Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Festus · 15-12-2014 1:25am

AtomicHorror wrote: »

For the purposes of this discussion, dismissing all antiquarian written texts, of course. Not sure why you suggested it, but I'm fine with it. I don't need Plato.

So, the Bible is off the table. What other evidence do you have to support your claim that a man named Jesus was the son of God and that this God exists or created the world and people?

In setting a baseline for any discussion on Christian belief the Bible must be accepted.

Likewise I can take of leave Plato but I prefer not to mess with history. The purpose of the Plato\Caesar discussion was to show that either you accept history or you do not. If you do not accept history there is not much point to the discussion.

AtomicHorror · 15-12-2014 1:31am

Festus wrote: »

In setting a baseline for any discussion on Christian belief the Bible must be accepted.

There go the goalposts. Oh well.

Festus wrote: »

Likewise I can take of leave Plato but I prefer not to mess with history. The purpose of the Plato\Caesar discussion was to show that either you accept history or you do not. If you do not accept history there is not much point to the discussion.

Only an idiot would accept history in the same way you accept the Bible. Certainly no scholar would do so. A schoolchild learning by rote, perhaps. There's no logic in your argument whatsoever.

Either we accept history or we don't? Scepticism is just completely alien to you.

orubiru · 15-12-2014 1:33am

Festus wrote: »

I would have thought his existence relevant for some philosophers and mathematicians

If they do not belong to Plato who do they belong to? Surely that is of some historical relevance?

Why can the same not be said of the Bible?

Do you need me to point out how you have contradicted yourself?

If the lesson is learned then the identity of the teacher is irrelevant.

The same can be said of The Bible. The teachings are relevant whether the document is historical fact or a fictional story.

So why insist that The Bible is an historical documentation of events?

Mathematics doesn't fail if we prove that Plato didnt exist. It just means that things we attributed to Plato were actually introduced by someone else.

If we prove Christian God and Jesus didn't exist, well, The Bible would still exist and people would still say "hey, that was a good story, I learned a lot!" It would be WAY harder for religions to hold power though right? There's probably something in that.

orubiru · 15-12-2014 1:47am

Festus wrote: »

You can satisfy yourself as to whether or not the Bible is true and whether or not anything has been lost in translation.

Given that God claims the Bible to be His word and inspired by Him there is merit to this exercise.

Yes but God didn't tell you personally that The Bible was his word or that it was inspired by Him. Also, if He did, how would you know that He was telling the truth? All you have is Faith, right?

If God claims The Bible as His word then which Bible? There are many revisions, interpretations and translations of the original text. You have certainly never read The Bible as He would have intended it to be read. The hands of humanity have altered, translated, added to and subtracted from the original. Haven't we edited the Word of God to the point where we are not reasonably take it at face value? How can we claim that such an extensively edited document is historical fact? Faith? Is that it?

Festus · 15-12-2014 1:47am

orubiru wrote: »

If the lesson is learned then the identity of the teacher is irrelevant.

It is relevant to Bible scholars, just as the identify of those who record other historical facts are relevant.

orubiru wrote: »

The same can be said of The Bible. The teachings are relevant whether the document is historical fact or a fictional story.

There are fictional stories in the Bible and they are flagged as such. Jesus told parables. Anything not flagged as a parable should be considered historical.

orubiru wrote: »

So why insist that The Bible is an historical documentation of events?

Because it is. In some cases there were no eyewitnesses - Creation of the universe, earth, life, can have no eye witnesses, so we accept the writings as being inspired by God. Other writings with authors we accept as being their record either of events they witnesses or inspired by God.

orubiru wrote: »

Mathematics doesn't fail if we prove that Plato didnt exist. It just means that things we attributed to Plato were actually introduced by someone else.

True, but it does make for messy lesson plans.

orubiru wrote: »

If we prove Christian God and Jesus didn't exist, well, The Bible would still exist and people would still say "hey, that was a good story, I learned a lot!" It would be WAY harder for religions to hold power though right? There's probably something in that.

