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

Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

Options
1…5681011

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I find it astonishingly accurate in explaining that which is most vital and important in the world around me: People and their hearts.
    What does the bible tell you about people and their motivations that you can't get more accurately elsewhere?


  • Options
    #213
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Here's the final article in the series.

    Myth of Jesus is no basis for building world view today about nature of reality

    Feedback welcome, and thanks for all the feedback on the other articles.


  • Options
    #214
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Here's the final article in the series.

    Myth of Jesus is no basis for building world view today about nature of reality

    Feedback welcome, and thanks for all the feedback on the other articles.

    Mickey, do you have your red jumper on ? You need a new jumper.


  • Options
    #215
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Mickey, do you have your red jumper on ? You need a new jumper.

    And you must be strobe's long lost brother.


  • Options
    #216
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Here's the final article in the series.

    Myth of Jesus is no basis for building world view today about nature of reality

    Feedback welcome, and thanks for all the feedback on the other articles.

    Any more word on the 'dilemma'?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75137550&postcount=194


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    dmw07
    Registered Users Posts: 238 ✭✭dmw07


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Here's the final article in the series.

    Myth of Jesus is no basis for building world view today about nature of reality

    Feedback welcome, and thanks for all the feedback on the other articles.

    Thank you Michael for an excellent read.

    A man after my own heart. I wrote something similar (More arrogant, incoherent and rude, less refined, elegant and tolerable mind.) in another thread at the weekend. I think it was the Steve Jobs one.

    We really don't need to be basing how we should live today, on 2,000 or 1,500 year old second hand authors and hearsay scriptures.


  • Options
    #218
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    B_Fanatic wrote: »
    I highly doubt you actually took the time to pan out the last few pages - if you did you'd know that AntiSkeptic is genuinely passionate about his religion.
    We know that, and if you read further back in the thread you'll see he's a bit too fanatical, that's the whole point.


  • Options
    #219
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote:
    The Gospels called Matthew and Luke, written a decade or more later, were the first to include the risen Jesus physically appearing to people.

    But in Matthew, this seems relatively commonplace, with the bodies of many dead people being physically resurrected, coming out of their tombs, and appearing to many people.
    It seems to have been a central tenet for the early cult. If you ever get to visit Rome, its worth going out to the catacombs about 10km outside the city centre. You can go down into them. The earliest christians believed their dead would literally stand up and start walking around like zombies before zooming up to heaven, hence they refused to bury them. They excavated caves, with shelves for the corpses, and sprinkled them with lime to preserve/dessicate them like mummies until the great day. The Romans banned them from doing it within the city limits for hygiene reasons.
    Eventually at some point they seemed to abandon the practice in favour of a more "metaphysical" (unproveable) resurrection, and just buried their dead.


  • Options
    #220
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael Nugent is chairman of Atheist Ireland

    I can see from this piece why some don't want their atheism to come under your umbrella Michael.


  • Options
    #221
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Here's the final article in the series.

    Myth of Jesus is no basis for building world view today about nature of reality

    Feedback welcome, and thanks for all the feedback on the other articles.

    There's one fatal flaw running throughout your theory.
    Your theory rests on the erroneous premise that because recorded eye witness and oral accounts can naturally vary regarding the details (just as could be expected today), the major events described could not have happened. In fact I'd be much more suspicious of eye witness and oral accounts that tallied exactly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    There's one fatal flaw running throughout your theory.
    Your theory rests on the erroneous premise that because recorded eye witness and oral accounts can naturally vary regarding the details (just as could be expected today), the major events described could not have happened. In fact I'd be much more suspicious of eye witness and oral accounts that tallied exactly.
    Considering they wildly differ with regards important details and with many written many years after the event how do you know which parts are real or which events are real for that matter?


  • Options
    #223
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    There's one fatal flaw running throughout your theory.
    Your theory rests on the erroneous premise that because recorded eye witness and oral accounts can naturally vary regarding the details (just as could be expected today), the major events described could not have happened. In fact I'd be much more suspicious of eye witness and oral accounts that tallied exactly.
    So the fatal flaw in the theory that inconsistency undermines the validity of such accounts is the inconsistency of eyewitness accounts? ¡Ay, caramba!

    Also, I don't believe anyone suggested they could not have happened, only that there is no solid reason to believe they did happen (for the same reason you call a fatal flaw above).


  • Options
    #224
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Your theory rests on the erroneous premise that because recorded eye witness and oral accounts can naturally vary regarding the details (just as could be expected today), the major events described could not have happened.
    Reminds me of a story from the early days of the neocons, during the late 70's.

