Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

Thankfully we can. We live in a world full of information, it is much harder for cults to take hold of people these days when the average person is surrounded by information that can counter claims. For example the tales of the cons used in these cults were spread even during the time.

Imagine though that we didn't live in such a time, and that Jonestown has been championed by kings and emperors who controlled the flow of information. What I wonder then would be the records we would be left about what happened.

Yet religions such as Islam and Christianity are spreading and enlisting new believers.

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

Hardly relevant, given that the first followers of Jesus, and the millions of others that were inspired by their testimony over the next 250 years, were far from championed by kings and emperors.

During which time Christianity was an underground cult that hide from authorities in complete control (by necessity) of their scriptures.

They then emerged from the underground with the support of emperors and kings.

Would we expect there to be a wealth of documents contradicting the claims of Christianity to have survived this process?

TheLurker

hinault wrote: »

Yet religions such as Islam and Christianity are spreading and enlisting new believers.

Neither of those would be considered cults now given their size.

Though you raise an interesting point, given that the beliefs are not compatible this speaks again to how irrelevant the truth of a religion is to how it spreads.

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

That isn't actually the case if you read the accounts of those who followed Jones. The 'miracles' were incidental to the main truth that they thought he was a prophet who held the key to the future. You could take the miracles away and still believe in Jones. And no follower of Jones was ever tortured or executed because of their testimony to the 'miracles'.

The Resurrection of Jesus is in a completely different category. Without it, the entire claim of Jesus would collapse. And His followers would suffer torture and die for the very specific claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.

A few points

Firstly, Jesus claimed to be God before he was executed and his followers believed him. So no, it wouldn't collapse, they already believed he was God without a crucification, so saying no one would believe this without a crucification is clearly not true.

Secondly you are wrong about Jones. I've watched testimony from his followers that it was the faith healing that convinced them he was genuine. Even people who left the cult still believe he had powers to heal people and was touched by the divine. The people who helped him fake this would have at the very least known that he had to lie about his powers to convince people to stay with the cult.

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

Neither of those would be considered cults now given their size.

Though you raise an interesting point, given that the beliefs are not compatible this speaks again to how irrelevant the truth of a religion is to how it spreads.

No.

If your point about the information age being about truth is accurate, then the information age should be preventing the growth of Islam and Christianity, right? Especially as you contend that religion is untrue.

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

A few points

Firstly, Jesus claimed to be God before he was executed and his followers believed him. So no, it wouldn't collapse, they already believed he was God without a crucification, so saying no one would believe this without a crucification is clearly not true.

No.

If you read the gospel accounts, between the time after Jesus was crucified and before he first met the apostles after the resurrection, the gospel records that the apostles were frightened and were in hiding.

Doubt appeared to be setting in at that point. Even after Jesus appeared to them, and even when they told others that Jesus had appeared to them, Thomas who was not there when Jesus did appear initially, doubted.

So the resurrection and proof of the resurrection was needed to copperfasten the belief of the men who Jesus enlisted.

TheLurker

hinault wrote: »

No.

If your point about the information age being about truth is accurate, then the information age should be preventing the growth of Islam and Christianity, right? Especially as you contend that religion is untrue.

When they say religions are 'growing' what this means is between other religions, ie Christianity is taking believers away from other religions. Religious faith in general is falling at an increasing speed.

And more importantly for the point, it is falling fastest in countries with high education standards and access to information, particularly in the west. For example Christianity is growing fastest in poor African countries due to evangelism, and it is taking from local religions, not from non-religious.

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

When they say religions are 'growing' what this means is between other religions, ie Christianity is taking believers away from other religions. Religious faith in general is falling at an increasing speed.

TheLurker wrote: »

And more importantly for the point, it is falling fastest in countries with high education standards and access to information, particularly in the west.

I've read this old canard elsewhere too.

It's more evidence of the confusion that exists between information and wisdom.

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

No.

If you read the gospel accounts, between the time after Jesus was crucified and before he first met the apostles after the resurrection, the gospel records that the apostles were frightened and were in hiding.

Doubt appeared to be setting in at that point. Even after Jesus appeared to them, and even when they told others that Jesus had appeared to them, Thomas who was not there when Jesus did appear initially, doubted.

So the resurrection and proof of the resurrection was needed to copperfasten the belief of the men who Jesus enlisted.

It implies though that they didnt see any miracles during his lifetime. Or why would Judas have sold out? If I was following someone around that was walking on water feeding 5000 and curing the sick and raising the dead , I don't think my faith would flag so quickly.

TheLurker

hinault wrote: »

I've read this old canard elsewhere too.

