These are some longs comments from
the previous post by pboyfloyd.
I have decided to post them here
for all to easily see.
Comment
"Atheism, on the other hand, is also a belief, belief (without
proof) that God does not exist."
Atheist
No, I think not. I do not believe that there are any gods, not even the
one. This is simply disbelief in every sort of theism.
Reply
Now notice the response, I say
atheism is a belief, our atheist then says NO
it is not, but then contradicts himself by saying he does believe, just in the
non-existence of Gods? He believes in
no Gods. Now which is it? What does our atheist friend mean by believe? Because
it is very unclear how he uses the phrase. How can he say I do not believe and
then say he believes in nothing? Very Confusing?
But lets anticipate his response
here. He might say, non-belief is not a belief. But this is just semantics, belief in nothing is still a
belief. Furthermore if this is actually what he wants to go by, then the theist
could say likewise that he does not believe in God, he just affirms God. In the
excat same way an atheist denies God.
Comment
"Henceforth this simple doctrinal statement has nothing left to
restrain anyone from making the claim that they can kill someone because of the
belief that there is no God."
Atheist
Atheism isn't necessarilly [sic] a doctrine, saying that it's a
'doctrinal statement' doesn't necessarilly [sic] make that true. for [sic]
example, no one taught me or instructed me to say that there are no gods, if
anything the opposite is true!
What carefully worded word porridge. I can claim that I can kill someone
because of the belief that there is no God? There is nothing stopping anyone at
all from making such a claim whether they believe what they're saying or not.
Reply
My first question to my atheist friend
is if it is not necessarily a doctrine, then what is it? My second question is
how does this refute the point I made?
Comment
"This essentially is my point."
Atheist
I'm not 'getting' your point. You could claim that you can kill someone
if you claim that your God inspired you to go ahead and kill someone, as I'm
sure that most who killed in the name of God or Jesus would be happy to say, so
what?
Reply
Cleary my point is lost. Lets
state it again. The Christians Doctrine tells us not to kill people, therefore
killing in the name of the Christians God is not Christian. This is as clear as
I can be.
Comment
"Christianity should be judged on its written doctrines not
humanistic interpretations of them, just like the classic music composers of
the elk of Mozart."
Atheist
That's ludicrous. Aren't you judging Christianity on your interpretation
of it's written doctrines?
Comment
No not at all. I am judging them
on how the Bible judges them. This is the first principle the biblical
interpretation, sola scripture.
Atheist
And how should the 'classic music composers of the elk of Mozart' be
judged except by peoples' interpretation of what they hear, or read, if they
read music?
Reply
Definitely not by a child for
starters. It should be judges as you say, by all people, performance masters,
written scholars, historians, etc. Just the same process as Christianity
Atheist
Are you denying that you read doctrines, or music or listen to the music
and interpret it to something meaningful?
Reply
No not at all, your point?
Atheist
How is this reading without interpretation accomplished? One letter at a
time with no interpretation of the meaning of the words?
Reply
It never is, however the science
of interpretation is always employed. Content is the key not just to meanings phrases
but to very definition of words found in the phrases.
Atheist
I said, 'Surely the 'face' of Christianity at different points in
history are reflected in what people did in the name of their faith according
to their interpretation of that faith.'
To which you reply, "No not at all."
Are you saying that there is no way that different people interpret the
Bible in different ways?
Reply
No not at all. However, if the
doctrines in the bible are interpreted by the Bible in a certain way and people
disagree then clearly this is not a Christian interpretation.
Comment
"This is akin to arguing that a child playing Beethoven on the
piano very poorly, is a reflection of Beethoven's music?"
Atheist
I disagree that it is akin to that. You must imagine that most
Christians are akin to children playing Beethoven on the piano very badly,
since a majority of Christians wouldn't agree with your interpretation of the
Bible 100%(for example which parts are literal, which parts poetic and which
parts figurative or metaphorical.)
Reply
Again, I am not asking Christians
to agree with me just the doctrines and how the scriptures interpret them. And
as to your questions about different genres being employed within scripture the
markers are quite distinctive.
Atheist
In fact you must imagine the Jews, every single one, as akin to inept
childlike piano players giving bad performances when it comes to their
interpretations of their Holy Books, no?
Reply
Not at all, I don’t know how you
made that leap. Looks like you trying an ad hominine argument style here. And I
thought you did not like trying to score cheap points. However, to answer your
question, the Jews fundamentally deny Jesus is God’s Son, yet affirm he
performed miracles, and was worshiped as God. Both interpretations the
Christians doctrines agree with as do I. The interpretations of Jesus is not
the problem, rather their failure to worship him as God.
Comment
"There is no logical flow of that point."
Atheist
There's nothing illogical about what I said at all. A crappy rendition
of a musical piece by a child is a terrible analogy considering the huge
variety of interpretations of the Bible, from both a Jewish and Christian point
of view, each of which were or are considered seriously by those proposing
them.
It doesn't mean anything to compare Scripture or Doctrine to music, was
that what you meant by 'no logical flow'?
Reply
Well let me be clear. Your
point is that we can judge Christianity based on people’s expression of them,
correct? (If I have misunderstood then please let me know). My reply is that we
don’t do this at all in any other field, musical interpretation was the example
given. Your response is that this is not the same because we have many
interpretations of doctrines and people are serious about them? This does not
make sense at all, nor does it have any logic behind it at all let alone
logical flow. What does a plethora of interpretations have to do with judging
interpretations on humanistic expressions?
Comment
"so how would an atheist prove Tomorrow? If they had an answer for
that then maybe the theist could give them a suitable proof of God."
Atheist
I'd chat with a friend in Australia. I'd ask him/her what day it was.
He/she would tell me it's tomorrow for me. I'd say, "I can't just take
your word, long story, show me the view of tomorrow from a video cam. And there
I'd see tomorrow. Proof positive that there is a tomorrow!
Now, show me your video of God!
Reply
I like this response. There are a
least three things wrong with this proof. Firstly you would not be watching
your tomorrow. You would be watching your friends present. From his standpoint
it is your tomorrow but from your position you are looking at his present. It’s
a little thing Einstein call general relativity.
Secondly, physics aside, the proof
that the earth has different time zones is in no way proof tomorrow exists. For
example an Island recently in the pacific changed its time zone effectively
loosing a day compared to the rest of the world. But how can you loose a day.
This is just again a relationship problem with time zones not a comment on the
metaphysical problem of gaining or loosing an actual day.
Thirdly, how would a TV show be
proof or evidence, how would you be certain the your friend was not fabricating
everything.
Now I don’t have a video of God
but I have a letter about him from people who watching him in the flesh, would
you like to read it?
Comment
"For example argue your point for me, why is the denial of God a
political doctrine. I would infer no God, no need for progress, therefore halt
modernity and kill those that disagree?"
Atheist
Well, I don't want to play a game of 'spot the murderous atheist regime',
with you here, but certainly all the regimes which are radically different from
their previous state are going to go through a period of unrest. I don't think
that the USSR 'halted modernity' at all, for example.
Reply
I am not asking you to play games.
Please read my comments carefully. I asked you to argue you point, not look at
historical examples. Please make that case that denying God restrains your from
killing people.
Atheist
Why is the denial of God a political doctrine? But you're dragging me in
circles here. Only a comment ago I was saying that atheism WASN'T a doctrine.
Reply
Sure and I pointed out that that
you must be using atheism in another way to the dictionary. Please define atheism
for me if my dictionary is not to be relied on for this discussion.
Atheist
Now 'denying' God has two possible meanings, denying that there are such
things as gods or denying that a particular god is real or good or deserves
worship and so on, so I think you are introducing unnecessary complication
there.
Reply
I sorry you have chosen to think
this way. I am after clarification, remember it is you that have said you don’t
understand the points I am making, clarity is the key here.
Posts
47 comments:
@ pboyfold
Clearly this dialogue is getting bigger than Ben-Hur.
I do not have time to keep dialoguing on all fronts therefore can you respond at one point or topic at a time.
Regards
Phil
My favourite bit is the references to Einstein, the theory of general relativity and the physics of planetary rotation in order to defend a book which says the earth is flat.
Meanwhile, the Catholics are getting right back into geocentrism on the basis of abstract mathematical theories which, if tweaked right, can be claimed to put the earth at the center of the universe.
Because that's how God operates: dictate to Bronze Age shpeherds information about the universe that, coincidentally, is exactly what a Bronze Age shepherd would assume about it, which will then be proven completely wrong until someone comes along to claim that it only makes sense in the context of scientific theories which Bronze Age shepherds didn't have and the church spent two millenia trying to suppress.
In second place is the good old you-have-to-believe-in-God-to-disbelieve-in-God line. That's fun because it turns the world into a Shrek film.
Since most people don't believe in tooth fairies, talking gingerbread men, unicorns or dragons, that means they DO believe in them, and if unbelievers are really believers, that means magical forest creatures must exist for the same reasons God must.
Really, it's a wonder this stuff isn't taught in schools.
Also, "lose" and "loose" are actually different words with different meanings.
Okaydokey Phil, one thing at a time seems reasonable to me.
You claim that atheism is a belief.
I claim that atheism is a disbelief of theism. It's right there in the Greek roots of the word. 'a' meaning 'not' or 'without'.
Christopher Hitchens called himself an antitheist to make the point that he was not merely atheist, not merely 'without theism' but 'against theism'.
"Now notice the response, I say atheism is a belief, our atheist then says NO it is not, but then contradicts himself by saying he does believe, just in the non-existence of Gods?"
Now read this carefully to yourself Phil. You are a BELIEVER(say it with me Phil, a BELIEVER), I am not a BELIEVER, I am an UNBELIEVER(say it, I know you believe it), an unbeliever, I am a non-believing person.
Can you see how it's YOU who is playing semantics by saying that unbelievers are just believers in the 'not'?
"How can he say I do not believe and then say he believes in nothing? Very Confusing?"
Believes in nothing? It's not much of a wonder that you are 'Very Confused' if you can imagine me 'believing in nothing', since I just don't believe in any gods, not even the one, or the three-in-one.
"..isn't necessarilly [sic] a doctrine.."
I'm a Scot, sometimes I revert to British spelling, not necessarilly though.(-.-.)
Anyway, of course the negative of a belief isn't quite the same as 'a belief in the negative', in EXACTLY the same way that absence of a thing is not a thing called nothing, it's just 'nothing', get it?
Absence of a thing is no-thing, nothing, which is not, in itself, a thing. Basically nothing isn't something.
Absence of a belief is just not believing.
hi pboyfolyd
I like your response and I understand it you have made it before.
I think you are using the word atheism is the weak sense, which is as you say a denial of God or gods.
However strong atheism is the BELIEF that there is not God's.
The way you present you atheist position is more akin to agnosticism. You don't have proof of God so you deny God, however you don't claim to believe that there is no God.
For example, you say,
'Absence of a thing is no-thing, nothing, which is not, in itself, a thing. Basically nothing isn't something.'
'Absence of a belief is just not believing.'
And I agree, but this puts you in the agnostic camp, you don't know, don't have belief, etc...
Do you see how you are actually been arguing from an agnostic position? Atheists do this all the time and this is why it is good to define terms.
Phil
I don't think so Phil. I don't believe that there is any kind of 'thing' like a spiritual realm or spirituality.
I agree that the word 'atheism' is a charged word, but once again, I'd like to contrast it with antitheism.
I think that 'God' is a reflection of ourselves, not to get me wrong, it's like when we think of 'big things', 'big questions', 'the whys' and come up with a 'person' looking back asking us why we dare ask.(a la Job)
The people who wrote the Scriptures weren't stone-age troglodytes, no, but they were products of their environment and they were improving on the anthropomorphological gods created by people to explain the vagaries of weather and plate techtonics and the Cosmos as well as being political animals vying for control of the group via demonization of the out-group.
IOW, they were 'us', doing their 'thing' in a somewhat less technicological age.
I don't think you have answered my point at all.
You say again that you don't believe,
which I understand,
but how does that make you an atheist?
If you don't believe that at best makes you an agnostic?
Atheism is the assured belief and understanding that there is no Gods.
You don't claim that at all?
Therefore how are you an atheist?
Well Phil, you believe that the Holy Scripture is the inspired word of God, right?
This is fair enough to me, why wouldn't you believe these things?
To believe this you believe that there is a spiritual realm called Heaven, that we are dualistic beings part of which is spiritual in nature and that this spiritual part is called a soul, and that it will survive your organic body's death.
I don't believe that there is a spiritual realm, I don't believe that there are spiritual beings, I don't believe that we are dualistic in any way.
What I believe is that we are organic beings whose only real purpose is to pass on some of our DNA to a new 'instance', or several new 'instances' of my kind of organic being.
I had thought that an agnostic was of the opinion that there may or may not be a spiritual realm with God, who inspired people to write the Holy Scriptures, because we cannot know.
If we can't agree, on that word, how about materialist?
Happy to change words to materialist.
But I suspect your not a true materialist either.
For example you have just describe you understanding of the world that you yourself are conscious about. But how it is possible that your solely materialist brain which is oblivious to the world can raise its own conscious understanding about that set world?
Consciousness is one of the processes that the brain does. You know this.
"But I suspect your not a true materialist either."
I think we can both agree that there is a difference between some chemicals in a jar, a steak, and a living cow, for example.
It may be one of the great mysteries of all time how life got it's start, and there is no shortage of attempts to explain the Universe, the World and life, in terms of ourselves.
I don't think we can get an answer from stories written from a very ignorant* point of view, stories written from a political* point of view and so on.
*Why were they ignorant? They knew nothing of carbon and oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen, electrons and magnetism etc. etc.
*Why are the stories political? Well they're no different than stories about how we ought to treat each other today compared to how we do treat each other. The Hebrews' stories, basically about how they're 'human beings' and they discount people who aren't Hebrews, is very similar to the Americans and their Constitution and how being an American Citizen means you're 'free', that the USA is a Christian Nation and how there are different rules that apply depending on whether you're a citizen or not.
Now you can assume that your God is the cause of everything if you like, if that's an explanation that satisfies you, which is no explanation at all really as far as I am concerned.
Keep in mind that there is no middle ground between our positions if your position is, "You are either with us or against us."
There is no half-way point there.
Atheism and Agnosticism are two different epistemological categories. Atheism applies to belief, Agnosticism applies to knowledge. It's perfectly consistent to be both.
When the most militant atheist says the know god doesn't exist, what they mean is they believe god doesn't exist. Just like when Christians claim they know their god exists.
Ryan, did you bother to read my comments at all?
Simply because theism is about belief, atheism is therefore 'without' belief.
I don't care if you say 'epistemological' a thousand times bud.
The plain fact is 'there' in the word.
Once again theism, belief in God, atheism without belief in God.
Words are funny things sometimes Ryan, but not this one. If you simply want to feel superior to people you paint as 'believing in nothing', well, what am I saying, you'd make a comment just like you did, just like Phil is doing.
'Knowing' is a funny thing since you might know that your car is outside and your wallet is in your pocket even though you may well have been a victim of a pickpocket and a car thief, no?
Hey, you might even know that no-one comes back from the dead ever and yet if you've read the Bible and believe it, you also know that 11 people have come back from the dead.
Knowledge is indeed a funny thing.
Okay Ryan, it may well be that you imagine that just because some philosophers decided to categorise atheism doesn't make it so, unless we agree, of course.
You'll never guess this but I happen to disagree.
You can 'epistemological this' and 'epistemological that' all day long but it is total rubbish to me.
Philosophers aren't gods who 'get to' say what words mean. Don't assume that I'm following along with your favourite philosophers' distinctions then berate me for not doing that.
Atheism is a lack of belief.
At this point in time, virtually everyone has embraced a position of atheism regarding the Greek gods who reside on Mount Olympus.
Regarding the Hindu god Ganesha the Elephant-Headed, virtually all Christians would take a strongly resolved position of non-belief. They are Ganesha-atheists. Christians LACK belief in the existence of Ganesha. Most of the world's population would be described as "atheist" regarding Ganesha. (It's true that they might believe in OTHER entirely unsubstantiated claims about the configuration of the supernatural spirit-world, but they are quite comfortable with the reasonableness of their position as Ganesha-atheists.)
I do not (and cannot) believe my neighbor's firmly-held convictions that garden-fairies appear under the light of a silvery moon to dance among the furrows of his carrots and cabbages. There is NO WAY to prove his convictions are false! But, since he offers me no convincing evidence that the fairies DO dance beneath the cabbage leaves, I am quite comfortable dismissing his version of reality. I lack belief in the fairies, therefore, I am a garden-fairy atheist. If I discover ANY evidence of the Garden Fairy Cotillion, I am more than willing to take that evidence into consideration. Trust me, I would be fascinated to see the garden-fairies dance! I think it's really, really, really unlikely, however.
My "lack of belief" in the dancing garden-fairies IS NOT just a "different form of belief." It's reality.
Reality is not just a "different form of belief." Reality can be demonstrated to be true. Reality can be shown to be objective.
Atheism is not a positive assertion that "THERE IS NO GOD." One cannot prove a negative. It is, in effect, a statement of "I don't believe in something for which there is no concrete, credible evidence." (Like the garden-fairies.) There are as many different things in which I lack belief as there are creative minds to create myriad fictional concoctions. I lack belief in Superman. I lack belief in Zeus. I lack belief in Charlotte the talking spider. My position does not represent a "different form of belief."
There is no evidence for Leprechauns. There is no evidence for gods or goddesses. Feel free to pick up the cabbage leaf and demonstrate that garden-fairies objectively exist. Feel free to demonstrate, objectively, that Superman exists. Or, that God exists. You can't. These are not things that I "believe." They are things on which an overwhelming majority of objective, unbiased witnesses can agree.
This is called reality.
I think that if we're all being fair and honest here, we can't help but notice that focusing on the definition of the word 'atheism', the good Rev. and Ryan defining it in their terms to gain some kind of upper hand, or atheists defining it as they see it, isn't going anywhere.
I think that it's just what theists are down to. To convince a person that their position is incorrect, one can paint that position as untenable.
If only we atheists could see that atheism is a positive assertion of a negative then we wouldn't be atheists, I'm supposing the reasoning goes.
This entire post and all the comments have been nothing more than that, Phil claiming that atheism is a ridiculous positive assertion of a totally unprovable negative.
We could go to the even more ridiculous by talking about negatives that are 'provable', square circles, married bachelors, that kind of thing.
But we'd have to agree with Phil that we mean what he means when he says 'atheist' or we'd have to agree, or at least be confused by Ryan's epistemological category thing.
pboyfloyd may be correct
However if he is I have this one question, how can we talk about anything if we are unsure to its definition?
By simply stating that we are getting nowhere in effect silences the debate thus showing where atheist are at. If atheists are unwilling to define what they mean in a concrete way, they clearly show that they are just avoiding the conclusion that it is untenable!
The conclusion that is untenable is that there is an extremely camera-shy, magic personality. There is zero concrete evidence for such a conclusion!
If God cares about us, why not reveal himself in a real, undeniable way? I'm fairly certain that Larry King would be happy to come out of retirement in order to interview Jesus.
To be deemed worthy of Heaven, must one prove beyond all reasonable doubt that one is completely gullible? Must I believe in something that flies in the face of all reason, in order to be judged a good person?
There is ZERO concrete evidence for flying carpenters. There is ZERO concrete evidence for virgin births. There is ZERO concrete evidence for talking snakes. To be worthy of heaven, how gullible must one be?
If God loves me, why did he give me logic and reason, every logical reason in the world to doubt his existence, and then steadfastly refuse to show his face? Is my salvation some sort of cruel shell-game?
The conclusion that is untenable is the one that is the rather OBVIOUS fiction.
The conclusion that is untenable is the one that was reached by sub-literate Palestinian goat herders who had no understanding of the Scientific Method.
Hi Tigerboy
You use the phrase, concrete evidence, of which you claim there is no in support of God?
I find this interesting. Firstly more people worship God than don't, this is concrete evidence.
The historical reliability of the gospel is affirmed by historians, this is concrete evidence.
No trained historian alive does not believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, this is a concrete fact.
The scientific history of the emergence of our planet is literally in line with the description found in Genesis, this is a concrete fact... etc etc etc.
So can you please help me to work out what you meant by Concrete fact?
P
Phil, it seems to me that the Gospels are books written to tell the Jews that their prophecies of a coming Messiah have been fulfilled.
But they weren't. Matthew and Luke have two different geneologies(both different from Chronicles' geneology) for Yeshua(there was no-one called Jesus), and these geneologies surely don't count for the son of God, but for sons of those anscestors right?
Yeshua(or Yehoshua), meaning Salvation or The Lord is Salvation, the same name as Joshua(that Joshua), a legendary hero of the Jews, means Saviour.
There was a prophecy that the Jewish messiah would be a Nazarene, a branch, and I'm going to assume that you don't doubt that Christianity is a branch of Judahism?
So here we have it that you worship Jesus of Nazareth, actually Jesus the Nazarene, actually Yeshua the Branch, actually 'The Branch's Saviour'.
Now, since he, according to Christianity is also the prophesied Messiah, the Christ, Jesus' name and title translate to Christianity's Saviour!
That's like the richest man in the world being born with the name 'The Richest Man in the World'!
It's ludricous, if you think about it, it is absurd, isn't it?
A concrete fact is something tangible, something objective, something that cannot be denied by intellectually honest people. A concrete fact is something that cannot be dismissed, regardless of personal opinion, politics, or perspective. A concrete fact tells the truth about reality, a truth which can be demonstrated to an objective audience. It is a fact which all unbiased, truthful witnesses can agree is a reflection of reality. Not subject to interpretation.
A concrete fact is not threatened by objective inquiry by means of the Scientific Method. It welcomes such investigation. This is just the opposite of taking what one has been told on faith.
Faith dismisses objective reality. The faithful seem to think it somehow noble that they believe what they’ve been told, without real evidence. Faith values mystery. Charlatans love mystery and the credulous faithful (or, as the Catholic Church calls them: Sheep). There is great power and profit in telling the gullible what to think.
As far as divinity is concerned, the entire history of the world has produced zero concrete evidence of any divine, magical beings. Nothing. That's suggestive.
I take exception to your statement:
---"No trained historian alive does not believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, this is a concrete fact."
That is a patently false assertion. There are plenty of historians who question the historicity of virtually the entire Biblical document! It is blatant agenda-pushing. It's completely bias. Bias makes for very suspect history. The Bible makes for truly POOR history. For instance, it's becoming widely accepted, among archaeologists, that Exodus is entirely mythical.
The Jews were never in bondage in Egypt. There is no evidence for that. Zero. Not one verifiable artifact. Millions of Hebrews . . . living for generations in Egypt . . . toiling to build the pyramids . . . Moses leading them across the desert . . . it never happened! The Egyptians kept excellent records. No Jews. The pyramids were built by paid laborers. There are records of Egyptians keeping slaves, but not millions of Hebrews. It didn't happen.
Once one discounts the stories of the Bible as unreliable, which one must, there is no reliable evidence for Jesus, either. None. There are records of Roman crucifixions, but no records of a guy named Jesus. Despite the claim that he was supposed to be a rabble-rouser who attracted the attention of "multitudes," there is no record of a crucifixion of a preacher named Jesus. The only evidence for Jesus is the stories that were written generations after his death. Concrete evidence? Hardly. Even Paul, the only person to write of Jesus, prior to the first of the Gospels, which came several generations after the crucifixion, even Paul only writes of Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection as taking place in the spiritual realm. That Paul felt he was writing about an actual person, about recent historical EARTHLY events, is far from certain. I agree with pboyfloyd that the name "Jesus Christ," meaning "Savior" and "Messiah," is highly suggestive that Paul is telling stories about a Messiah, a son of God, that he assumed to exist in the spiritual realm, not a real man.
I'm not saying I believe that a preacher named Jesus did not exist. I'm saying there is extremely little verifiable history. Plenty of scrupulous historians have serious doubt. The Bible is not reliable history. It has its own agenda.
Even if Jesus did walk the Earth as an actual human being, there are so many conflicting opinions and beliefs about the nature of the Jesus character, and a mountain of mythology layered onto his story, even centuries after his death, that an accurate, realistic picture of this carpenter/preacher is totally obscured by agenda-pushing and dogma. There are clear examples of interpolation, the act of later Christians adding new information to older text. Even if Jesus lived, he was most certainly NOT the character that was built, layer by layer, century after century, into the Superhero we see today.
Just consider the simple case of Christmas: The Bible says nothing about the date of the birth. From what we know about what time of year Palestinian shepherds would be "laying in fields, watching their flocks by night" it suggests spring, or early summer. Centuries later, the Church decides on December 25. That becomes part of the mythology! The character becomes layered with new information. It has nothing to do with the real man. Even is the real man existed, and I'm not saying I believe he did not, the Superhero is a complex invention of later people.
To say that no trained historians question the historicity of Jesus is just not true. There is only questionable, biased evidence that he did exist. Not good enough.
However, regarding my statements about a total lack of any real evidence, I was not addressing the idea of a historical figure named Jesus. I was talking about magic. Miracles. Divine powers and supernatural events. Gods and goddesses. Supernatural beings who break the laws of physics.
In all of recorded history, every single event or concept that we have ever failed to understand, once objectively understood, the answer has never turned out to be "MAGIC." No person in the history of the world has been able to demonstrate, to an unbiased audience, under controlled laboratory conditions, that he has powers beyond what we understand about science. How many thousands and thousands of people have claimed to be divine, without one single example of supernatural abilities? It's a lie.
We have an excellent understanding of the physics of the Universe, and we know that people do not just rise up into the clouds (unless they are earning frequent flyer miles on American Airlines, or they work for NASA). Water does not turn into wine, and we have a very clear understanding about WHY water does not turn into wine. Loaves and fishes do not spontaneously double, triple, quadruple in number. That would violate everything we know about the physics of reality. It's a story better suited to a rerun of "I Dream of Jeannie." It's fiction.
Young girls do not give birth to babies without having had any sexual contact with males. It's a lie. It's a rather obvious lie.
Your statement that science and the Bible agree about the formation of the world is an outrageously false assertion, too! (How do you look yourself in the mirror, telling such fibs?) The Earth formed over 4.5 billion years ago. The Bible makes no statements to that effect! Rocks and grains of dust, in our solar neighborhood, coalesced, by gravity, slowly accreting to form proto-planets and, after many millions of years, planets. Several of these clumps of coalesced matter had sufficient mass for gravity to form them into spheres. That's what formed the Earth (and the other planets). Where does the Bible say anything like that?
Hi Tigerboy,
Wow lots of comments.
Lets deal with one point at a time.
You say...
A concrete fact is not threatened by objective inquiry by means of the Scientific Method. It welcomes such investigation. This is just the opposite of taking what one has been told on faith.
My Reply
If a concrete fact welcomes an objective inquiry from the scientific method, then as you say it must concur with the basis of all scientific enquiry which is induction. But how can the fact be concrete if it is derived from particulars to the general and is subject always to falsification? This cannot be concrete at all rather at best just strongly likely. How can this be concrete?
P
@ Tigerboy
You say...
Your statement that science and the Bible agree about the formation of the world is an outrageously false assertion, too! (How do you look yourself in the mirror, telling such fibs?) The Earth formed over 4.5 billion years ago. The Bible makes no statements to that effect! Rocks and grains of dust, in our solar neighborhood, coalesced, by gravity, slowly accreting to form proto-planets and, after many millions of years, planets. Several of these clumps of coalesced matter had sufficient mass for gravity to form them into spheres. That's what formed the Earth (and the other planets). Where does the Bible say anything like that?
My Reply
Hmmm Methinks it does for example,
please see http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/2009/11/science-confirms-genesis-story-in-bible.html
P
So, in other words, you got nuthin'.
Semantics tomfoolery and a connect-the-concepts game from "A Child's Big Book of Bible Science."
This is your evidence for how the Bible and science agree? Rain comes from clouds?!
I thought you would have trouble answering this.
Let me no if you want to dialogue on the other points?
P
I'm sorry Phil, I'm not seeing Tigerboy's answer as 'having trouble answering this' at all.
Show me her has answered my points?
All I read is Nar Nar Nee Nar Nar?
P
All I read is Nar Nar Nee Nar Nar?
That is because of your massive bias.
In your Science confirms Genesis post you cherry pick apparent matches between events proposed for the astro-physical model and the Biblical model(Genesis story).
The purported matches are out of order. You seem to allow a day to be as long a period of time as necessary, whereas the Bible, with it's, '..evening, then morning, a new day..', is obviously strictly ordered 24 hr. days.
Sure, to make the events fit we can argue that a day is like 1000 years(or any amount of time really) to God, or you may interpret the Scripture to mean exactly one normal day after another, but you can't just mix and match to fit.
And here you were saying that you didn't interpret the Bible, Phil. Surely you do exactly that if you're willing to ignore the order and ignore the 'evening and morning' meaning of a day.
Perhaps 'ignore' is a harsh word? Perhaps 'put aside' is more what you imagine you're doing as you interpret Genesis to fit scientific theory?
"The catch cry of atheists world wide would have to be how unreliable the Bible is as a book to believe in."
In Genesis, God tells Adam to name the animals and chose a companion from among them. When Adam cannot find a suitable companion, God makes a woman for Adam out of Adam's rib!
There is just so much wrong with this, isn't there?
For starters men and women don't have equal numbers of genes. Women have about 2000 genes more than men.
Now we could argue that this story is allegorical, that it is explaining men's authority over women and that women belong at men's side, as a rib is, and so on.
We could even argue that it is a good teaching tool for children. I recall counting ribs in classroom as a young boy, girls being a bit bigger than boys at that age would be more likely to count them all and a bit of classroom pressure would ensure everyone that indeed girls have more ribs that boys.
But it's not a scientific fact though.
Hi pboyfolyd
You argue.
whereas the Bible, with it's, '..evening, then morning, a new day..', is obviously strictly ordered 24 hr. days.
My Response.
In which verse are you speaking. Genesis 1:4 or Verse 1:14? Both talk about the separation from evening and morning. How do you put both together?
You said,
but you can't just mix and match to fit.
My reply,
I doubt you can make your answer fit.
You said
Women have about 2000 genes more than men.
My Reply,
Right so you arguing that God could not create a woman from a man with 2000 more genes? Is that the point you are making?
Let me know your answers
P
Phillip said:
---"But how can the fact be concrete if it is derived from particulars to the general and is subject always to falsification? This cannot be concrete at all rather at best just strongly likely. How can this be concrete?"
We all stay put right down upon the Earth because of gravity. It doesn't matter what religion you are, or who you voted into the White House, or what your Mama taught you . . . . . we all understand that if you jump off your roof, you're gonna fall down, not up. That's a concrete fact. Someone might take the position that they can float in the air, but they're wrong. An overwhelming consensus of humans understand that people, unaided by a balloon, cannot float in the air.
The Earth orbits the Sun. The Church tried REAL hard the tell us differently, but, at this point, it is undeniable that the Earth orbits the Sun! After centuries of making scientist's lives miserable, even the Church admits that the Earth orbits the Sun. That's a concrete fact.
Chemistry is objective. Combine Iron and Sulphur and you will get Iron Sulfide. You won't get cork! Anyone who combines Iron with Sulphur will get Iron Sulfide. It's a concrete fact because you can be as biased as you want (you may be a HUGE fan of cork!), but you will not get anything but Iron Sulfide, and any objective audience to your experiment will agree with your results.
Math is objective. It does not matter whether, or not, you agree with the statement 2+2=4. It's still the correct answer. Falsify the results, if you wish. Anyone can see the answer.
You are partially correct. It takes a lot of unbiased people a lot of time and study to understand some of the difficult concepts we encounter. And, sometimes, people can make mistakes. People can tell lies. But, there is a mountain of facts, at this point, for which opinions cease to matter. We understand the truth of them. That mountain of indisputable facts is growing, more every day, and it stands directly in the path of anyone who claims foolish, outlandish things.
The Bible makes foolish and outlandish claims about reality. That we know those things never happened is not an opinion, it's a fact. Anyone who thinks a snake talked is wrong. It's not possible. Snakes don't have vocal cords.
There has never been an objective demonstration of divinity. Ever. Not ever.
I've put some effort into stating my position, and answering your games-playing about the nature of facts. Now, if you don't mind, explain to me how science and the Bible tell the same story about how the Earth was formed. Don't send me a link to foolishness. Tell me in you own words.
"Right so you arguing that God could not create a woman from a man with 2000 more genes? Is that the point you are making?"
Don't play word games with us please, Phil.
We all know the old saw, "God can do anything.", but there is no reason for God to take six days to make the heavens and the earth and to separate them and all, there is no reason for the rib thing, Adam was never going to mate with another of God's creatures, men and women are one species, not two separate creations at all.
These stories are at best allegories explaining a few points about the culture of the writer and how that came to be, and at worst metaphorical, leaving the reader to imagine what the metaphor stands for.
There were no witnesses recording the order in which God felt it necessary to fit parts of 'HIS creation' together and of course taken allegorically, it's meaning is clear, God, by acting through time is acknowledging that time passes in this World.
That it is allegorical is obvious since God rests on the Seventh Day, but God needs no rest, isn't that right?
If HE actually rested, what did HE do the next day and why isn't THAT important, since it is a story about God, there's only the one character, until HE decides different, right? We even have God talking to Himself explaining how it is we look like we look and so on, only necessary in an allegory where we're being taught a little somthing about God, He talks stuff into being.
For example, does God speak in Hebrew? Hard to imagine or explain barring some glib, "God can do anything.", non-explanation that theists are prone to.
HI pboyfolyd
'Word games'
What game am I playing, please tell me how to question you without words?
You said,
but God needs no rest, isn't that right?
My Reply,
Of course not but what does that have to do with anything. I don't need beer but I enjoy and have it? These points are very silly. Furthermore you have changed your tune, you said previously that we must take Genesis literally with 24 hour day period and now you say allegorical. Which one is it and why have you changed your position, it is because I pushed you?
You said,
If HE actually rested, what did HE do the next day and why isn't THAT important, since it is a story about God, there's only the one character, until HE decides different, right?
My Reply
This is one of the main reasons why the BIble cannot eb pushed into literal 24 hour period because there is no end on the 7th day. Moreover it demonstrates that God enjoys His creation by resting in it.
Any others?
P
@ tigerboy
You said
We all stay put right down upon the Earth because of gravity. It doesn't matter what religion you are, or who you voted into the White House, or what your Mama taught you . . . . . we all understand that if you jump off your roof, you're gonna fall down, not up. That's a concrete fact.
My Reply
I love this, so many mistakes its not funny. Firstly you only fall DOWN in proportion to where you stand. Gravity actually pulls the earth, albeit it slightly, toward you own mass when jumping off a roof. Secondly this concrete fact of your cannot be applied in the same fashion on other planets in the solar system. Moreover this concrete facts breaks down when approach small limits of the Planck Length.
So what in effect you mean about this concrete fact is that what we observe here on earth doesn't apply when we place it in different spheres of knowledge. Consequently we must adhere that the fact breaks down. So its not really concrete.
You say
The Bible makes foolish and outlandish claims about reality. That we know those things never happened is not an opinion, it's a fact. Anyone who thinks a snake talked is wrong. It's not possible. Snakes don't have vocal cords.
My reply
Which is why it is remarkable. Furthermore, you quote here shows how unscientific your enquiry actually is. If a naturalist exploring in the jungle of Africa comes across a rare and never bore seen species of snake, with surprise surprise, vocal chords, and published his findings then would you not change your tune. The fact we know in general that snakes do not have vocal chords makes the snake in Genesis all the more interesting and worthy of investigation not arrogant dismissal like you adhere to.
You said,
Now, if you don't mind, explain to me how science and the Bible tell the same story about how the Earth was formed. Don't send me a link to foolishness. Tell me in you own words.
My Reply
The link was my own words, and you don't have the capacity to deal with it then I cannot help you. Please have the curiosity and politeness to deal with my written arguments. pboyfolyd does.
P
Okay, you're not even willing to concede the objective reality of gravity?!! How is anyone supposed to converse with you? Your position SEEMS to be that there is no way ever to know anything. Good luck with that! You won't actually come out and say that, clearly, but that seems to be your answer. Why don't we all just curl-up into a fetal position and whimper, shall we?
I am well aware that DOWN equals TOWARD the larger mass upon which one is currently walking. That doesn't make the concept non quantifiable! Even if we don't yet understand every last detail about it, gravity CAN be objectively understood! That ability exists. Explain to me how gravity doesn't apply to the other planets in our solar system. I'm very curious about that little synaptic misfire.
You're nuts. You PREVENT people from actually talking to you. You claim that you wish to have a dialogue, but you won't even concede GRAVITY! Your religion has pushed you completely off your rocker.
@ tigerboy
What are you talking about, I totally have conceded with gravity, just not your biased epistemological portrayal of it.
You said,
Your position SEEMS to be that there is no way ever to know anything. Good luck with that!
My Reply,
Here is the problem. You are putting your own spin on my words which you do in the passive aggressive manner quite ineffectively. We are talking about concrete facts, not knowledge, why have you suddenly put in knowledge into the equation and then suggested I'm hard to dialogue with? The fact that you go and change the topic shows that it is you who actually cannot dialogue here. It is you atheism that is grounded on simple ill-informed understanding of reality and philosophy.
You said,
That doesn't make the concept non quantifiable!
My Reply
Well if you are aware why didn't you explain i more aptly? Furthermore this was not the point that makes in non quantifiable, which I made very clear, would you like me to repost my point from the comment strand?.
You said,
Even if we don't yet understand every last detail about it, gravity CAN be objectively understood! That ability exists.
My Reply,
Here you go again. You firstly admit my point that you example of gravity cannot be used as a concrete fact by saying we cannot understand every detail, but then you hark on about objective understand which was never in question in the first place.
But the real kicker is which I have just got you to admit is, that you accept a flawed theory of gravity and demand a concrete fact for theism? You are the one with the biased rational process and the bigoted stance towards Christianity. It is this subjectivism and not the facts that prevent you from acceptance in the divine.
You said,
You PREVENT people from actually talking to you.
My Reply
How do I prevent them, do I lock them up and sew their mouths shut? Please explain what you mean?
You Said
Your religion has pushed you completely off your rocker.
My Reply
No as I have just shown it is your bigoted and prejudicial atheism that won't let you follow where the argument takes you. That's why you trying to blame me that I won't let you dialogue which is the most foolish thing I have heard this whole strand.
P
By the way, "dialogue" is not a verb. I'll allow that you might be able to find it in dictionary that way, but, trust me, it's a noun. People use all kinds of nouns as verbs these days . . . party, office, impact, dialogue . . . these are not verbs. It's obnoxious. The verb you are looking for is "converse," or "discuss."
I was speaking of "concrete fact" in a way that refers to a concept that a consensus of unbiased people can count on and accept, without controversy, such as:
The sun rises in the east.
Chipmunks are living creatures; rocks are not.
A collision between 18-wheeler truck and a dog is unlikely to work out well for the dog.
Humans must have oxygen to survive.
Genes pass on traits.
Battery acid will cause problems when splashed in one's eyes.
Newspaper ignites at a predictable temperature.
These are noncontroversial facts we can all agree on. They help us navigate and understand our world. We need to be able to count on reality. I don't know about you, but I'm rather fond of reality.
You're the one who wanted to take the discussion to "approach small limits of the Planck Length." (You still haven't explained why gravity "cannot be applied in the same fashion on other planets in the solar system. I'm really looking forward to that!") Math and gravity are about as objective as you can get, but I was not even trying to make that point.
I was talking about the simple idea that mankind strives to understand and explain his circumstances. When facts are understood and accepted, by a consensus of unbiased people, we can count on these facts as being features of reality. Is it possible that we might get new information and have to adjust our understanding of reality? You bet! But, in the meantime, we can feel comfortable enough to call something a "concrete fact," when an overwhelming consensus of the unbiased have studied it in an unbiased way, and accepted it as true. It's noncontroversial.
Divinity has NEVER demonstrated ANY features that meet this standard. Suggestive.
We wish to understand our circumstances. We have done REMARKABLY WELL at understanding and explaining our circumstances.
We also have a rather obvious tendency to make up myth-stories about our circumstances.
There is a stark difference between these two versions of reality.
The facts in "Column A" can be demonstrated. They can be understood and accepted by a consensus of the unbiased. They advance knowledge. The "facts" in "Column B" are not understood, or accepted, by a consensus of the unbiased. They do not advance knowledge. Myth-stories are controversial, because they are not based on demonstrable reality.
The facts in "Column A" increase our understanding of our true circumstances. The "facts" in "Column B" cause wars, terrorism and abortion clinic bombings.
There is excellent reason for us to pursue knowledge we all can accept as being a reflection of truth. Holding that knowledge to a high standard of non-controversy means we can put our trust in that knowledge as representing our best, most unbiased effort to explain reality . That helps everyone understand. Even those who don't understand some concept that is too complex for them can see the difference between the biased, and the unbiased, pursuit of knowledge. Unbiased knowledge is much more trustworthy.
When one advances a controversial version of reality that contains features that no person could possibly demonstrate (or, even have any knowledge of!!), such as the existence of Heaven/Hell, one is guaranteed to create conflict with the neighbors who believe something different. This doesn't advance mankind. It causes resentment and hatred.
You have no concrete evidence to suggest that your version of reality is anything but myth.
HI Tigerboy
1. You say
These are noncontroversial facts we can all agree on. They help us navigate and understand our world. We need to be able to count on reality. I don't know about you, but I'm rather fond of reality.
My reply
Great I agree with everything here. So lets apply this methodology to the person of Jesus Christ. We have unbiased independent accounts that Jesus Christ existed, correct? These accounts also provide us with unbiased and irrefutable evidence that Jesus tomb was found empty and people witnessed him living and speaking with him. So by your standard we must conclude that Jesus lived and rose from the dead correct?
2. You said
(You still haven't explained why gravity "cannot be applied in the same fashion on other planets in the solar system. I'm really looking forward to that!")
My Reply
Good here it is. Is the rather obnoxious concept of dark energy. If gravity is meant to attract bodies of mass to other bodies then we would assume that the universe would be expanding, however that is not what we observe, so scientist have to make up a concept call dark matter to counter the effects of gravity on all other planets to show not only that the universe is expanding but speaking up. Was it satisfying?
3. You said
When one advances a controversial version of reality that contains features that no person could possibly demonstrate (or, even have any knowledge of!!), such as the existence of Heaven/Hell, one is guaranteed to create conflict with the neighbors who believe something different. This doesn't advance mankind. It causes resentment and hatred.
My reply
So we should abandon science? We have no knowledge of dark energy, just that it doesn't fit with our understanding of gravity, we cannot see it, we cannot demonstrate it, its bound as you say to cause conflict, resentment and hatred. Stupid gravity causing so much problems for the world. Let me know when you renounce gravity.
P
You said
@ Tigerboy
Typo
It should read
'the universe would not be expanding'
Great I agree with everything here. So lets apply this methodology to the person of Jesus Christ. We have unbiased independent accounts that Jesus Christ existed, correct? These accounts also provide us with unbiased and irrefutable evidence that Jesus tomb was found empty and people witnessed him living and speaking with him.
First, history is never objective. The things Tigerboy listed can be observed and repeated, historical events by definition cannot be directly observed or repeated.
Second I would question how you know the accounts are unbiased.
And third, I would like for explain how 2nd hand accounts written decades after an event can be considered irrefutable evidence for that event.
Otherwise you're just doing a lot of unsubstantiated asserting.
"All four gospels agree in their emphasis upon the event taking place on the first day of the week and that those who found the tomb empty were women, all give prominence to "Mary" and attention to the stone that had closed the tomb. They do not appear to agree on the time at which the women visited the tomb, the number and identity of the women, the purpose of their visit, the nature and appearance of the messenger(s), whether angelic or human, their message to the women and the response of the women to the visitor in the tomb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus:_Empty_tomb
You said, "These accounts also provide us with unbiased and irrefutable evidence that Jesus tomb was found empty and people witnessed him living and speaking with him."
Right, so if you can dismiss the parts where the Gospels refute each other, you're all set to believe that Jesus was certainly dead, there was only one entrance to the tomb, and that hundreds of 'saints' also resurrected and wondered around Jerusalem for a month or so.
It would seem that my last comment has been censored. Is this how we have a dialogue? We only allow the parts of the dialogue we like?
Post a Comment