Perhaps, but can you prove that God and Jesus didn't exist?

AtomicHorror · 15-12-2014 1:48am

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps, but can you prove that God and Jesus didn't exist?

Oh ffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Festus · 15-12-2014 1:57am

orubiru wrote: »

Yes but God didn't tell you personally that The Bible was his word or that it was inspired by Him. Also, if He did, how would you know that He was telling the truth? All you have is Faith, right?

Not just faith. In addition to the Bible there is reason, logic, science, theology and everything that has happened since the end of the Bible.

orubiru wrote: »

If God claims The Bible as His word then which Bible? There are many revisions, interpretations and translations of the original text.

The translations are accurate and have been tested against such findings as the Dead Sea scrolls and not found wanting.

There were revisions by Protestants - I ignore them.

Likewise there are certain interpretations which I also ignore.

I use the vulgate which has been tested.

orubiru wrote: »

You have certainly never read The Bible as He would have intended it to be read.

How do you know?

orubiru wrote: »

The hands of humanity have altered, translated, added to and subtracted from the original. Haven't we edited the Word of God to the point where we are not reasonably take it at face value? How can we claim that such an extensively edited document is historical fact? Faith? Is that it?

As already mentioned. There are plenty of Bible scholars who have examined the text and compared it to historical texts. The languages used in the original are known and understood.
If there were any errors any undergraduate training in the classics or the antiquities would spot it and scream.

Festus · 15-12-2014 2:00am

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Oh ffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Back at you and less of the bad language.

http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/03/russells-teapot-really-refutes-atheism-not-theism/

orubiru · 15-12-2014 2:17am

Festus wrote: »

This life is not the be all and end all. The next life is what is important.

Before you blame God for what is happening in the world today, consider Satan and what he is seeking.

Wait now, if I arrive in the next life with my memories of the horrors inflicted in this life intact, wont I be tormented by those memories?

If my memories in the next life are either erased or not relevant when I get there then, without my memories of me, then what am I? A blank slate? Just one in a vast array of identical, memory-less, Heaven Dwellers?

You seem to have forgotten that what we do in this life defines us. If my definitions become "unimportant" at the point of death then how can it be "me" who arrives at the next life?

On Satan, if he is responsible for the horrors of this world then is it not "right" that humanity should take a stand, refuse to reproduce, and die off? We'd pass on into Heaven, together, forever, and leave Satan here alone?

One wonders if true Evil would create life just so It had something to terrorise...

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-12-2014 9:04am

Festus wrote: »

Sorry, no, I really do have to point out that your understanding of-ism is far too limited

That is simply false. My definition fits the context perfectly and it is a part of the definition you simply contrive to leave out of your supposed etymology. As such your etymology is far too limited and wildly inaccurate because of this. Your asserting that your definition of anything in the light of this carries no weight.

Festus wrote: »

Have you tried using Google to find a definition of God that would fit with your framing of my understanding of God?

I do not need to look up a definition of god for you. You either have one of your own, or you do not. Which is it?

Festus wrote: »

I believe if you want to learn the best way to learn is to do your own research

Or more accurately really: You believe in making claims and not backing any of them up in any way. Anywhere. Ever.

Do you have a definition of god? What part of my definition does not fit Catholicism? Do you have any substantiation that the entity you define actually exists?

Benny_Cake · 15-12-2014 9:44am

Mod: Off-topic posts removed. Bigotry of any form is not acceptable in this forum - bear that in mind.

marienbad · 15-12-2014 10:26am

marienbad wrote: »

So it was just hearsay then and not direct testimony ?

Festus, can I have a reply please ?

Delirium · 15-12-2014 10:31am

Festus wrote: »

Back at you and less of the bad language.

http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/03/russells-teapot-really-refutes-atheism-not-theism/

There's a certain irony in a creationist arguing against evolution while using Russells teapot as part of their argument.

Festus · 15-12-2014 11:19am

orubiru wrote: »

Wait now, if I arrive in the next life with my memories of the horrors inflicted in this life intact, wont I be tormented by those memories?

If my memories in the next life are either erased or not relevant when I get there then, without my memories of me, then what am I? A blank slate? Just one in a vast array of identical, memory-less, Heaven Dwellers?

You seem to have forgotten that what we do in this life defines us. If my definitions become "unimportant" at the point of death then how can it be "me" who arrives at the next life?

You are correct. It is what we do or do not do in this life that defines us. Your memories will be intact

orubiru wrote: »

On Satan, if he is responsible for the horrors of this world then is it not "right" that humanity should take a stand, refuse to reproduce, and die off? We'd pass on into Heaven, together, forever, and leave Satan here alone?

One wonders if true Evil would create life just so It had something to terrorise...

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. You cannot blame Satan if you follow him and give in to his temptations.

Evil cannot create anything. All it can do is destroy.

Festus · 15-12-2014 11:20am

SW wrote: »

There's a certain irony in a creationist arguing against evolution while using Russells teapot as part of their argument.

Not if the pot fits

Festus · 15-12-2014 11:21am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is simply false. My definition fits the context perfectly and it is a part of the definition you simply contrive to leave out of your supposed etymology. As such your etymology is far too limited and wildly inaccurate because of this. Your asserting that your definition of anything in the light of this carries no weight.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

a- => Without
-theos- => God
-ism => Belief.

Without god belief. No god belief.

In that case you are saying that atheism is a belief, a faith based position. I am inclined to agree.

Delirium · 15-12-2014 11:24am

Festus wrote: »

Not if the pot fits

How so? The creationist is suggesting that Russells Teapot makes accepting creationism more logical than evolution. That's the complete opposite of what the Teapot is about, i.e. accepting/believing sans-evidence.

lazygal · 15-12-2014 11:28am

Festus wrote: »

In that case you are saying that atheism is a belief, a faith based position. I am inclined to agree.

Do children who've never been told anything about God have faith in anything? My children have never heard of God or that anyone believes or doesn't believe in him, her or it. What faith do they have?

Festus · 15-12-2014 11:33am

marienbad wrote: »

Festus, can I have a reply please ?

Direct testimony.

Festus · 15-12-2014 11:36am

lazygal wrote: »

Do children who've never been told anything about God have faith in anything? My children have never heard of God or that anyone believes or doesn't believe in him, her or it. What faith do they have?

To be honest I have no knowledge of your children or what you have indoctrinated them with so for a general answer do you mind if I direct you towards Dr Barrett?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

Festus · 15-12-2014 11:37am

SW wrote: »

How so? The creationist is suggesting that Russells Teapot makes accepting creationism more logical than evolution. That's the complete opposite of what the Teapot is about, i.e. accepting/believing sans-evidence.

Can't really comment as I have no belief in flying teapots other that those that might have been thrown overboard by various space travellers.

lazygal · 15-12-2014 11:38am

Festus wrote: »

To be honest I have no knowledge of your children or what you have indoctrinated them with so for a general answer do you mind if I direct you towards Dr Barrett?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

They have never heard of God, or Jesus, or any of the mystical claims of the bible. What do they have faith in? What is their faith system? Have you indoctrinated your children in your faith? Suppose they didn't believe you, what would you say to convince them otherwise?

Delirium · 15-12-2014 11:40am

Festus wrote: »

Can't really comment as I have no belief in flying teapots other that those that might have been thrown overboard by various space travellers.

bit of a strange response in that you can't comment on something that is related to a link you posted

Festus · 15-12-2014 11:42am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not need to look up a definition of god for you. You either have one of your own, or you do not. Which is it?

I don't want you to do it for me, I want you to do it for yourself.
Either you are interested in finding God or you are not. If the latter, which I suspect, then I must conclude that you have no interest in the existence of God and your interest is only in dismantling the faith of others, much like the rest of your cohort.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do you have a definition of god? What part of my definition does not fit Catholicism? Do you have any substantiation that the entity you define actually exists?

My understanding of substantiation is that it concerns the material. If you have a Christian definition of God you should see why such persistent requests are a fools errand.

lazygal · 15-12-2014 11:44am

Festus wrote: »

I don't want you to do it for me, I want you to do it for yourself.
Either you are interested in finding God or you are not. If the latter, which I suspect, then I must conclude that you have no interest in the existence of God and your interest is only in dismantling the faith of others, much like the rest of your cohort.

My understanding of substantiation is that it concerns the material. If you have a definition of God you should see why such a request is a fools errand.

Is your faith and that of others on shakey foundations?

Festus · 15-12-2014 11:45am

lazygal wrote: »

Is your faith and that of others on shakey foundations?

Not at all.

Atheism is though. It is founded on nothing at all.

lazygal · 15-12-2014 11:48am

Festus wrote: »

Not at all.

Atheism is though. It is founded on nothing at all.

Why are you concerned about faith being dismantled if its so strong? Surely God would show himself occasionally if he wants us to think he's amazing? How come he never shows up, ever?

Harika · 15-12-2014 11:59am

lazygal wrote: »

Why are you concerned about faith being dismantled if its so strong? Surely God would show himself occasionally if he wants us to think he's amazing? How come he never shows up, ever?

Today I woke up late because I missed the alarm, that was Satan, but as the traffic was flowing nicely I made it in time to work, that was God. What further proof is needed? :rolleyes:

marienbad · 15-12-2014 12:10pm

Festus wrote: »

Direct testimony.

Afraid not- heresay definition-

Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

So no direct testimony then ?

Festus · 15-12-2014 12:30pm

marienbad wrote: »

Afraid not- heresay definition-

Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

So no direct testimony then ?

Two of the Apostles wrote Gospels as eye witnesses. Direct testimony.

Harika · 15-12-2014 12:33pm

Festus wrote: »

Two of the Apostles wrote Gospels as eye witnesses. Direct testimony.

When did they write it down?

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-12-2014 12:34pm

Festus wrote: »

In that case you are saying that atheism is a belief, a faith based position. I am inclined to agree.

More of your words going into my mouth which I never actually anywhere said.

Festus wrote: »

I don't want you to do it for me, I want you to do it for yourself.

Still refusing to back up anything you say then.

Festus wrote: »

Either you are interested in finding

I am interested in discussing the thread topic, and I am interested in hearing what arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you have to substantiate the existence of a god.... or whatever god it is you believe in but are refusing to define.

Festus wrote: »

My understanding of substantiation is that it concerns the material. If you have a Christian definition of God you should see why such persistent requests are a fools errand.

Still refusing to say what is wrong with my definition that I offered. Does it not match the mono-theistic god? What issue have you with that definition? What is your own?

Festus · 15-12-2014 12:34pm

lazygal wrote: »

Why are you concerned about faith being dismantled if its so strong? Surely God would show himself occasionally if he wants us to think he's amazing? How come he never shows up, ever?

I'm not concerned. Nothing that has been said or posted here is capable of shaking my faith.

What is fun is watching atheists do what atheists do.

and God did show up, as Jesus Christ.

lazygal · 15-12-2014 12:46pm

Festus wrote: »

I'm not concerned. Nothing that has been said or posted here is capable of shaking my faith.

What is fun is watching atheists do what atheists do.

and God did show up, as Jesus Christ.

Why didn't he just show up as himself? Why the need for the complications?
What do atheists do, exactly?

Buona Fortuna · 15-12-2014 1:08pm

Festus wrote: »

Two of the Apostles wrote Gospels as eye witnesses. Direct testimony.

Was going to stay out of this thread but

We don't have their hand written manuscript do we?

We have the editted version of a translation, written by persons unknown.

Festus · 15-12-2014 1:16pm

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Was going to stay out of this thread but

We don't have their hand written manuscript do we?

We have the editted version of a translation, written by persons unknown.

Do you have citations from a reputable Bible scholar to support this or are you merely presenting this as your opinion?

Thisname · 15-12-2014 2:48pm

You've got to ask, why on earth would the writers of the New Testament make up their accounts of Jesus? Think about it..putting their lives on the line, suffering immense persecution, some to the point of martyrdom...sounds like a great idea!

orubiru · 15-12-2014 3:19pm

Thisname wrote: »

You've got to ask, why on earth would the writers of the New Testament make up their accounts of Jesus? Think about it..putting their lives on the line, suffering immense persecution, some to the point of martyrdom...sounds like a great idea!

It's a good question. I think they would make up the accounts because people have been making up stories since we were able to communicate with each other.

The accounts of Jesus' life are very similar to accounts of the lives of many other deities and legendary characters.

It's human nature to make up tales. Have you ever been to a bookstore or library? We absolutely LOVE to make up stories. I see passionate conversations about Star Wars etc online all the time.

The only reason that The Bible has to be "true" is that people use that "truth" to take, and wield, power.

If you can convince someone that Jesus was real and they must behave a certain way or else then you have power over them.

The writers of the New Testament put their lives on the line because they felt that the reward was worth the risk. Or they were delusional.

They could have been delusional, you know. It's not impossible.

orubiru · 15-12-2014 3:22pm

Festus wrote: »

I'm not concerned. Nothing that has been said or posted here is capable of shaking my faith.

What is fun is watching atheists do what atheists do.

and God did show up, as Jesus Christ.

It there anything at all that could shake your faith?

I believed in the Christian God once but then I learned about other Gods and they appealed to me more so I felt a better connection to them.

Do you think that something similar could ever happen to you?

Thisname · 15-12-2014 3:34pm

Highly unlikely that a group of people, would be experiencing the same delusion about Jesus. And then go on to dedicate their lives to spreading the gospel, being persecuted and killed in the process (you can hardly compare that to some of your examples like Star Wars fans etc). The apostle Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. Prior to that he was zealously persecuting Christians for their faith. He had never met with the disciples, in fact if he has he would have killed them prior to his conversion.

Festus · 15-12-2014 3:35pm

orubiru wrote: »

It there anything at all that could shake your faith?

Nothing that I know of.

orubiru wrote: »

I believed in the Christian God once but then I learned about other Gods and they appealed to me more so I felt a better connection to them.

So, which god or gods do you believe in now? You can PM me if you don't want to go public.

orubiru wrote: »

Do you think that something similar could ever happen to you?

Nah... I prefer truth.

orubiru · 15-12-2014 3:36pm

Festus wrote: »

You are correct. It is what we do or do not do in this life that defines us. Your memories will be intact

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. You cannot blame Satan if you follow him and give in to his temptations.

Evil cannot create anything. All it can do is destroy.

If that's true then I am not sure I'd want to move on to the next life. I have to remember the horrors that take place on Earth? No thanks.

Even if I understood Gods plan I'm not sure that I could deal with knowing that children are suffering on Earth. Sure, it's all part of the plan but THEY don't know that while they are going through it. It's just an awful situation to be in.

It would make me question the character of God.

I just don't get it. Why design beings in such a way that they have to devour other beings in order to survive? That seems unspeakably cruel.

If I look at a lion and a zebra and consider the "design" at work here... surely there is scope to criticize the designer? Who would design the world in such a way that the lion has to tear the zebra apart with claws and teeth just to survive?

What if we have it backwards? What if this is Satans world and God is the mechanism by which we are compelled to come back for more?

Do you accept that it might be a possibility?

orubiru · 15-12-2014 3:46pm

Thisname wrote: »

Highly unlikely that a group of people, would be experiencing the same delusion about Jesus. And then go on to dedicate their lives to spreading the gospel, being persecuted and killed in the process (you can hardly compare that to some of your examples like Star Wars fans etc). The apostle Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. Prior to that he was zealously persecuting Christians for their faith. He had never met with the disciples, in fact if he has he would have killed them prior to his conversion.

Over time this was reversed and people were persecuted and killed in the name of spreading the gospel.

Witch trials... inquisitions...

Do you then agree that the beliefs of those victims of Christianity are on equal footing with those of the writers of the New Testament? After all, these people were endured torture and died for their beliefs.

You seem to be saying that if a group of people are prepared to suffer and die for their beliefs then that makes it more "real". So Christianity is just one in a long, long list of examples and no more "real" than any other on that list?

Buona Fortuna · 15-12-2014 3:48pm

Festus wrote: »

Do you have citations from a reputable Bible scholar to support this or are you merely presenting this as your opinion?

Citations to say what we don't have?

If you know of these original manusripts, state it and my post is moot.

marienbad · 15-12-2014 3:58pm

Festus wrote: »

Two of the Apostles wrote Gospels as eye witnesses. Direct testimony.

Unproven , written no sooner than AD 60.

Festus · 15-12-2014 5:15pm

orubiru wrote: »

If that's true then I am not sure I'd want to move on to the next life. I have to remember the horrors that take place on Earth? No thanks.

You have no choice, your death is inevitable.

orubiru wrote: »

Even if I understood Gods plan I'm not sure that I could deal with knowing that children are suffering on Earth. Sure, it's all part of the plan but THEY don't know that while they are going through it. It's just an awful situation to be in.

Whatever God's plan is God does not make people do bad things to children.

orubiru wrote: »

It would make me question the character of God.

WHy not question the character of man?

orubiru wrote: »

I just don't get it. Why design beings in such a way that they have to devour other beings in order to survive? That seems unspeakably cruel.

If I look at a lion and a zebra and consider the "design" at work here... surely there is scope to criticize the designer? Who would design the world in such a way that the lion has to tear the zebra apart with claws and teeth just to survive?

I'm not sure that there are any full time cannibal tribes or races still eating each other.

Lions and other carnivorous creatures are not "beings". If you read Genesis you will see that they were not created carnivorous - that came later.

orubiru wrote: »

What if we have it backwards? What if this is Satans world and God is the mechanism by which we are compelled to come back for more?

Do you accept that it might be a possibility?

I find engaging with fallacious speculation to be illogical and not worth pursuing, and certainly not while sober

Safehands · 15-12-2014 6:29pm

Festus wrote: »

Lions and other carnivorous creatures are not "beings". If you read Genesis you will see that they were not created carnivorous - that came later.

I would be very, very impressed with Genesis if Lions were mentioned anywhere. Please impress me Festus, tell me where lions (or dinosaurs for that matter) are mentioned in Genesis. Better still, blow me away completely and tell where i can find a reference to a grass eating, non carnivorous lion in Genesis.

If man, while exploring Mars or some other planet, came across a Lion I am sure it would be classed as a "being".

RikuoAmero · 15-12-2014 8:35pm

Thisname wrote: »

Highly unlikely that a group of people, would be experiencing the same delusion about Jesus. And then go on to dedicate their lives to spreading the gospel, being persecuted and killed in the process (you can hardly compare that to some of your examples like Star Wars fans etc).

In recent times, there is a Jewish sect. I first heard about them here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKAHoYCWXF8&list=UUfsX0iFWcdefP78zQpYRnvQ#t=586
Here's a wikipedia page talking about their leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who died in 1994, but whom many believe to still be alive. This movement comprises something between 40,000 to over 200,000 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism
Current Chabad teachings say this

Since the Third of Tammuz, we are no longer able to physically see the Rebbe King Moshiach. The Rebbe remains physically alive just as before, it is only to our eyes that he is concealed. Therefore, we call this a day of concealment, and many refer to this as the "last test." Just as we know that there is a God though we may not see him, so too the Rebbe King Moshiach is here even though we do not see him.

Some Chabad adherents say

For this reason, the Rebbe is omniscient, omnipotent, and entirely without limits. He is ‘indistinguishable’ from God. Because he is a transparent window for pure divinity, a ‘man-God,’ ‘when you speak to him, you speak to God.

Note how similar those two claims are to claims made about Jesus. There are slight differences, but mostly the same. For example, this chair here

is believed by followers to be occupied by Schneerson.

The people in that religion are hard believers. They believe Schneerson to be god. In only a few years, in the MODERN AGE, they have come to believe him to still be alive, invisible but still present. They are willing to kill and die for him.
These people you and I would both say are deluded about Schneerson. Very deluded. Are you going to say it is impossible for people in ancient Palestine to have been deluded about Jesus?

In terms of willingness to die for religious beliefs, the cults of Heaven's Gate and the Branch Davidians spring to mind as well. So no, the fact the apostles suffered imprisonment, torture and death does nothing at all to confirm to me that Jesus really was supernatural. It only tells me, at most, that these men believed their claims. Simply because a group of people are convinced about something to be supernatural says nothing at all as to whether or not they were actually correct.

In fact, in terms of sheer believability, the Chadam movement is far more credible to me than christianity. At least the Chadam boasts members who lived at the time of their proclaimed messiah and who are still alive today. I can go and talk to them, question them, see them write their teachings in person.
I cannot do that with christianity. The four gospels are all written by anonymous authors (seriously, study them please), all written decades after the fact and are not in fact eyewitness testimonies (whoever wrote the gospels did not see the events of Jesus's life firsthand. They more than likely questioned Jews and early christians years after the fact, so AT ABSOLUTE BEST, they are second hand accounts e.g. 'Matthew' saying to readers what other people had told him happened)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Composition_and_setting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Composition_and_setting

Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",[8] that the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 AD)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

Thisname · 15-12-2014 8:51pm

orubiru wrote: »

Over time this was reversed and people were persecuted and killed in the name of spreading the gospel.

Witch trials... inquisitions...

Do you then agree that the beliefs of those victims of Christianity are on equal footing with those of the writers of the New Testament? After all, these people were endured torture and died for their beliefs.

You seem to be saying that if a group of people are prepared to suffer and die for their beliefs then that makes it more "real". So Christianity is just one in a long, long list of examples and no more "real" than any other on that list?

Interesting point re victims of the inquisition. Two very different groups each firm in their beliefs. But there can be only one truth.

I'm simply pointing out that no one would actively spread a fabricated story, something they say they witnessed personally, knowing it would invite persecution on themselves. They had nothing to gain by making up such a story. It doesn't make sense.

Also, I think the conversion of Paul is pretty compelling, how he made a complete 180 after his encounter with Jesus.

MrPudding · 15-12-2014 9:51pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In terms of willingness to die for religious beliefs, the cults of Heaven's Gate and the Branch Davidians spring to mind as well. So no, the fact the apostles suffered imprisonment, torture and death does nothing at all to confirm to me that Jesus really was supernatural. It only tells me, at most, that these men believed their claims. Simply because a group of people are convinced about something to be supernatural says nothing at all as to whether or not they were actually correct.

It is, apparently, even worse than that. I recall reading somewhere that after the mass suicides it emerged that some of the people that willingly drank the poison didn't actually believe. They had spoken with people on the outside or written in diaries about not believing the story was true, but going along with it anyway, presumably out of some desire to belong. Think about that for a second, knowing something was not true, but still dying for it... Will try to find the references again.

If we see people in modern times dying for a belief that they actually believe isn't true, what does that say for you apostles. In fact, given that followers of a religion dying for their belief is held up as evidence for many religions, mutually exclusive to christianity, or at least belived by christians to be wrong, what makes you martyrs right and everyone else's wrong?

MrP

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments