town is ignored as it doesn't conform to your pseudo-history.

    Shall we ignore all other patronage apart from that of the Church?

    No Charles I and the Royal Societies? No mention of Sophia, Elector of Hanover, her daughter Sophia Charlotte Queen of Prussia and Caroline Queen of Britain as Von Libnitz's patrons? What about the de Medici? How about the role of the German princes in protecting Luther from Rome?

    Shall we mention that Hitler was a Catholic - he was educated at a Catholic School in Lambach, Austria?

    Himmler was a devout Catholic and the architect of the Holocaust.

    That Stalin was a member of the Orthodox Russian Church - he won a scholarship to a seminary in Georgia?

    Or do you want to cherry pick who you claim was a Christian and who wasn't?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,186 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    PDN wrote: »
    Perhaps because the Bible was written over a number of centuries, whereas Jesus only lived for 33 years or thereabouts?

    Its just that if the aim of Jesus coming on this earth was to spread the word of God, im wondering why he couldnt have created a book on how to live morally etc himself. Why did he only appear in the middle east also. I had a quick look on the internet but couldnt find a convincing answer on this one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Its just that if the aim of Jesus coming on this earth was to spread the word of God, im wondering why he couldnt have created a book on how to live morally etc himself. Why did he only appear in the middle east also. I had a quick look on the internet but couldnt find a convincing answer on this one.

    Because it a silly question, Jesus didn't come to spread the word of God. He came to redeem mankind and fulfill the prophesy.
    It's all internally consistent when you examine it, you might have to squint a bit I'll admit, but as a system it holds up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,186 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Because it a silly question, Jesus didn't come to spread the word of God. He came to redeem mankind and fulfill the prophesy.
    It's all internally consistent when you examine it, you might have to squint a bit I'll admit, but as a system it holds up.

    But surely the bible is seen as the word of God which uses the bibles writers as its principle communicators of the life and teachings of Jesus.

    How about the issue of him only appearing in the middle east? What not make global revelations / appearances?

    The idea of vicarious redemption doesnt make sense to many people. (Its not clear how or why a human sacrifice absolves all our sins, otherwise skepticism on this matter would not exist on the level that it does. Whats the process at work here?). The idea of it may absolve us of our sins but not our responsibility imo.

    If our souls are on the line for this stuff, there needs to be less ambiguity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Oh dear - is that really the best you can do?

    Is that what passes for debate and discussion in this particular forum?

    Anyone who demonstrates that your pontifications on European history have no basis in historical fact is treated to some thinly veiled insults, a few slight digs followed by some bizarre claim that they have proven your point.

    But you have demonstrated no such thing. Instead you have attacked a position that nobody, least of all myself, ever made.

    My position was that Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world. These institutions made possible the preservation and the rediscovery of insights from others, and for them to be developed and synthesised which resulted in great technological, philosophical and societal advances that have shaped the modern world as we know it (both for good and for evil).

    So you, thinking that in some bizarre fashion that you are "demonstrating that my pontifications have no basis in historical fact" proceed to list a series of events that involve people (most of whom were Christians) studying at universities founded by the church, in many cases carrying out research funded by the church, rediscovering manuscripts that were preserved either by monastries or by another religion which was an offshoot of Christianity, and even the transmission of knowledge by the Crusaders.

    And this aparently, in some strange parallel universe, demonstrates that Christianity had no role to play in any of this? Absolutely hilarious!
    Your needlessly highlighted passage are an attempt to link educated people to the church - I believe I mentioned the monopoly Christianity had on education in Europe so of course scholars were educated in church controlled universities. There weren't any other kind - the church forbade it.
    But the church only held a monopoly over a small portion of the earth's surface. What about all the rest of the world? Where were the great universities and scientists that have shaped our lives and the modern world that flourished in the rest of the world where Christianity couldn't be such a horrible hindrance to education and science?

    Surely, if the Church was such a hindrance, then the renaissence should have happened in the Congo rather than in Europe? Why do you cite Liebniz, Newton and Locke instead of the great philosophers and scientists in the Philippines that discovered Newtonian physics? How come the scientific method was refined by Bacon instead of by some Aztec guy?
    Shall we mention that Hitler was a Catholic - he was educated at a Catholic School in Lambach, Austria?

    Himmler was a devout Catholic and the architect of the Holocaust.

    That Stalin was a member of the Orthodox Russian Church - he won a scholarship to a seminary in Georgia?

    Or do you want to cherry pick who you claim was a Christian and who wasn't?

    Your vitriol appears to adversely affect your reading and comprehension skills. Where have I claimed that Christianity only helped good things to develop, or that professing and devout Christians only ever did good things?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Andrewf20;
    Its not clear how or why a human sacrifice absolves all our sins, otherwise skepticism on this matter would not exist on the level that it does. Whats the process at work here?
    Whats the process at work? Thats one of the big questions. Some go for atonement, http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ
    Others go with Christus Victor http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-jesus/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/
    Some claim its universal, some particular. Some use legalism and others sacramental ism.

    As to why the middle east and why 2012 years ago when New York at the time of Ed Sullivan would have been a better choice for global exposure? Back to the prophesy and the royal line of David and the distance between God and Man and loads of stuff that squares the circle if you want it to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Anyway, stimulating as I'm finding this conversation, I'll have to bow out now. I'm flying out to work on a project in a location where, for centuries and until very recently, they were free from the stultlfying repression and anti-intellectualism of Christianity. As a result I won't have access to electricity or the internet for the next couple of weeks. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Fair enough, apology accepted.

    Btw, you can use the same point for many bad things as well as good things. I could say (as I have on many occasions) that without Christianity there would be no Crusades, Inquisition, or 9/11. But then, if you and the chorus were consistent, you would argue that this only happened because Christianity borrowed ideas from other people. Or, of course, you could make the claim that these things would all have happened anyway, even if there had been no Christianity.

    The problem with counter-factual history is that it allows people's prejudices to dominate over reason or logic. So we get one-eyed reasoning that says:
    "Yeah, all the good things would have happened if there was no Christianity, but none of the bad things would have happened".

    No problem PDN- but you are still not reponding to my question as to that contribution By Christianity from the ancients to the Renaissance- which one could argue was the period when Europe was most under the control, influence, power, what ever word you like of a centralised church authority.

    A case can be made that in fact the Church was a restraining force on knowledge for a thousand years and Europe was no more or no less advanced than the Middle East China Japan and that it was the explosion of untrammelled curiosity unleashed by the break up of a monopolistic church that propelled West to the fore .

    That we got here in spite of the church not because of it.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    But you have demonstrated no such thing. Instead you have attacked a position that nobody, least of all myself, ever made.

    My position was that Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world. These institutions made possible the preservation and the rediscovery of insights from others, and for them to be developed and synthesised which resulted in great technological, philosophical and societal advances that have shaped the modern world as we know it (both for good and for evil).

    So you, thinking that in some bizarre fashion that you are "demonstrating that my pontifications have no basis in historical fact" proceed to list a series of events that involve people (most of whom were Christians) studying at universities founded by the church, in many cases carrying out research funded by the church, rediscovering manuscripts that were preserved either by monastries or by another religion which was an offshoot of Christianity, and even the transmission of knowledge by the Crusaders.

    And this aparently, in some strange parallel universe, demonstrates that Christianity had no role to play in any of this? Absolutely hilarious!


    But the church only held a monopoly over a small portion of the earth's surface. What about all the rest of the world? Where were the great universities and scientists that have shaped our lives and the modern world that flourished in the rest of the world where Christianity couldn't be such a horrible hindrance to education and science?

    Surely, if the Church was such a hindrance, then the renaissence should have happened in the Congo rather than in Europe? Why do you cite Liebniz, Newton and Locke instead of the great philosophers and scientists in the Philippines that discovered Newtonian physics? How come the scientific method was refined by Bacon instead of by some Aztec guy?



    Your vitriol appears to adversely affect your reading and comprehension skills. Where have I claimed that Christianity only helped good things to develop, or that professing and devout Christians only ever did good things?

    Ok so we are clear:
    My position was that Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world. These institutions made possible the preservation and the rediscovery of insights from others, and for them to be developed and synthesised which resulted in great technological, philosophical and societal advances that have shaped the modern world as we know it (both for good and for evil).

    Firstly - how could these institutions make 'possible the preservation and the rediscovery of insights from others' unless these insights already existed? Where did these insights that were 'rediscovered' come from exactly? Who were these others? Why had their insights been lost?

    Maybe these insights were the result of:

    History of Formal education :

    Middle East:

    Began in Mesopotamia when the sons of the wealthy and professional classes were sent to schools to learn to read and write. When the syllabic script was developed, literary and school attendance became widespread through the empire.

    In Babylonia most towns had free libraries. Girls and boys received formal education in scribal schools - among the troves of Babylonian artefacts still in existance are vocabularies, works on grammar and the oldest surviving work of literary fiction Epic of Gilgamesh (2150-2000 BCE).

    Ashurbanipal (685 – c. 627 BC), a king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire founded the library of Ninevah - the first systemically organised library in the Middle East which contained copies of scrolls from across Mesopotamia. Part of that collection still survive.

    In 64 AD it was decreed in Israel and Judah that all public schools be open in every town and hamlet and all children above the age of 6 were to attend. The community met the costs and the pupil-teacher ratio was set at a max of 25-1.

    India:

    From 1500 BCE to 600 BCE - the Vedic Period education was freely and widely available - subject included Medicine, grammar, verse, nature studies, logic, reasoning and composition.

    The Gurukul system of higher education consisted of residential schools of learning - this was free to any student with academic ability but those from wealthy families were expected to pay a contribution to subsidise the less well off. At the Gurukuls, the teacher imparted knowledge of Religion, Scriptures, Philosophy, Literature, Warfare, Statecraft, Medicine, Astrology and History.

    China:

    During the Zhou Dynasty (1045 BC to 256 BC), there were five national schools in the capital city, Pi Yong (an imperial school, located in a central location) and four other schools for the aristocrats and nobility, including Shang Xiang. The schools mainly taught the Six Arts: rites, music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy, and mathematics.

    During the Han Dynasty (206 BC- 221 AD), boys were thought ready at age seven to start learning basic skills in reading, writing and calculation.

    In 124 BC, the Emperor Wudi established the Imperial Academy, the curriculum of which was the Five Classics of Confucius. By the end of the Han Dynasty (220 AD) the Academy enrolled more than 30,000 students, boys between the ages of fourteen and seventeen years.

    During the Ch'in Dynasty (246-207 BCE) a formal exam process was instituted for candidates for civil service jobs -this later became the The Nine rank system - a civil service nomination system during the Three Kingdoms (220-280 AD) and the Southern and Northern Dynasties (420-589 AD) in China.The Nine Rank System was eventually superseded by the Imperial examination system for the civil service in the Sui Dynasty (581-618 AD)

    Greece and Rome:


    In the city-states of ancient Greece, most education was private, except in Sparta.

    In Athens, during the 5th and 4th century BC, aside from two years military training, the state played little part in schooling.Anyone could open a school and decide the curriculum. Parents could choose a school offering the subjects they wanted their children to learn, at a monthly fee they could afford. Most parents, even the poor, sent their sons to schools for at least a few years, and if they could afford it from around the age of seven until fourteen, learning gymnastics (including athletics, sport and wrestling), music (including poetry, drama and history) and literacy.

    By around 350 BC, it was common for children at schools in Athens to also study various arts such as drawing, painting, and sculpture. The richest students continued their education by studying with sophists, from whom they could learn subjects such as rhetoric, mathematics, geography, natural history, politics, and logic.

    Some of Athens' greatest schools of higher education included the Lyceum (the so-called Peripatetic school founded by Aristotle of Stageira) and the Platonic Academy (founded by Plato of Athens). The education system of the wealthy ancient Greeks is also called Paideia. In the subsequent Roman empire, Greek was the primary language of science. Advanced scientific research and teaching was mainly carried on in the Hellenistic side of the Roman empire, in Greek.

    The first schools in Ancient Rome arose by the middle of the 4th century BC. These schools were concerned with the basic socialization and rudimentary education of young Roman children.

    At the height of the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire, the Roman educational system gradually found its final form. Formal schools were established, which served paying students .
    Normally, both boys and girls were educated, though not necessarily together.
    In a system much like the one that predominates in the modern world, the Roman education system that developed arranged schools in tiers : A Roman student would progress through schools just as a student today might go from elementary school to middle school, then to high school, and finally college.


    So - we have schools - both publicly funded and private fee paying. Systems of higher education - including what we would recognise was primary, secondary and third level - all in existence, in different parts of the world, prior to the year 0...

    Now you stated that 'Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world.'

    It has been demonstrated that educational institutions pre-date Christianity by thousands of years in some cases, and existed in regions as diverse as China and Babylonia, India and Rome. Before Jesus was even born there were free schools in Israel and Judah. Third level education in India, China and Rome. Libraries were in existence across the world.

    The Chinese education system was so advanced that it had a standardised, empire wide, compulsory civil service exam 200 years before the birth of Jesus.

