You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

storker

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is interesting that you use Roman beliefs about the deities of Juniper and Apollo as evidence, while repeating many errors about the same deities.

Given that they don't exist any more the the christian god it's hard to see how any errors can matter, but I'm happy to admit I'm not an expert on mythology. Feel free to point out the many errors I made.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet you have utterly failed to answer why we should accept what the Pope accepts - even though millions of Christians do not - but not accept what Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accepts even though millions of Muslims do.
And they all claim to worship the same God.

It's a puzzler.

They do worship the same God. That is logically verifiable. Unless you are speaking metaphorically?

Many reasons could be listed as to why Christianity is a more compelling faith, from the intelligibility it gives to human and natural history to the strong historical basis of the historicity of the life of Christ as described in the Bible.

Yellow_Fern

storker wrote: »

Given that they don't exist any more the the christian god it's hard to see how any errors can matter, but I'm happy to admit I'm not an expert on mythology. Feel free to point out the many errors I made.

Clever debating trick. Trying to remove the universality of monotheism by referring to the 'christian god'. Is that deliberate?

pearcider

storker wrote: »

I suppose you imagine that this and previous comments prove some sort of mental superiority on your part. I'm afraid it's having quite the opposite effect. This atheist doesn't dismiss life, the universe or my own existence, I just don't accept one particular explanation for how they came about, because that explanation is based on mythology and not anything observable or testable. I don't like not knowing how everything came to be, but I can accept the situation without needing to fill the gap with a supernatural confort blanket.

It’s just common sense that existence is basically a supernatural phenomenon since human observation doesn’t even scratch the surface of physical reality never mind any other truths. Our current scientific knowledge is like a boy looking at a beautiful shell on the beach whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before us.

If anything it’s atheists who are convinced they are mentally superior usually because they’ve read a few books by narcissistic personalities like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Never mind all the real scientists before them like Carl Gauss or Max Planck who took the existence of a divine creator to be self evident.

storker

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Clever debating trick. Trying to remove the universality of monotheism by referring to the 'christian god'. Is that deliberate?

No, it's irrelevant. Why would I need to resort to debating trickery when the evidence supports my position? My arguments apply equally to the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic gods and all other gods that don't exist. I'm quite happy to acknowledge the universality of monotheism because tt makes no difference; the monotheistic god is as universally non-existent as it is specifically non-existent.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

They do worship the same God. That is logically verifiable. Unless you are speaking metaphorically?

Many reasons could be listed as to why Christianity is a more compelling faith, from the intelligibility it gives to human and natural history to the strong historical basis of the historicity of the life of Christ as described in the Bible.

I am speaking as they both worship the god of Abraham - as do Jews.

And the Bible is not a primary source for the life of Jesus. It is, at best, a secondary source. One which contains many contradictions.
It is a historical document only in that it is very old. There is zero historical proof that Jesus existed.
This was comprehensively dealt with recently in another thread do I will save time and link you to the post https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113539059&postcount=435

Bannasidhe

pearcider wrote: »

If anything it’s atheists who are convinced they are mentally superior usually because they’ve read a few books by narcissistic personalities like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Never mind all the real scientists before them like Carl Gauss or Max Planck who took the existence of a divine creator to be self evident.

MOD
pearcider is taking a short holiday from this forum to enable him/her to read the Charter and consider what is meant by the following:

2. Respect the right of people to hold religious or irreligious beliefs which are different from yours. Forum moderators reserve the right to take action against posts or posters which they deem to be offensive or intended to inflame.

3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

I trust that should pearcider return s/he will do so in the spirit of open minded discussion where s/he will desist in telling others what they think and will instead listen and respond in a civil manner.

Do not discuss this in thread.

one world order

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am speaking as they both worship the god of Abraham - as do Jews.

And the Bible is not a primary source for the life of Jesus. It is, at best, a secondary source. One which contains many contradictions.
It is a historical document only in that it is very old. There is zero historical proof that Jesus existed.
This was comprehensively dealt with recently in another thread do I will save time and link you to the post https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113539059&postcount=435

There is evidence outside the bible of Jesus existence and archeological discoveries back him up also. 11 of the 12 apostles suffered violent deaths, something a person would not do if he didn't believe Jesus was sent by God for mankind's salvation.

one world order

Richard Dawkins rules out the supernatural from any testing and deals only with the physical. He then presents his findings through mocking communication.

CramCycle

pearcider wrote: »

Comparing Jesus to Mohammed shows how wilfully myopic you are as I can only presume nobody is that ignorant of history too.

What a randomly unexplained statement, any chance you'd actually make a clarification rather than a statement.

pearcider wrote: »

I haven’t made it up. The Bible is there. But you keep believing your own meaningless philosophy. I’m sure that will serve you well on your death bed.

Lord of the Rings is there too, in fact I think I would enjoy the tales of people wondering on a great quest in my final hours, its a lovely book (set of).

pearcider wrote: »

It’s just common sense that existence is basically a supernatural phenomenon since human observation doesn’t even scratch the surface of physical reality never mind any other truths. Our current scientific knowledge is like a boy looking at a beautiful shell on the beach whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before us.

And there is the crux of it, you can either take the unexplained as supernatural or you can take it as unexplained. I choose the latter.

If anything it’s atheists who are convinced they are mentally superior usually because they’ve read a few books by narcissistic personalities like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Never mind all the real scientists before them like Carl Gauss or Max Planck who took the existence of a divine creator to be self evident.

I had to google Sam Harris. Dawkins, IMO, is a prat of the highest order with no ability to adapt his narrow knowledge set to society. Carl Gauss was a great mathematician, as was Planck but to insinuate their religious beliefs gives weight to theism is ludicrous. Gauss lived in a time where not following the norm was a dangerous thing but is well reputed to have not liked anyone who gave out about anothers belief, even if it differed from his own. Planck was well known to believe that miracles and the like did not exist, but were simply unexplainable at the time and eventually,they would be. Rumours that he turned to God as he came close to the end of his life are woefully misrepresented, in that he accepted the possibility but he certainly didn't subscribe to any one true god mythology.

Bannasidhe

one world order wrote: »

There is evidence outside the bible of Jesus existence and archeological discoveries back him up also. 11 of the 12 apostles suffered violent deaths, something a person would not do if he didn't believe Jesus was sent by God for mankind's salvation.

Show the evidence.
What evidence exists outside of the Bible either documentary or archaeological?
Show non-biblical evidence of the lives and deaths of the apostles
.
I should warn you that any sites you link to will need to have proper academic credentials.

As for the reasons 11 apostles died - in your opinion - people suffer violent deaths for things they don't believe in so that in an of itself proves nothing.
Millions of them in the case of wars.

storker

pearcider wrote: »

It’s just common sense that existence is basically a supernatural phenomenon

What some or indeed many people imagine to be common sense is not evidence of anything.

since human observation doesn’t even scratch the surface of physical reality never mind any other truths.

Quite a few truths have been discovered by human observation. You make use of many of them on a daily basis.

Our current scientific knowledge is like a boy looking at a beautiful shell on the beach whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before us.

This I can agree with, but I don't feel the need to bundle everything beyond the shell up into a package labelled "God did this stuff".

If anything it’s atheists who are convinced they are mentally superior usually because they’ve read a few books by narcissistic personalities like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.

Unfortunately, this is another barb frequently trotted out by believers: the notion that atheists must be so because they read Harris, Dawkins and please don't leave out Hitchins. I'm surprised you even allowed that they read a whole book and didn't just dismiss their position as having come about by watching a few YouTube videos. If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, why hold back? Beleive it or not, I worked my own opinion out for myself, without any assistance, before the age of 20, at a time when this country was still very steeped in religion, nobody had heard of Hitchens et al, and the Internet didn't even exist.

By the way, can you tell me who diagnosed Harris and Dawkins as narcissists?

Never mind all the real scientists before them like Carl Gauss or Max Planck who took the existence of a divine creator to be self evident.

I'm not familiar with either Planck's or Gauss's writings. They were entitled to their opinion, but it seems to that if they claimed something was self-evident, then they obviously didn't have any real evidence. There is no shortage, by the way, of atheist scientists.

Bannasidhe

storker wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is another barb frequently trotted out by believers: the notion that atheists must be so because they read Harris, Dawkins and please don't leave out Hitchins. I'm surprised you even allowed that they read a whole book and didn't just dismiss their position as having come about by watching a few YouTube videos. If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, why hold back? Beleive it or not, I worked my own opinion out for myself, without any assistance, before the age of 20, at a time when this country was still very steeped in religion, nobody had heard of Hitchens et al, and the Internet didn't even exist.

I have never read Harris or Hitchens. I have read Dawkins and consider that time I'm never getting back.

I have also read the Bible several times, and the commentaries on it from the likes of Bede, Strabo, and Thomas Aquinas plus the works of Thomas Moore, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Erasmus, and even - heaven help me :P - Henry VIII'S Defence of the Catholic Religion.

And yet I have been, and remain, an atheist since the early 1980s.

Yellow_Fern

storker wrote: »

No, it's irrelevant. Why would I need to resort to debating trickery when the evidence supports my position? My arguments apply equally to the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic gods and all other gods that don't exist. I'm quite happy to acknowledge the universality of monotheism because tt makes no difference; the monotheistic god is as universally non-existent as it is specifically non-existent.

They don't apply equally because Roman polytheism was entirely different to monotheism faiths like Christianity. Roman polytheism was a collection of devotions to local deities. It was not linked to morality, and meaning like we associate religions today. Polytheism is extraordinarily diverse and complex, in very different ways than monotheism. All monotheist faiths like christianity and islam intrinsically believe in the same god because of the nature of monotheism itself.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am speaking as they both worship the god of Abraham - as do Jews.

And the Bible is not a primary source for the life of Jesus. It is, at best, a secondary source. One which contains many contradictions.
It is a historical document only in that it is very old. There is zero historical proof that Jesus existed.
This was comprehensively dealt with recently in another thread do I will save time and link you to the post https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113539059&postcount=435

I hate being impolite but I think it is good to help you on history jargon, I think you mean the bible is not a historical primary source for the life of Jesus. It is of course our primary source on our knowledge of his life. The second leap I have to call you out on is how you go for saying the bible is a secondary source to there is no historical proof he existed. As much I appreciate the link here my knowledge of the literature would reach a bit deeper than that post. But why dont you explain for us why there is no proof ?

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Show the evidence.
What evidence exists outside of the Bible either documentary or archaeological?
Show non-biblical evidence of the lives and deaths of the apostles
.
I should warn you that any sites you link to will need to have proper academic credentials.

As for the reasons 11 apostles died - in your opinion - people suffer violent deaths for things they don't believe in so that in an of itself proves nothing.
Millions of them in the case of wars.

Did millions die in wars by choice? I think normally the millions who died for fascism, communism and liberal states did who on the basis of genuine belief in the values of their respective state. Would people do the same, dying horrible deaths for the sake of literary fiction?
How on earth do you expect there to be archaeological evidence? Are you aware of how few have been identified using archaeology that early on? The romans were executing people by crucifixion for a thousands years but despite that we only have a single heel bone. Instead we use literary evidence and it is is relatively strong.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

T


I hate being impolite but I think it is good to help you on history jargon, I think you mean the bible is not a historical primary source for the life of Jesus. It is of course our primary source on our knowledge of his life. The second leap I have to call you out on is how you go for saying the bible is a secondary source to there is no historical proof he existed. As much I appreciate the link here my knowledge of the literature would reach a bit deeper than that post. But why dont you explain for us why there is no proof ?

And I am sorry to inform you that I am rather familiar with history jargon and I know exactly what I mean.

The Bible is not a primary source for Jesus as it is neither contemporary or written by anyone who personally knew him, or were contemporaries of him.

It was written after the fact by people who got their information from other people - therefore it is a secondary source.

There are no documents from c 1 - c 33 CE that mention Jesus. None. Zero.
Therefore there are no primary sources for him.

I notice you are claiming extensive knowledge (granted of literature which is a completely different academic discipline), well I have extensive, extensive knowledge in the discipline of history - not that such a thing is needed to distinguish a primary from a secondary source - not even when it's a very complicated matter like The Annals of the Four Masters which is both depending on the year entries were written. It's Freshers level stuff tbh.


So, as the post I linked to you is apparently far below your knowledge level why don't you critique it for us?

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Did millions die in wars by choice? I think normally the millions who died for fascism, communism and liberal states did who on the basis of genuine belief in the values of their respective state. Would people do the same, dying horrible deaths for the sake of literary fiction?
How on earth do you expect there to be archaeological evidence? Are you aware of how few have been identified using archaeology that early on? The romans were executing people by crucifixion for a thousands years but despite that we only have a single heel bone. Instead we use literary evidence and it is is relatively strong.

Some did yes - the ones who enlisted. My own great grand uncle was one. Died in 1918 because he believed in the freedom of small nations.

People died violent deaths for not following the party line when it comes to the Bible so I really wouldn't be using that as an example. The Spanish Inquisition alone killed thousands. Mary Tudor had 300 people burned alive for interpreting a book differently to the way Rome did.

Someone else claimed there was archeological evidence btw - I disputed it. But having said that - archeology has found evidence for events far older than 2000 years ago.
Plus extensive work has been done on Masada, amazing finds were made, and restoration work undertaken. This on a site where Jewish rebels expelled a Roman garrison a mere 30 odd years after the alleged death of Jesus.

The archeology also conflicts in many details with Josephus' account of the siege so much shown that his account is considered fairly inaccurate. Even though Josephus's writings on the First Jewish War are primary sources as he was alive and a participant - albeit based in Gaul.

Josephus is the 'main' non-Biblical source for Jesus - but he was not a contemporary so his writing are secondary sources at best. I say at best as many scholars believe the references to Jesus were later additions.

And no, in historical terms 'literary evidence' is not strong. It isn't even that much of a thing. All written evidence is either primary or secondary. That's it. There is no 'interesting story' category.

Fourier

To be honest this thread just shows how silly the debating techniques of the very religious are.

Speaking about Christianity as one among many religions, e.g "the Christian religion", rather than just being factual is a "debating trick".
That there existed religious scientists is proof of something even though there were religious scientists of several faiths, e.g. Abdus Salam was Muslim and Sinichiro Tomonaga believed in the Kami of Japan.
Telling a historian what a primary resource is. And so on.

For others I don't think there is anything to be gained from arguing with people like this as no reason is being employed. These are mistakes of reasoning that many ten year olds can be convinced out of in a few minutes. To me it's like debating the pub eijitt for ten hours about Global Warming because he thinks it's a "load of ****e" made up by RTÉ.

oldrnwisr

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

They do worship the same God. That is logically verifiable. Unless you are speaking metaphorically?

Many reasons could be listed as to why Christianity is a more compelling faith, from the intelligibility it gives to human and natural history to the strong historical basis of the historicity of the life of Christ as described in the Bible.

What strong historical basis do you think the historicity of the life of Jesus has exactly?

one world order wrote: »

There is evidence outside the bible of Jesus existence and archeological discoveries back him up also. 11 of the 12 apostles suffered violent deaths, something a person would not do if he didn't believe Jesus was sent by God for mankind's salvation.

First, there really isn't any primary evidence for Jesus, either inside or outside the Bible. The only archaeological evidence is evidence for the background facts of the story, i.e. Pontius Pilate, Jerusalem etc. But as I've explained on another thread, the existence of Jerusalem or Pontius Pilate does not corroborate the gospel stories. Because there's a New York doesn't mean that there's a Spiderman.

Second, the evidence for Jesus outside the Bible is thin on the ground, at best. The earliest reliable extra-biblical source to mention Christianity isn't until Pliny in 115CE. And this source shows just how limited the impact of Christianity had been by then.


Now, as for the apostles.

The idea that the apostles died violent, martyr's deaths is either a) not evidently true or b) evidently not true depending on which apostle you're talking about. I've laid out the reasons in detail before but repeated them below.
The first problem is that there isn't a consistent list of 12 disciples. They change from gospel to gospel. To illustrate this I have arranged them in table below:

Mark | Matthew | Luke| John | Acts
Peter | Peter | Peter | Peter | Peter
James, son of Zebedee | James, son of Zebedee | James | The sons of Zebedee | James
John, brother of James | John, brother of James | John | | John
Andrew | Andrew | Andrew | Andrew | Andrew
Philip | Philip | Philip | Philip | Philip
Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Nathanael
Matthew | Matthew | Matthew | | Matthew
Thomas | Thomas | Thomas | Thomas | Thomas
James, son of Alphaeus | James, son of Alphaeus | James, son of Alphaeus | | James, son of Alphaeus
Thaddeus | Thaddeus | Judas, son of James | Judas "not Iscariot" | Judas, son of James
Simon | Simon | Simon | | Simon
Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot

So, already we see there are discrepancies.

1. The introduction of a second Judas, the son of James by the author of Luke-Acts, not mentioned by either Mark or Matthew but mentioned by John.
2. The introduction of Nathanael by John, not mentioned by any other source.
3. The omission of Matthew, James, son of Alphaeus and Simon by John.

If the biographical sources for Jesus and the apostles can't even agree on a coherent list of twelve, this doesn't bode well for your argument that 11 out of 12 of them died violent deaths.

In the interests of moving this debate forward, however, I propose the following composite list:

1. Peter (Simon Peter)
2. Andrew
3. James, son of Zebedee
4. John, brother of James
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew/Nathanael, son of Talemai
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James (James the Less, James the Just), son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddeus/Lebbaeus/Jude
11. Simon the Zealot/Cananean (Simeon of Jerusalem)
12. Judas Iscariot (replaced by Matthias)

So now that we know who we're talking about, the question is what happened to them? Can we actually be sure that any of them died martyr's deaths? To be clear, according to the apologetic argument the criterion for a martyr's death is to willingly die for their beliefs even when presented with the opportunity to recant.


Peter
Peter according to tradition was crucified in Rome. He was also crucified upside-down so as not to die in the same manner of Jesus. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that prisoners were rarely, if ever, accorded the privilege of choosing their method of execution, let's examine the textual evidence. The bulk of the traditional account of the martyrdom of St. Peter comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, an account dismissed as unreliable by historian Eusebius (who isn't exactly reliable himself). Other than that we have early Christian scholars such as Origen and Tertullian describing the method of Peter's death but not the origins. These accounts, however, are a century after the fact and not entirely reliable.

Andrew
According to tradition, Andrew was crucified on a saltire (an x-shaped cross) so as not to die in the same manner as Jesus. However, the source for this tradition is the Acts of Andrew (a work authored sometime between 150 and 200 CE). However, even early Biblical scholars such as Eusebius considered the Acts of Andrew to be unreliable. Modern Biblical scholars such as Francis Dvornik have also questioned the authenticity of Acts of Andrew. We, therefore, don't have any reliable information as to how Andrew died and cannot suggest that he was a martyr.

James, son of Zebedee
James is one of the few apostles who is listed as being killed in the Bible. According to Acts 12:1-3, Herod killed James with a sword. There is nothing in Acts to suggest that this death is anything other than a murder. Clement of Alexandria wrote that James was tried and executed as a martyr but since he was born 106 years after James' death, this account is unreliable.

John
John, even according to Christian tradition, is not considered to be a martyr. He is reported to have died in 100CE of old age.

Philip
Like Andrew, the only suggestion of the martyrdom of Philip is in a later work called the Acts of Philip (dated to the mid-to-late 4th century). However, like John, Catholic tradition holds that Philip was not martyred (or at least that his fate was unknown). The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Acts of Philip as a "tissue of fables".

Bartholomew
One of the more interesting apostle stories out there. There are many different stories surrounding Bartholomew's fate. One account suggests that he was crucified in Armenia, while another suggests he was beheaded in India. No writings of Bartholomew's fate exist prior to Eusebius and thus there is no reliable account of Bartholomew's death.

Matthew
The accounts of Matthew's fate are even more varied and unreliable than Bartholomew's. Most Christian scholars agree that the fate of Matthew is unknown. The Christian History Institute concludes that "we have nothing but legend about Matthew's death" while Catholic Online states that "nothing definite is known about his later life". Some sources in fact suggest that Matthew died a natural death.

Thomas
Some accounts including the apocryphal Acts of Thomas describe Thomas as having preached in India where he was stabbed to death with a spear. However, Eusebius dismisses the Acts of Thomas as unreliable. Furthermore, modern Catholic consensus holds that "it is difficult to discover any adequate support" to support the death of Thomas in India.

James the Less
The question to answer here is which James are we talking about. James is mentioned differently in different texts. James is identified by some sources with James, brother of Jesus, a tradition not held by Eastern Orthodox churches. This is unlikely since, according to John 7:5

"Even his own brothers didn't believe him."

Some accounts place his death in Egypt as a result of crucifixion while Josephus mentions that James was stoned by Pharisees (more on that later). There are numerous conflicting stories with no evidence to tip the balance in favour of any of them.

Thaddeus
Again it is difficult to know to what real person any of the stories refer. This apostle is named differently in Luke's Gospel than he is in Matthew's. Some accounts report that he was crucified in Armenia with Simon while others describe him being clubbed to death and others still say that he died of natural causes. However, none of these accounts have any corroborating textual evidence to support them and hence we know nothing of the fate of Thaddeus.

Simon the Zealot
No detail of the many conflicting reports of Simon's death seem to agree. His place of death has been reported as Persia, Edessa, Samria, Iberia, Colchis or even Britain. Some reports describe him being crucified while others say he was sawn in half. The source of this uncertainty is again an identity issue with Simon the Zealot being identified with other early Christian figures including Simeon of Jerusalem.

Judas Iscariot
It's nice to finish on an easy one. Judas' death is told twice in the New Testament such that both cannot be true or compatible. In Matthew 27:3-8 we are told that Judas, filled with remorse, gave back the 30 pieces of silver to the Pharisees whereupon he hanged himself. In Acts 1:18-19 Judas, takes the 30 pieces of silver and buys a potter's field and while walking across it:

"and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out"

So, even if we were able to resolve the contradiction in favour of Matthew's account or the one in Acts, neither story would count as a martyr's death.


As far as the apostles go, the only apostle that could even charitably be described as a martyr is Peter. The rest of the apostles were not deemed important enough to merit anything other than passing mentions in history. Even so, if we accept that Peter was crucified (and I'm not suggesting that we do) we only have descriptions of Peter's death. There are a multitude of questions remaining. In particular one question stands out: Did the authorities offer Peter a chance to recant? If Peter, or any of the other apostles for that matter died in circumstances where recanting would have saved them then that would speak to martyrdom but we have no evidence of any such incident.

In conclusion, we don't know how any of the apostles died, and as such cannot say that they died for their beliefs. Without martyrdom, we don't know how the apostles viewed their beliefs, false or otherwise.

nozzferrahhtoo

pearcider wrote: »

I haven’t made it up.

I am not saying you personally. I mean the entire cohort of theists as a whole, of which you appear to be a part.

pearcider wrote: »

But you keep believing your own meaningless philosophy. I’m sure that will serve you well on your death bed.

Ah theists imagining atheists dead or dying again. The mask slips once again.

"By their fruits you shall know them" indeed. One of the best lines in the Bible. A shame it is a line that shows theists for what they really are, more often than it shows them to be what they wish to pretend to be.

However I have no interest in the death cult that is represented by things like Christianity. I am someone who celebrates life and living, because there is no evidence we have anything BUT this life to cherish.

So I will subscribe to philosophies related to life and living, which is most of what I do. Death and dying will be a relatively short and meaningless period of my life. Selecting philosophies obsessed with that therefore is less relevant to me.

It is theism obsessed with death and dying and, seemingly, having ones enemies dead or dying as you show above. The rest of us are happy to get on with life and living. Try it sometime. You might find you like it.

As for "meaningless philosophies" if you want to address and rebut a philosophy I actually hold then by all meant (attempt to) do so. But meaningless throw away snidery like yours above say precisely nothing about anything, let alone about me or my positions on philosophy.

pearcider wrote: »

It’s just common sense that existence is basically a supernatural phenomenon since human observation doesn’t even scratch the surface of physical reality never mind any other truths.

That is mere human hubris from you though. The feeling that we are so great, that if we find something we can not observe or explain it MUST be "supernatural" because how else would our great and wonderful intellects not be able to discern it.

It is a nonsense position but one that even seemingly great minds like Newton were not immune to.

The reality is however that we are a simple creature, barely different from the animals that we share common ancestry with, and the fact the universe is a mystery to us is a testiment not to our greatness or the universes greatness, but to our limitations.

pearcider wrote: »

Our current scientific knowledge is like a boy looking at a beautiful shell on the beach whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before us.

Sure but as the boy grows out of his immaturity the ocean is there to explore, and he can move to discover more about it and throw off childish stories and fairy tales about the ocean being magic. Our species needs to do the same and when you face the great mysteries that lie before us in the ocean that is our universe.... your fairy tales about it being magic with a magical sky wizard behind it will serve us no useful purpose.

Take the training wheels off the bike, you can cycle without them now.

nozzferrahhtoo

one world order wrote: »

There is evidence outside the bible of Jesus existence and archeological discoveries back him up also.

Which oldrnwisr engaged you on and you, if I recall and am not mistaking you for another posted which is also possible, have since retreated from that conversation. I am happy to see above that he has returned to school you further on the issue. I hope you have the confidence in your positions to actually engage this time.

one world order wrote: »

11 of the 12 apostles suffered violent deaths, something a person would not do if he didn't believe Jesus was sent by God for mankind's salvation.

And many Muslim suicide bombers suffer explosive deaths for their belief too. That does not mean Islam is the true religion.

People giving their life for a religion is not a testament that that religion is true. It is just a Testament to the power of belief and THINKING that that religion is true. There are parents in the US right now who watch their own children die of easily manageable medical conditions solely because they BELIEVE it is what god wants.

Their deaths are evidence they believed their religion. Not evidence the religion itself is true.

As for archaeological evidence, you would have to be clearer on what you mean there. You do realise that if historians 5000 years from now dig up a book about Jason Bourne, there will also be a WEALTH of archaeological evidence supporting his existence too.

Why?

Well quite simply because many of the people, places, events and more mentioned in those books actually do/did exist. Fiction is OFTEN written against the background of real world places, people and events. So if you wish to appeal to archaeological evidence that supports your claims, you would have to show it DIRECTLY supports your claims, and is not merely congruent.

storker

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I notice you are claiming extensive knowledge (granted of literature which is a completely different academic discipline), well I have extensive, extensive knowledge in the discipline of history - not that such a thing is needed to distinguish a primary from a secondary source -

Correct. My daughter covered this as part of her Junior Cert history syllabus. Hardly arcane knowledge...

There are no documents from c 1 - c 33 CE that mention Jesus. None. Zero. Therefore there are no primary sources for him.

I thought he'd got a mention from Suetonius, although that would still be a secondary source, it would be some sort of corroboration of the Bible's claim that Jesus existed in the sense that some guy lived in Palestine who had a bit of a following and was killed because he was seen as a troublemaker. Of course even if we accept that we're still left with unverified nature of the extraordinary claims made for him - and these are really the point. We know for sure that David Icke exists, but that doesn't prove his claims either.

Zubeneschamali

smacl wrote: »

I guess that if you looked at the reason why most people will believe something to be true, without directly testing the veracity of that truth themselves, is that the information provided comes from a trusted source such as a parent, teacher or similar.

I used to say that I was once religious in that I believed in God in the way you describe.

But I am increasingly of the opinion that a simple belief that God's existence is a fact is not always a religious belief. My belief in God was like my belief in Australia, not religious at all.

When I came to examine it, I realized it was simply wrong, and I moved on without any existential angst.

Perhaps it only becomes a religious belief if you examine it, realize it is wrong and then decide to believe it anyway.

storker

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

They don't apply equally because Roman polytheism was entirely different to monotheism faiths like Christianity. Roman polytheism was a collection of devotions to local deities. It was not linked to morality, and meaning like we associate religions today. Polytheism is extraordinarily diverse and complex, in very different ways than monotheism. All monotheist faiths like christianity and islam intrinsically believe in the same god because of the nature of monotheism itself.

You're missing and overcomplicating a much more simple and fundamental point. The Roman/Greek/Viking/Lovecraftian gods are 100% comparable in that their existence has been proven to the same degree. That it's not possible to do a detailed like-for-like comparison of the make-up of the different mythologies or of how they related to the day-to-day lives of their believers is interesting, but irrelevant to this discussion.

Fourier

As a side issue, because I'm sometimes not sure how to describe certain parts of the world, what is the precise meaning of supernatural?

If it means "outside the laws of nature" then there are parts of nature without laws, but surely we still wouldn't call them supernatural. I've never been clear what these terms mean and how we should use them.

EDIT: Basically the normal definition of supernatural relies too much on an idealised notion of nature that turns out to be false. However that doesn't change the spirit of what we mean when we say there is no supernatural so I'm looking for a more neutral definition.

oldrnwisr

storker wrote: »

I thought he'd got a mention from Suetonius, although that would still be a secondary source, it would be some sort of corroboration of the Bible's claim that Jesus existed in the sense that some guy lived in Palestine who had a bit of a following and was killed because he was seen as a troublemaker. Of course even if we accept that we're still left with unverified nature of the extraordinary claims made for him - and these are really the point. We know for sure that David Icke exists, but that doesn't prove his claims either.

Meh, the "mention" of Jesus in Suetonius isn't what Christians would like it to be.



There are two references in Suetonius cited by apologists as references to Jesus. Both come from Suetonius' Life of the Caesars. In Claudius 25, Suetonius comments:

"Since the Jews constantly make disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

This isn't exactly strong evidence to begin with and it is complicated by a number of problems.

First, the name mentioned is Chrestus not Christus and the Christian argument depends on Suetonius misspelling the name Christus as Chrestus. However, Chrestus was a common name in Rome, appearing in over 80 inscriptions from the period (as evidenced by Kurt Linck in De antiquissimis veterum quae ad Jesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis). It was a common given name, especially among slaves, deriving from the Greek Chrestos, meaning good.

Second, the implication from the grammar of the passage is that this instigator was alive when these disturbances were being carried out, which would not fit with the Biblical narrative, Jesus having died almost 10 years before Claudius became emperor.
Finally, it mentions the group who were expelled as Jews, not Christians.



The second reference in Suetonius merely references Christians and not Jesus:


"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."


There's nothing much to see here. The passage in question comes in the middle of a commentary by Suetonius on the edicts passed by Nero banning chariot races and pantomime shows. Saying that there were Christians is not really the same as saying there was a Jesus. And besides these references come in 121CE, a half century after the first gospel and 70 years after Paul's first writings, so its hardly revelatory stuff. In fact, that Christians only warrant such passing references this far into the second century shows the lack of impact and slow growth of the religion by this point and not the overnight, runaway success that Christians have claimed.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It was a common given name, especially among slaves, deriving from the Greek Chrestos, meaning good.

Wasn't aware of the derivation of 'chrestos' - thanks. The usual Ancient Greek words for 'good' were ἀγαθος (pr, agathos) hence the English name 'Agatha', and καλος, primary meaning 'beautiful', hence calisthenics - beauty through strength.

Chrestos in Greek is χρηστος - note the long 'e' - so it would have sounded like 'kraystos', a difference in vowel length and vowel sound, not just vowel sound as the English spelling would suggest. The sense of χρηστος also tended towards 'useful' or 'serviceable' - a hopeful name for a man born a slave, all things considered.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xrhsto%2Fs&la=greek&can=xrhsto%2Fs0&prior=xrhsto/karpos

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As for archaeological evidence, you would have to be clearer on what you mean there. You do realise that if historians 5000 years from now dig up a book about Jason Bourne, there will also be a WEALTH of archaeological evidence supporting his existence too.

That reminds me of Barra O'Donnabhain (UCC Archeologist) and his 'Coca Cola People'.
In 2000 years artifacts baring the words 'coca cola' are found across the globe. All different kinds of artifacts. In all kinds of places, Artifacts which evolve and change in design and complexity. On some there are 'other languages' but all are undoubtedly 'Coca Cola' The point of origin (as in earliest appearance) seems to be the southern part of the North American continent.
The conclusion is a race of people - the Coca Cola People - spread out from there and conquered the world bringing their language and technology with them - as their empire expanded far beyond North America it began to acculturate and adapt to local conditions.

robindch

CramCycle wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

[...] posters are expected to arguments a little more solid than whatever material populates a first-year religious syllabus.

A bit harsh, I am sure there are several decent religious study courses out there.

Yes, there certainly are excellent courses out there created and delivered by people like Bart Ehrman who adopt a suitably critical approach to the accuracy, or otherwise, of biblical texts.

The brief point I had in mind with the above comment was that the current catholic-supporting syllabus for religion in Irish secondary schools includes things intended to support, but never undermine, the general christian understanding of history - stuff like the portentously titled 'Testimonium Flavianum', the short, strange passage in Josephus which is included to support the idea of a 'historical Jesus', while carefully leaving out any reference to the academic research which plausibly suggests that the passage is a later addition by some anonymous, presumably christian, copyist.

CramCycle wrote: »

Specifically, instead of telling your fellow-posters what they believe or don't believe, you might enquire - profitably it appears - as to what their beliefs actually are.If you don't get it - why not ask somebody to explain it then? Plenty of atheists find it quite funny and I'm sure they'll be happy to explain why.

A flaw of the human condition is that most of us find it hard to see something in others that is not present in ourselves. hence why many religious people have a hard time believing that many athiests do not have a religious belief in any way shape or form.

Indeed. And to add to that point, many christians seem to believe that their moral sense derives from their religion, and seem to believe that the absence of religion in other people means that they have no moral compass. A distressingly common piece of really, really lousy logic.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xrhsto%2Fs&la=greek&can=xrhsto%2Fs0&prior=xrhsto/karpos

Forgot to say - in the Perseus online dictionary, to see the full definition, you've to click on one of the the links following the 'Show lexicon entry in...' - "LSJ" provides the full definition from Liddell and Scott's monumental 'A Greek-English Lexicon' which is the standard reference dictionary for Ancient Greek, while 'Middle Liddell' provides a shorter definition from Liddell's 'Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon'.

Interesting historical note - the lexicons' industrious editor, Henry George Liddell, was the father of Alice Liddell, the Alice of Alice in Wonderland fame.