    Turned out that certain militarily-inclined neocons weren't happy with reports from the CIA that the Soviet Union was gasping its last. So to counter this unparanoid idea, the neocons lobbied successfully to set up a series of teams of people drawn from outside the intelligence community to look into the Soviets' military power.

    Amongst their long list of erroneous conclusions, was this quite extraordinary one from the second group, Team B: Since the US Navy couldn't find evidence that the Soviets had developed more advanced submarines than the ones the Americans already knew about, Team B concluded that this was firm evidence that the Soviets had developed something which was so advanced it was simply undetectable.

    The teams, incidentally, included three chaps named Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney who later lobbied successfully for the US to invade Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction that they knew were hidden there.

    More on Team B here.


  • Options
    #225
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    UDP wrote: »
    how do you know which parts are real or which events are real for that matter?
    Uh, I think that's what "faith" is for.


  • Options
    #226
    homer911
    Registered Users Posts: 5,113 ✭✭✭homer911


    If this is the best that the head of Atheism in Irelance can present as reasoned argument, then Christianity has little to worry about.


  • Options
    #227
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    homer911 wrote: »
    If this is the best that the head of Atheism in Irelance can present as reasoned argument, then Christianity has little to worry about.

    Er...


  • Options
    #228
    HUNK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 383 ✭✭HUNK


    homer911 wrote: »
    If this is the best that the head of Atheism in Irelance can present as reasoned argument, then Christianity has little to worry about.

    Where's that?


  • Options
    #229
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    homer911 wrote: »
    If this is the best that the head of Atheism in Atheist Ireland can present as reasoned argument, then Christianity has little to worry about.

    FYP

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #230
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    homer911 wrote: »
    If this is the best that the head of Atheism in Irelance can present as reasoned argument, then Christianity has little to worry about.
    Or, you know, you could actually write a rebuttal which outlines why you think "Christianity has little to worry about". What sections of the article do you dispute?


  • Options
    #231
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    seamus wrote: »
    Or, you know, you could actually write a rebuttal which outlines why you think "Christianity has little to worry about". What sections of the article do you dispute?

    You know, the bit that says stuff about jesus that he doesn't agree with.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Maybe the organ grinder will be able to string together a coherant reply.


  • Options
    #233
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Dades wrote: »
    Also, I don't believe anyone suggested they could not have happened, only that there is no solid reason to believe they did happen

    Grand, at least you undersand its about your personal belief.
    Equally, there is also no solid reason to believe it did not happen.


  • Options
    #234
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    there is also no solid reason to believe it did not happen.
    Atheism isn't the position that it didn't happen, rather it is a disbelief that it did (disbelief: the inability or refusal to accept something as true; I'm not defining it strictly for you, there was just a post a few weeks ago from somebody who clearly didn't know the meaning of the word so I'm just covering my bases). The same goes for the claims of every other religion that exists or has existed. Until somebody presents a sufficient reason to believe then the sensible position is always disbelief, I'd imagine you apply this principle to other areas of your life when it comes to such far fetched thinks like alien abductions and homeopathic "medicine", we just apply it to religion also.

    All the reasons I've ever heard for accepting religious claims so far amount to little more than anecdotal "evidence" and in your particular religions case, non contemporary sources. Do you accept any other claims on so little evidence? Can you even give a reason why your religion is even more plausible than any other religion out there?


  • Options
    #235
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Knasher wrote: »
    Atheism isn't the position that it didn't happen, rather it is a disbelief that it did (disbelief: the inability or refusal to accept something as true; I'm not defining it strictly for you, there was just a post a few weeks ago from somebody who clearly didn't know the meaning of the word so I'm just covering my bases). Until somebody presents a sufficient reason to believe then the sensible position is always disbelief, I'd imagine you apply this principle to other areas of your life when it comes to such far fetched thinks like alien abductions and homeopathic "medicine", we just apply it to religion also.

    All the reasons I've ever heard for accepting religious claims so far amount to little more than anecdotal "evidence" and in your particular religions case, non contemporary sources. Do you accept any other claims on so little evidence?

    Its quite easy to claim there are no contemporary sources, and yet on the other hand try to proclaim that supposed inconsistencies in contemporary eyewitness and oral testimonies must mean the events never happened.

    What evidence, and contemporary sources have you to believe the accounts of Socrates life and his Philosophy in the 5th Century BC ? What makes them more credible ?


  • Options
    #236
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Its quite easy to claim there are no contemporary sources, and yet on the other hand try to proclaim that supposed inconsistencies in eyewitness and oral testimonies must mean the events never happened.
    I'll admit I'm not a theologian so I have only their word to go on but my source for this claim are christian theologians who place Paul's epistles at 51 A.D. and are the earliest christian documents. If you think they are mistaken then you are welcome to take it up with them.
    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    What evidence, and contemporary sources have you to believe the accounts of Socrates life and his Philosophy in the 5th Century BC ? What makes them more credible ?
    Because in the end it doesn't actually matter. If Socrates and his works were just the fiction of some person lost in history, it really wouldn't make an ounce of difference. Absolutely nothing hinges on the idea of Socrates actually existing, so we lose nothing in accepting he did. The same principle cannot be applied to the various gods, if they don't actually exist then all horrors that religion has inflicted on the world have been for nothing.


  • Options
    #237
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    What evidence, and contemporary sources have you to believe the accounts of Socrates life and his Philosophy in the 5th Century BC ? What makes them more credible ?
    Two differences spring to mind;

    1. Nothing extraordinary happened during the "history" of Socrates to make it "implausible". He just expanded on pre-existing philosophy, and those coming after him continued the process.

    2. Nobody is worshipping Socrates.


  • Options
    #238
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Knasher wrote: »
    I'll admit I'm not a theologian so I have only their word to go on but my source for this claim are christian theologians who place Paul's epistles at 51 A.D. and are the earliest christian documents. If you think they are mistaken then you are welcome to take it up with them.

    I'm talking about the contemporary eyewitness and oral testimonies recorded for propesperity from 51 AD etc.
    Your hardly claiming because something was not written down at a time it did not occur ?
    Knasher wrote: »
    Because in the end it doesn't actually matter. If Socrates and his works were just the fiction of some person lost in history, it really wouldn't make an ounce of difference. Absolutely nothing hinges on the idea of Socrates actually existing, so we lose nothing in accepting he did.

    Socrates and his works are much more important than that. He was one of the founders of Western Philosophy, and made a considerable impact on the field of ethics. His ideas helped form the foundations of Western Philosphy and ethics and has had a profound influence on the world to date, but whether you choose to accept his philiosophy and ethics or not is irelevant here, as a historical figure, I'm asking, what evidence, and contemporary sources and proof have you to believe the accounts of Socrate's life and his Philosophy in the 5th Century BC ?

    How do you know Hannibal of Carthage existed in the 3rd Century BC, how do you know his related historical actions and events occured ? What evidence, contemporary sources, and proof have you ?


  • Options
    #239
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    seamus wrote: »
    Or, you know, you could actually write a rebuttal which outlines why you think "Christianity has little to worry about". What sections of the article do you dispute?

    There's the supposed dilemma (from the Euthyphro Dilemma) awaiting Michaels response.

    Michael seems to share Richard Dawkins penchant for back-of-a-cornflake-packet theological understanding when it comes to Christianity. There isn't even the beginnings of depth to begin dialogue with. Take this..
    Michael's latest wrote:
    Nor is the biblical Jesus exclusively peaceful, or even just.

    I don't know where the idea of Jesus as exclusively peaceful came from. It's one thing to instruct sinners in how they should behave with one another. Quite another in how you yourself intend to deal finally with sin.

    Hellfire and Damnation might have gone out of vogue. But it's not gone out of the bible. Every knee will bow. Whether it want's to or not.

    As for just? Michael begs the question here. What is it and who defines it?

    And besides, for an example of Jesus' unjustness, we have to wait til the tail end of the Bible where Jesus
    .. threatens to kill the children of Jezebel for the sins of their mother.


    ..does Michael know the genre of writing from whence the book of Revelation?


  • Options
    #240
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Very enjoyable article Michael.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »


    ...as a historical figure, I'm asking, what evidence, and contemporary sources and proof have you to believe the accounts of Socrate's life and his Philosophy in the 5th Century BC ?

    You are using lack of 'definite proof' of Socrates’ existence to argue that Jesus could well have existed, as it cant be proved either did/didn’t. This isn’t double standards. No one needs to prove Socrates lived. His ideas are what are important. Not the same with your chap.
    There could well have been a Jewish man who thought he was the son of a god, who had some nice ideas, (few of them original), and got crucified for his troubles. Assuming Jesus did exist which is more likely, he was the son of a god, or he was pathologically deluded? And why is it more reasonable to accept than Perseus was the son of god too? Why does the ‘fact’ if happened 2000 years ago make it any more plausible? I presume you reject Perseus as being the son of a god, why?

    antiskeptic wrote: »


    ..does Michael know the genre of writing from whence the book of Revelation?


    Fiction?


Advertisement