    Christianity didn't get into the education game in a formal way until the 6th century AD... and then it adopted the methodology of the ancient Pagan Romans - who had borrowed it from the Greeks who had been heavily influenced by the Persians


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I suspect that PDN's response would be something along the lines of "very good, but what has any of that got to do with my position?". If he were to make such a statement then I would have to agree with him. I can't see the relevance of your rather long post to what he said.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    p.s. - thanks for the summary but it is good to cite your sources, especially if you are reproducing their content in bulk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    I suspect that PDN's response would be something along the lines of "very good, but what has any of that got to do with my position?". If he were to make such a statement then I would have to agree with him. I can't see the relevance of your rather long post to what he said.

    I think the relevance is that some us understood or misunderstood what PDN was claiming in the name of Christianity.

    In short he was claiming that christianity was responsible for either directly or through its institutions in bringing about or facilitating the modern world as we know it. PDN said that was incorrect

    As the argument progressed the word pivotal was introduced. Now rather than constantly telling us we were interpreting his posts incorrectly why not just restate his position in a clearer manner and possibly answer some of the questions put to him ?

    Instead, using the old cliche, he opted to play the man and not the ball every time.

    May I ask Fanny Craddock what do you think his position is ?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I suspect that PDN's response would be something along the lines of "very good, but what has any of that got to do with my position?". If he were to make such a statement then I would have to agree with him. I can't see the relevance of your rather long post to what he said.

    Which is why I clearly quoted the part of his argument I was directly responding to -
    'My position was that Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world.
    by demonstrating that this is a factually incorrect statement. His position is wrong.

    All of this can be found in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education#History_of_Formal_education_in_ancient_civilizations-
    and while I would not normally link to this I have checked the footnotes provided in the article and as someone who has lectured for many years on the history of education in an Irish university the sources linked are academically valid. I also doubt most posters here would have access to the academic sites I would normally use.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »
    muppeteer: Because it simply isn't true as far as I'm concerned and as far as all who are Christians think. If it weren't true, more than likely I wouldn't have been able to see Christianity as true.

    The hubris... my god.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    muppeteer wrote: »
    Indicatory evidence is useless unless it can be used to distinguish between competing theories. Your indicatory evidence, to continue your analogy, is only circumstantial evidence. Your theory may fit certain evidence but any other theory can be created as to fit the evidence after the fact. What you need is a unique identifier to suggest your god and not some other cause.
    This would be akin to matching a fingerprint to your God. But what you are doing is observing a fingerprint and suggesting that your God is the only thing that has fingers. This is just untrue.

    Indicatory evidence is valuable in any respect. There are plenty of unique things about Christianity, which will inevitably set it apart from other faiths. I don't need to go around refuting every single belief system. If I find that there is evidence to back Christianity up, and the more and more that Christianity and the Biblical record are attested to in reality, the more and more confident I can be in believing it.

    However, atheism is a different kettle of fish. In order for atheism to be demonstrated to be true, every single other position on God must be wrong, and there should be good reason for this. Atheists in the past have presented positive arguments as to God's existence, and in my opinion they can be reasonably expected to again. An example would be the Problem of Evil a commonly put positive atheist argument as to why they believe that God's existence is less likely than not. I respect that argument far more and find it more valuable precisely because it is a demonstration of why people regard atheism to be an accurate position in reality.

    It's really a new-atheist position that atheists shouldn't argue positively for their position. I believe it to be mistaken.

    Christianity clearly matches up with the world around me. Like anyone else this is my criteria for discerning what is true from what is false. Atheism, doesn't match up with reality as far as I'm concerned, and there are quite a few Christian arguments against the atheist position some of which I've provided in more lengths than in the post that I made quickly going through them. I consciously decided to follow Jesus in 2007, that's when I started posting about Christianity by and large. My posts before that, aren't the most Christian if I'm being honest with you.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    The reasons you put forward in this post are weak to say the least.

    Let's look at them.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    The "evidence" based on observing ethics behaving as the bible describes is no evidence at all. Any author that lives in a human society could observe how people view ethics and morals. There is nothing to stop a perfectly non divine person from writing down a set of moral guidelines and principles, plenty of Greeks did so that still have relevance today.

    Ethical behaviour simply put, is not relative. Nobody would claim that if I went fieldshooting on a Sunday morning in a busy pedestrian street that that would be an acceptable means of recreation. If people are wronged, they generally rebuke the other. People don't believe by and large that morality is a human made construct. They believe that there is an objective standard between other humans, they appeal to that standard when they claim that other people should know better.

    The entire principle of universal human rights is also built on the concept of an objective standard. Some examples would be the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson wrote:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Human rights are undeniable precisely because they are not ours to give, and not ours to take away. There is an objective moral law that humans generally attempt to adhere to, humans fail to do this many times, but none the less when ethical issues arise, humans go for objective standards, they do not pfaff around with moral relativity. An objective moral law, has a law giver, much as other conventions have a law giver.