It ain't a canard, and it is consistent with the non-supernatural theories of religion and religious faith.

TheLurker

silverharp wrote: »

It implies though that they didnt see any miracles during his lifetime. Or why would Judas have sold out? If I was following someone around that was walking on water feeding 5000 and curing the sick and raising the dead , I don't think my faith would flag so quickly.

Yeah it is almost if people don't act 100% rationally all the time, isn't it :pac:

Frank Bullitt

hinault wrote: »

I haven't tried to make the argument that there is archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus.

I have made the argument that credible historians accept that the quantity of texts dating from the first century attest to the physical existence of Jesus.

Tacitus, Josephus, Tallus, were not christians. None of them believed that Jesus was divine.

How do you explain the fact that texts from the 1st century, written in diverse locations separated by long geographical distances, all attest to the physical evidence of Jesus existence?
Why would people in these diverse geographical areas all write about Jesus, all at the same time?

Well as was pointed out earlier in this thread, the 3 you mentioned wrote their pieces after the first gospels, quote:

Just for clarity Josephus was born in 37 C.E. and Tacitus was born in 62 C.E. and Antiquities was written in 93 C.E. which is after the first gospels.

If you have other "credible" sources for your argument, please forward them on.

I also laughed at your claim about not making an archaeological based argument about Jesus. Its the core academic principle for researching the past, and yet there is none at all for Jesus, can you see where I am going with this?

And when can we jump onto the divine side of the argument? I am looking forward to that.

Frank Bullitt

hinault wrote: »

The claim is a strong one. But let's examine the claim in it's context.

The author is writing about a person who the author accepts as God. Isn't it logical that if the author feels this way about his subject that there may well be sufficient material to write books that would fill the world?

Consider for a moment too that what is recorded about the life of Christ is extraordinary.
An innocent man nailed to a cross to die, dies, and is raised from the dead 3 days later. That is an extraordinary claim. Is there a requirement to include every single other extraordinary thing that this person did? Isn't rising from the dead not extraordinary enough? The gospels are replete with accounts of other extraordinary claims.

Even if the world was filled with books accounting for stuff not recorded in the gospels, there would still be folk 2,000 years later who would say that all of that never happened.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or any evidence at that. You are using a christian text to verify christian claims, don't you see how ridiculous that is?

marienbad

Cen taurus wrote: »

You've made that false claim twice now, and each time you've been asked to show where I was, you failed to do so, and instead repeat your unproven slur. Deal with the posts, rather than attacking the poster.

So you have no argument then ? Just as I thought

hinault

Gintonious wrote: »

Well as was pointed out earlier in this thread, the 3 you mentioned wrote their pieces after the first gospels,

But the 3 never held a belief in what the gospels advocated.

The 3 authors state this. Are you claiming that the authors were telling lies in that regard too?

Gintonious wrote: »

I also laughed at your claim about not making an archaeological based argument about Jesus. Its the core academic principle for researching the past

A core principle?
Says who?

Archaeological evidence is not required to establish whether or not someone existed.
There are other historical tests, and other historical evidence, which can be used to assert the veracity of the existence of something or someone.

hinault

Gintonious wrote: »

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or any evidence at that. You are using a christian text to verify christian claims, don't you see how ridiculous that is?

No.

The claim in John 21:24-25 was, according to another poster here, extraordinary.

marienbad

hinault wrote: »

But the 3 never held a belief in what the gospels advocated.

The 3 authors state this. Are you claiming that the authors were telling lies in that regard too?



A core principle?
Says who?

Archaeological evidence is not required to establish whether or not someone existed.
There are other historical tests, and other historical evidence, which can be used to assert the veracity of the existence of something or someone.

I don't think anyone disputes that a man called Jesus ( indeed quite a few men by that name) existed .

You claims go far beyond that though

hinault

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think anyone disputes that a man called Jesus ( indeed quite a few men by that name) existed .

There are several here who have expressed doubt as to the physical existence of Jesus Christ.

marienbad

hinault wrote: »

There are several here who have expressed doubt as to the physical existence of Jesus Christ.

I don't think so, in any case it is not that relevant , Jesus the man that is . Jesus the God is another issue completely .

How many contemporaneous mentions of that are there ?

hinault

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think so, in any case it is not that relevant , Jesus the man that is

I disagree.

Some doubters here reject that Jesus the man existed, therefore naturally they reject that Jesus the Son of God too.

There are other doubters who, accept that Jesus Christ the man existed, but like their more sceptical colleagues do not accept that Jesus is the Son of God.

silverharp

its worth noting as well that there is little in the way of evidence that the apostles either died for their faith or if they did were in a position to recant. Its all church lore not recorded history made at the time by local authorities or the like

marienbad

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

Some doubters here reject that Jesus the man existed, therefore naturally they reject that Jesus the Son of God too.

There are other doubters who, accept that Jesus Christ the man existed, but like their more sceptical colleagues do not accept that Jesus is the Son of God.

Well ,lets clarify then - I have no doubt the someone named Jesus existed . I have no belief that that person was a God .

Do you have any contemporaneous testimony that he was ?

Frank Bullitt

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

Some doubters here reject that Jesus the man existed, therefore naturally they reject that Jesus the Son of God too.

There are other doubters who, accept that Jesus Christ the man existed, but like their more sceptical colleagues do not accept that Jesus is the Son of God.

For the sake of continuing the discussion, ill go with the concept of Jesus as a man existing, although I will still have my doubts as there is still no solid evidence for this.

As for being sceptical about him being the son of god, very much so.

Why? Again, the sheer lack of evidence to support this. The wild claims made int he bible about his actions and the supernatural, all of which to his day have no evidence to support this.

No.

The claim in John 21:24-25 was, according to another poster here, extraordinary.

You made the claim in your earlier post here:

Consider for a moment too that what is recorded about the life of Christ is extraordinary.
An innocent man nailed to a cross to die, dies, and is raised from the dead 3 days later. That is an extraordinary claim. Is there a requirement to include every single other extraordinary thing that this person did? Isn't rising from the dead not extraordinary enough? The gospels are replete with accounts of other extraordinary claims.

Are you claiming that him rising from the dead is enough to grant him the title as the son of god? Or that it is "backed up" by other claims, again for which there is no evidence for.

Lack of evidence is somewhat of a common occurrence in the bible.

Frank Bullitt

A core principle?
Says who?

Archaeological evidence is not required to establish whether or not someone existed.
There are other historical tests, and other historical evidence, which can be used to assert the veracity of the existence of something or someone.

Here are some other methods to use then: (from Wiki)

Core principles for determining reliability
The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4]

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

silverharp

marienbad wrote: »

Well ,lets clarify then - I have no doubt the someone named Jesus existed . I have no belief that that person was a God .

Do you have any contemporaneous testimony that he was ?

I'd go one step further, If someone could feed 5000 people with a bag of food and bring people back to life and the Romans heard about it , I reckon they would have kidnapped Jesus and used him as a secret weapon in their military. The fact that Jesus didnt shake the Middle East during his life based on his alleged large scale miracles in full view means at a minimum that the gospel accounts are very flawed. Something isnt right

marienbad

silverharp wrote: »

I'd go one step further, If someone could feed 5000 people with a bag of food and bring people back to life and the Romans heard about it , I reckon they would have kidnapped Jesus and used him as a secret weapon in their military. The fact that Jesus didnt shake the Middle East during his life based on his alleged large scale miracles in full view means at a minimum that the gospel accounts are very flawed. Something isnt right

As usual in these conversations ,that would have been my next question.

hinault

marienbad wrote: »

Well ,lets clarify then - I have no doubt the someone named Jesus existed.

That someone being the Jesus named in the Bible?

marienbad wrote: »

I have no belief that that person was a God .

That's your prerogative.

marienbad

hinault wrote: »

That someone being the Jesus named in the Bible?




That's your prerogative.

I have no way of knowing that, but for the sake of argument lets say it is .

So how many contemporaneous mentions of that are there ?

hinault

Gintonious wrote: »

For the sake of continuing the discussion, ill go with the concept of Jesus as a man existing, although I will still have my doubts as there is still no solid evidence for this.

Either you accept that Jesus of the Bible existed or you don't.

So can you make up your mind, for the sake of our exchange.

Gintonious wrote: »

Are you claiming that him rising from the dead is enough to grant him the title as the son of god? Or that it is "backed up" by other claims, again for which there is no evidence for.

Lack of evidence is somewhat of a common occurrence in the bible.

I think the fact that a man was killed, and buried and rose from the dead back to life is an extraordinary claim.

And adding other accounts of other extraordinary claims won't add to or take away from that central extraordinary claim.

I have no doubt that the gospel writers could have written numerous other tomes about the life and ministry of Jesus as stated in John 21:24-25.

hinault

Gintonious wrote: »

Here are some other methods to use then: (from Wiki)

Ah, wiki gets cited again!

I'll accept the point about core principles.

Do you not accept that documentation from the 1st century conforms to what is listed as a core historical principle?

Why do you think that credible historians accept that Jesus the man in the Bible existed? Historians accept that Jesus the man existed using presumably core principle methodology.