    Subjective morality is rarely if ever demonstrated.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    The archaeological "evidence" is again a non starter as all it suggests is that the biblical authors mixed truth with myth and fable. The mention of Paris in a Dan Brown novel does not give credence to his fiction just because Paris exists.
    Even if the exodus from the dessert were backed up(which it isn't in the slightest) it still does not suggest anything divine. Prophecy has been shown to be unreliable when events are interpreted to fit an existing narrative. For example nostradamus and his "hister" prophecy are examples you'll surely agree are no evidence of supernatural powers.

    Again. Firstly, archaeology does matter. You're making the mistake that each of these arguments on their own should be absolute proof of God's existence. That's false. In the same way that finding an item of someone elses clothing beside a murdered body does not demonstrate absolutely that that other person killed the person.

    What I am suggesting is that the more and more we find that demonstrates the Bible is true, the more and more reason that I have to believe and trust in His Word. That's simple. As for Biblical prophesy. It's not unreliable in the case of Jesus when we have clear mentions of His birth, death, ministry, and His resurrection written 600 years before his death. They can be clearly cited and demonstrated. These prophesies go right down to His death on the cross (Psalm 22), to that He would be buried in a rich mans tomb (Isaiah 53:9). There are literally hundreds of these and they deserve consideration rather than being fobbed off, I could go on, but I want to address the rest of your post. When documents that precede Jesus by 600 years back up the Gospel accounts of His life, that gives them more credence.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    As for the resurrection being supported by the early church members risking death to say it was true? Again this does not support a divine creator.
    The fact that people can be led astray and believe in ridiculous things has been observed countless times. We have seen it in more recent history even with the benefit of newspapers reporting on the creation of wacky beliefs (Mormons) and even more recently Scientology.
    The fact that society has moved on from more superstitious times has done nothing to dull our credulity of charismatic figures.
    These cult figures can even lead there followers to certain death (Jim Jones) let alone possible persecution and death at the hands of Romans.

    Well. Let's look at it, on the basis of my previous 2009 post because I don't believe this was addressed. I had Jim Jones mentioned, I've had Joseph Smith mentioned. These situations differ to the Resurrection clearly. That's why the Resurrection should be considered in its own right on its own circumstances. Most of the comparisons I had discussed on the A&A forum before, simply differed fundamentally to the situation that the Gospel presented. Secondly, I have zero interest in discussing anything else, I want to discuss Jesus.

    So let's have it:
    2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
    Let's go through this bit by bit:
    a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
    b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
    c. You see this man die.
    x. -
    d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
    e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
    Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
    If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
    Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
    There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.

    Firstly, the idea that one person would be deluded about someone that they were with for 3 years is fair enough. It's possible that one person could be. When we go up the scale in terms of numbers, this becomes less and less likely when we consider the 11 disciples as a whole. Indeed, it becomes even less likely when we consider 500 witnesses as Paul mentions. He mentions even that they were still alive and that believers could go to Jerusalem to see them. The delusion argument is limited in its scope. It is extremely unlikely to presume that all were of an unsound mental state, and it is extremely unlikely that up to 500 people would make the same mistake in identifying a man even if for a moment we thought that all 11 disciples were deluded.

    Secondly, the idea that the Apostles made up the New Testament as fiction is laughable also given how silly the disciples are presented in it. Indeed, as I've already mentioned placing women as the first witnesses to the Resurrection would have been a very humbling revelation in Jewish, Greek and Roman societies which were inherently misogynistic. If you read the beginning of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for example you'll see exactly how Greek society was.

    Thirdly, think about it. You realise that Jesus died, and that was it. There is no benefit in risking your life to tell people that He has been resurrected for the dead and that all can be saved through His name. Motivating one person to risk their lives for nothing is difficult enough. Motivating 500+ people to do the same is considerably more difficult. You would think that returning to Galilee to fish would be the more logical option.

    It is more likely that a certain event occurred in place of X. There must have been a catalyst for this spread of the Gospel to have even occured.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    The rest of your "evidence" is appeals to the content of the Bible itself. Which is akin to asking a Scientologist why Scientology is true and having them rely only on the works of L Ron Hubbard. I'm sure that they would also say that they are consistent with the world around them and provide a framework with which to view the world and the truth.
    If you can see why you reject Scientology and other religions and apply the same to Christianity you will see an undeniable pattern. That an internally consistent narrative (the Bible, the Koran, whatever Jim Jones and Hubbard espoused) is not difficult to invent.

    Let me why I say this is nonsense. What I'm doing is looking to the Bible, and seeing how it is evident in the world around us, and how history and archaeology can help us in determining its truth. That's a rather good approach to deal with any text in terms of seeing its truth or falsity. I don't see why you consider that approach to be lacking, and I don't know how else you expect me to argue for the Bible if I can't look to the Bible and say, I see X, Y and Z in the world.

    Having reasons like these, are a heck of a lot better than the "nothing" that you claim that Christians have to support their faith. That's as far as I can tell a lie, because there are countless reasons as to why one would believe in Christianity in the 21st century.

    This is one of what you might call one of the positive indicators of atheism. The fact that humans can invent and follow until death a supernatural belief system. Each supernatural system is unique in its detail but the overarching supernatural elements have consistently been debunked over history. What makes your supernatural system any different?
    muppeteer wrote: »
    Also what makes you and the early Jews and Christians immune to things like hyperactive agency detection such that you can discern reality from imagined gods? (Another positive indicator of atheism, although a lack of evidence is justification enough, but since you asked:))
    Do you have some new science to help you avoid this pitfall that the rest of us are unaware of? You keep using the term evidence but as far as I can see you have presented none.

    As opposed to the hyperactive there is no rhyme, ultimate cause, or ultimate reason to the world.
    As opposed to the idea that the universe created itself, or indeed postulating a multiverse just to explain this one.

    There's quite a number of flaws to an atheistic view of the world, on a social level, and on a level of it simply not being evident in the world around us.

    Apologies for the delay, let's see if this can get something started.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    All of this can be found in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education#History_of_Formal_education_in_ancient_civilizations-
    and while I would not normally link to this I have checked the footnotes provided in the article and as someone who has lectured for many years on the history of education in an Irish university the sources linked are academically valid. I also doubt most posters here would have access to the academic sites I would normally use.

    Yes, I know where it can be found. I linked to it first, remember?

    OK, so you checked the footnotes - all 64 of them, I gather. Fine. But I still don't understand what the history of education according to a wikipedia article has got to do with PDN's point? As afar as I can see he didn't claim that formal education began with Christianity. Rather, he talked about the development of institutions. But perhaps I am missing something?
    marienbad wrote: »
    May I ask Fanny Craddock what do you think his position is ?
    No. You may not ask :P
    marienbad wrote: »
    Instead, using the old cliche, he opted to play the man and not the ball every time.

    To my mind he did play the ball and perhaps he played the man after that. But that is all part of the sport, no?

    In answer to your question above, I take my understanding of PDN's point straight from the horse's mouth. He said that "Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world". It might be a certain bet that you will disagree with this, but I don't see why there remains any confusion. Nor for that matter do I see why there is a need to cite large proportions of wikipedia or bring Hitler, Stalin or Himmler into this.

    To reiterate, the point being made -- at lest as far as I can see -- is not that Christians don't do bad things or that Christian institutions have not stood in the way of what we now consider to be progress. It's that Christianity (with all that this word entails) shaped Europe in such a way that made certain things we now take for granted a reality - the same things we didn't see develop in other parts of the world.

    It's interesting that an atheist like Alain de Botton can happily admit that something like the Welfare State arose because, and not in spite, of Christianity. On the other hand, you seem to think that we got here against the best efforts of Christianity.

    What you you think is the primary achievement (and by this I speaking terms of positive impact) that Christianity has had on mankind and why?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    It's really a new-atheist position that atheists shouldn't argue positively for their position. I believe it to be mistaken.
    You keep claiming this but you have been unable to demonstrate it is even possible.

    I asked you to present positive evidence to support your lack of a belief in some examples. You failed to provide this evidence.

    Can you please do so before you continue to repeat the above claim?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    However, atheism is a different kettle of fish. In order for atheism to be demonstrated to be true, every single other position on God must be wrong, and there should be good reason for this.

    Where the hell did you get that idea?

    Atheism is not "demonstrated true". Theists beliefs are demonstrated false, and by rejecting them you are an atheist.

    An atheist is someone who has rejected all theists beliefs they have heard of, not all that have ever existed. Some guy in a cave in Australia 5 thousand years ago comes up with a notion of a god that no one else ever knows about I do not have to a) find out about that and b) reject it to call myself an atheist.
    philologos wrote: »
    It's really a new-atheist position that atheists shouldn't argue positively for their position. I believe it to be mistaken.

    They have been. You are simply ignoring them. That is your right to do so if you so wish, but it is disingenuous to state that atheists have not been arguing for atheism (which is really arguing for the rejection of theist claims).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You know it's possible, and I know it's possible too. This man gave it a good go, as did this guy. This is an example of a positive argument for atheism. The problem of evil isn't an a negative argument, because it says, given the way the world is, it's reasonable to think that God exists. It's also a heck of a lot better than any most arguments that any new-atheist will present largely for this reason. I don't believe the problem of evil is sound, but I can certainly see how someone could see it that way. The "no evidence" / "no reason" argument is however, absurd from my POV.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    You know it's possible, and I know it's possible too. This man gave it a good go, as did this guy. This is an example of a positive argument for atheism.
    First and foremost you did not answer the question I asked.
    I specifically asked you to provide the exact positive arguments you have to support your lack of belief in fairies and Russell's teapot. This would serve to provide proof that such positive evidence can be provided for a lack of belief and would show examples of what exactly you are looking for.
    You have not provided the same thing you are looking for.

    Second the Problem of Evil is not a positive argument for Atheism, it's a negative argument against theism. It is addressing and pointing out a flaw in the concept of theism. (And as an aside it cannot be an argument for atheism as it does not counter concepts like the Greek Gods or just an out and out evil one.)
    It is not the independent positive evidence you said you are looking for.
    philologos wrote: »
    The "no evidence" / "no reason" argument is however, absurd from my POV.
    It's absurd because it's a strawman and a shift in your goalposts.
    No one is arguing that there is "no reason" to be atheist. We are just pointing out that there cannot be positive evidence for it since it's a negative position.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: A positive argument (proposing atheism). Not a negative argument (disagreement with other positions).

    King Mob: You claim that making a positive argument for atheism isn't possible. I've shown you that it is. What's the issue with that?
    The problem of evil is a positive argument insofar as it is saying given the way the world is here, it doesn't seem likely that God exists. It doesn't bother itself with whether or not Chrisitanity is wrong, or whether or not Judaism is wrong or so on.

    Positive argument - demonstrates that a conclusion is true. (The world is the way it is, therefore there is no God). Positive arguments for atheism as far as I can tell, work on attempting to demonstrate that there is no God.
    Negative argument - undermines an opposing conclusion (Christianity claims X, it is wrong for Y, or Z reason). Negative arguments for atheism, essentially are about claiming that other faiths are wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    You know it's possible, and I know it's possible too. This man gave it a good go, as did this guy. This is an example of a positive argument for atheism. The problem of evil isn't an a negative argument, because it says, given the way the world is, it's reasonable to think that God exists.

    The problem of evil is not an argument for atheism. It is an argument against a benevolent deity. Anyone who believes in an evil deity will have no issue with the problem of evil nor will they be an atheist.
    philologos wrote: »
    The "no evidence" / "no reason" argument is however, absurd from my POV.

    That is because you some how look at the world around and some how say it is evidence for the accuracy of the claims of your religion. Not unsurprisingly you get a bit fuzzy about the details of this.

    For example, do you believe that all human languages originated when God threw the men building the tower of Babel to the four corners of the Earth?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: A positive argument (proposing atheism). Not a negative argument (disagreement with other positions).

    Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. A rejection is by definition a negative argument, it is a reason for not believing something.

    You know that perfectly well, you seem simply to want to frame the conversation in such a way that you can walk away from it without having to engage in any proper discussion.

    Are you seriously that threatened by atheism?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'm not threatened by atheism. I just find negative arguments for atheism to be fundamentally less convincing than positive ones. As I've said before, even if for arguments sake Christianity is false, you've not shown atheism to be true.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not threatened by atheism. I just find negative arguments for atheism to be fundamentally less convincing than positive ones. As I've said before, even if Christianity is false, you've not shown atheism to be true.

    Then I would suggest that you have no idea what atheism actually is, since there is no such thing as a positive argument for atheism. You are an atheist if you find convincing reasons not to be a theist. Again by definition those will be negative arguments (as you define that)

    Since we both know you know this I'm going to go back to the threatened by atheism theory. Your posts in recent months have got a lot more fire and brime stone in them, and a lot less openness to rational argument and discussion. I've lost track of the amount of times in the last few months you have gone off topic simply to tell me I need to accept Jesus.

    In my experience this is a process theists go through when they are attempting to batten down the hatches so to speak against external arguments and threats to their faith. You certainly seem to have zero interest here in having a proper discussion about reasons to think Christianity is not true.

    Cognitive dissonance ain't just a river in Egypt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I have plenty an idea of what it is. It's the rejection of belief in God, but there is no reason why one can't have positive reasons for doing this and people do have positive reasons.

    The "no evidence" nonsense is fundamentally unconvincing to me as a Christian, and I don't see how any argument concerning the God question can progress unless atheists are willing to make positive arguments for their position - I.E as to why God's existence is improbable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    I have plenty an idea of what it is. It's the rejection of belief in God, but there is no reason why one can't have positive reasons for doing this and people do have positive reasons.

    Not in the way you are defining positive arguments. All arguments for atheism will be arguments claiming that the claims of other faiths are wrong or unsupported by evidence. That is what atheism is, the rejection of the claims of theism.
    philologos wrote: »
    The "no evidence" nonsense is fundamentally unconvincing to me as a Christian, and I don't see how any argument concerning the God question can progress unless atheists are willing to make positive arguments for their position - I.E as to why God's existence is improbable.

    Why would you have to demonstrate God's existence is improbable to be an atheist?

    Again you are attempting to frame the discussion in a way that you know will be difficult to an atheist to support.

    Again I can only conclude you are doing this because you are threatened by the actual reasons most people are atheists, because you know it is much harder to justify your continued faith with these reasons.

    You want to limit the discussion to areas where you can say Oh well no one really knows so I'm going to continue to be a Christian and that is perfectly reasonable and no one can say it isn't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You don't have to, I just think it is a heck of a lot more convincing than simply trying to rubbish Christianity - which does nothing to advance your position ultimately on a logical level. As I've said multiple times, demonstrating that Christianity is false, doesn't demonstrate that atheism is true. It's largely for that reason that I think positive arguments for atheism are better than negative ones. Negative ones are largely dependant on a particular faith or a subset of them rather than faith as a whole. Many atheist arguments on boards.ie don't even cover Christianity.

    No threat, just honestly an attempt to bring this discussion to a better place for both parties. The new-atheist screaming of "no evidence" just comes across as denial as far as I'm concerned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: You claim that making a positive argument for atheism isn't possible. I've shown you that it is. What's the issue with that?
    Because you haven't shown it to be possible.
    You just said it has been then refuse to actually point to any.
    Then when I ask you to provide examples for things you lack a belief it, you ignore the question.

    So why haven't you been able to provide the positive arguments for afairyism or ateapotism?
    Please stop pretending this point does not exist.
    philologos wrote: »
    The problem of evil is a positive argument insofar as it is saying given the way the world is here, it doesn't seem likely that God exists. It doesn't bother itself with whether or not Chrisitanity is wrong, or whether or not Judaism is wrong or so on.

    Positive argument - demonstrates that a conclusion is true. (The world is the way it is, therefore there is no God). Positive arguments for atheism as far as I can tell, work on attempting to demonstrate that there is no God.
    Negative argument - undermines an opposing conclusion (Christianity claims X, it is wrong for Y, or Z reason). Negative arguments for atheism, essentially are about claiming that other faiths are wrong.
    By your own definition the problem of evil is a negative argument.
    It is pointing out a contradiction in being in a certain type of God.
    It is pointing out how certain faiths are wrong.
    The "no evidence" nonsense is fundamentally unconvincing to me as a Christian, and I don't see how any argument concerning the God question can progress unless atheists are willing to make positive arguments for their position - I.E as to why God's existence is improbable.
    You're kidding right?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    You don't have to, I just think it is a heck of a lot more convincing than simply trying to rubbish Christianity - which does nothing to advance your position ultimately on a logical level.

    My position is that Christianity is a made up religion. How does rubbishing the claims of Christianity not advance my position on a logical level?
    philologos wrote: »
    As I've said multiple times, demonstrating that Christianity is false, doesn't demonstrate that atheism is true.

    Atheism is not demonstrated true. Theism is demonstrated false, then you are an atheist. Atheism cannot exist without theistic claims to reject.

    Christianity is a theistic religion. You don't have to start there but since it is the most popular one in Ireland it seems logical.
    philologos wrote: »
    It's largely for that reason that I think positive arguments for atheism are better than negative ones.

    There is no such thing as a positive argument for atheism. There are arguments against theistic claims (the problem of evil is an argument against a benevolent deity, a common claim of a lot of religions, but not all), and if you have rejected all the theistic claims you have heard of you are atheist.

    I think I explained this to you like 10 minutes ago.
    philologos wrote: »
    Negative ones are largely dependant on a particular faith or a subset of them rather than faith as a whole.

    Yes. By definition they will be claims why religion X is wrong. Add them up, you are an atheist.

    You can't even argue for atheism without a theistic claim to reject.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement