The question now – should I duck for cover? Wouldn’t want to go saying anything that the people binarily opposed to me from a philosophical standpoint may find offensive now would I…
From here.
The question now – should I duck for cover? Wouldn’t want to go saying anything that the people binarily opposed to me from a philosophical standpoint may find offensive now would I…
From here.
Comments
I don’t think being unfunny is going to enrage anyone particularly.
Um… maybe it’s me but I don’t actually see the joke… oh wait, it’s because atheists don’t believe in anything! Ha! Ha! But hold on, atheism means “Don’t believe in gods” not everything so right there it falls apart because it doesn’t even understand the subject it’s trying to lampoon. Further more the atheists in the cartoon are making judgments based on facts like the food’s quality and price now that they’ve experienced the cafe.
I guess in the theist’s cafe you’d have the people nothing but claiming it’s delicious.
Oh and it’s certainly not offensive, lame would be the harshest thing you could say.
It’s actually pretty hard to offend an atheist over atheism, see no angry sky god to worry about.
Hey Nathan… nothing!
Don’t worry Nathan, I got the joke. It’s not as good as your tractor joke though.
Actually, I think you were being a little unfair when you commented in that infamous thread about people missing the subtlety in the tongue-in-cheek name of your blog. I don’t think it’s because they’re atheists, I reckon they’re just Americans! (Before the vitriol starts: some of my best friends are American! No, wait.. most of my favourite North Americans are actually Canadian!)
Salvage, this comic was actually done by an Atheist (http://bizarrocomic.blogspot.com/2009/09/believe-it-or-not.html), so take it up with him!
Browsing that guys other work I can’t believe how funny he is! A few more years and he could have the chops to take over writing The Family Circus!
No, if he hasn’t realized how weak his stuff is by now he never will.
There’s a lot of that going around.
Salvage, you do realise it’s a play on words, not a parody of a belief system, right?
How is it a play on words? There is nothing witty at play here. Not irony, no pun, no double meaning, no comedic value at all.
Here’s the same joke in a non religious context.
People sit around in lunch room “Did you SEE what I’ve got for lunch?”, “I can SEE you’ve bought a new shirt”, “I’ll SEE what I can do”
Caption: Lunch time at the OBSERVATORY
GET IT! SO FUNNY!
That’s actually not bad either. While it’s not a ‘laugh out loud’ cartoon, it is mildly funny, and not devoid of humour.
It is a play on words because it take a phrase that means something in one context and places it another context.
Anyway, if you don’t think it’s funny… well.. don’t laugh. No need to shout – after all, it’s nothing to get enraged at, as you say.
No, it’s not a play on words… it’s an exaggeration of the core perception of atheism and it’s just school-yard weak.
“it’s an exaggeration of the core perception of atheism”
… by an Atheist.
“it’s just school-yard weak.”
At least it’s only a comic and not a world-wide best-selling book.
Your standards for humour make baby jesus cry.
Why can’t you allow anyone else to think differently from you?
Who said they can’t? That doesn’t effect quality of subject matter however. Just because some people like Epic Movie it doesn’t suddenly become a good film. This comic is a prime example of lazy writing. It is a poorly executed concept that fails to achieve any humour.
I can disagree with you without having to make a person attack out of it.
Have you seen the film ‘The Castle’, btw? If so, did you find it funny?
Well if we’re going to go on a case by case basis this will take forever but yes I have seen The Castle and although it wouldn’t rank among my favorite comedic films it is an undeniably well written piece of primarily observational comedy.
Now that response was funny! The Castle is hilarious: one of the best Aussie films of all time (though the court scene in Gettin’ Square is probably the funniest piece of Australian cinema, in my opinion). I wouldn’t call it observational comedy – the dialogue is what makes it so funny.
Umm yes and what do you think that dialog is based on? It’s observational humour. (eg the “it was a bargain” attitude)
Personally my favourite aussie films would be along the lines of The Cars that Ate Paris, Bad Boy Bubby, Breaker Morant, Chopper… and so on. But we’re getting far off topic here.
Incidentally, I know the director of Breaker Morant (who also won an oscar for Driving Miss Daisy).
Yes, off topic, but I wanted to see what your supposedly superior ‘standards’ were, after the entirely unnecessary and snide attack on mine.
I’m happy for you not to find this cartoon funny, I just happen to disagree with you on that point, and wonder why you felt the need to tell us that you don’t find it funny.
Actually my “attack” was a simpsons reference. Such referencing isn’t a good form of humour I realise so I can see why it may not have landed as intended.
If you find it funny can you explain the joke then? All you’ve managed to get out so far is that it’s a play on words. Considering the comic doesn’t include any puns, homophones, alternative interpretations of phrases, ironic word choice or any other elements I could categories as word play such a claim would seem in need of supporting argument.
Why did I need to comment that it wasn’t funny? Because Nathan shares this stuff with me every day and I would be one of the primary “people binarily opposed to me from a philosophical standpoint” he references in the post.
“If you find it funny can you explain the joke then?”
Yes, but I’m not going to. Explaining jokes is never funny.
“All you’ve managed to get out so far is that it’s a play on words”
That’s not actually true. But I’m not going to repeat it, for the reason I just gave. If you want to be pedantic and miss my point, go right ahead.
“Why did I need to comment that it wasn’t funny? Because Nathan shares this stuff with me every day and I would be one of the primary “people binarily opposed to me from a philosophical standpoint” he references in the post.”
Ok.. fair enough.
“it’s an exaggeration of the core perception of atheism”
… by an Atheist.
So what? He’s still wrong and not very funny. See not believing in the existence of gods isn’t much of a distinction, it’s just like not believing in Santa, leprechauns and Scientology. It grants no special power of observation or anything else.
>At least it’s only a comic and not a world-wide best-selling book.
Er yes… if there’s a point here I’m missing it? Are you talking about Richard Dawkins or something?
Oh and “The Castle” was a fantastic comedy.
Do you also hang around on sites that promote belief in Leprechauns? If your answer is ‘no’, then disbelieving in them is not the same as the way you disbelieve in God and argue against belief in Him.
From what I’ve been told, Atheism is a lack of belief in gods (not a belief in no gods), which, if it is the case, would mean an atheist ‘can’t believe in God’, because they lack belief, right? So just how is that an exaggeration of the ‘core perception’? And isn’t exaggeration the core element of caricature anyway?
I suspect you don’t find it funny because you feel that it’s at your expense (even though it would really be a self-depreciating joke by the cartoonist).
>Do you also hang around on sites that promote belief in Leprechauns?
No, are there such sites? Probably but immaterial as I’m not fascinated by such delusions nor do I study the history and cause and effect of Leprechaun belief so there wouldn’t be much point. See there never was a cultural shift, schism or civil war fought over Leprechauns, there were no Renaissance paintings of little green suited drunks hiding their gold and certainly no advancements in architecture, art or society so why would I care about such a thing?
>If your answer is ‘no’, then disbelieving in them is not the same as the way you disbelieve in God and argue against belief in Him.
Sure it is but not to you. See because you believe gods to be real and Leprechauns to be myth you decide that no one can treat both subjects the same way but the reality is there is exactly as much evidence for Leprechauns as for gods and if we were to do a quick headcount we would find that there are just as many Leprechauns in reality as there are gods.
By the way does your god care that you spell “him” “Him” when referring to him (does he have a penis and testosterone? Why is your god assigned a sex anyway?) Does that show of petty respect earn you points or is it something you do for yourself to remind yourself that you respect your god? If you used a lowercase h would your god be angry with you? When you die will he have a tally of all the times you did it correctly vs. incorrectly to work into his judgment of you?
>From what I’ve been told, Atheism is a lack of belief in gods (not a belief in no gods),
Ah, well you have been told wrong. It’s quite binary and as such simple: atheist = no gods / theist = gods. 1 or 0, nothing in-between. Oh sure there are agnostics but as I like to say an agnostic is someone who hasn’t given the issue enough thought and a theist is someone who hasn’t given it any.
In other words you can’t believe in magic “a little bit”.
>which, if it is the case, would mean an atheist ‘can’t believe in God’, because they lack belief, right?
No they have the exact right amount of sense. They are not lacking in a thing.
>So just how is that an exaggeration of the ‘core perception’?
That atheists stagger about the world disbelieving stuff for the sake of being iconoclastic rather than just being sensible.
>And isn’t exaggeration the core element of caricature anyway?
Absolutely but in this case the exaggeration starts off from a false premise so it can’t go anywhere but wrong.
>I suspect you don’t find it funny because you feel that it’s at your expense (even though it would really be a self-depreciating joke by the cartoonist).
Ah well, your suspicion is wrong, I’m an atheist and a stand-up comedian who has a few atheist jokes, one of which is very much at my own expense as an atheist; basically that being an atheist means you can never crow about being right in the afterlife whereas if there is a god I’ll never hear the end of it. The joke’s humor is delivered mostly by attitude and inflection with myself as the victim.
I use it sometimes if one of my Jesus crucifixion jokes pisses the crowd off.
“Sure it is”
No, in practice, it isn’t. As I pointed out, you don’t spend any amount of time thinking about how leprechauns don’t exist. But you do, obviously, spend time on the question of God’s existence or not.
“if we were to do a quick headcount we would find that there are just as many Leprechauns in reality as there are gods.”
That’s a really weak argument against God’s existence btw. It’s a bit like saying that it’s not 23C because it doesn’t say so on my ruler.
“By the way does your god care that you spell “him” “Him” when referring to him ”
Probably not. I don’t recall any of the biblical authors expounding on a theology of grammar.
“When you die will he have a tally of all the times you did it correctly vs. incorrectly to work into his judgment of you?”
Yes, because Christian theology is all about which side has a bigger tally.. no wait.. that would be Islam.
“Ah, well you have been told wrong. It’s quite binary and as such simple: atheist = no gods / theist = gods. 1 or 0, nothing in-between. Oh sure there are agnostics but as I like to say an agnostic is someone who hasn’t given the issue enough thought and a theist is someone who hasn’t given it any.”
That’s really quite interesting. Because I had a long discussion with a very reasonable and pleasant atheist who I enjoy discussing with, even though we nearly always disagree and frustrate eachother. I was arguing that the statements “I don’t believe in any gods” and “I believe in no gods” were synonymous. He disagreed and said that to not believe in any gods is not the same as to assert that no gods exist. To not believe in any gods allows that one might, just you don’t think they do. To say that no gods exist you are disallowing that possibility, and in fact, making a statement that is unsupported empirically. In fact, even Prof. Dawkins never says God doesn’t exist, only that he ‘almost certainly’ doesn’t.
So if that is the case, as argued by my friend, and Prof. Dawkins, then the premise of this joke is not fallacious as you say.
If, however, you do want to assert that no gods exist, then you are forced to accept that this is a step of faith, without empirical basis.
>But you do, obviously, spend time on the question of God’s existence or not.
Let me show you how much time I spend on that question:
There are no such things as gods.
About a second? Maybe?
>That’s a really weak argument against God’s existence btw.
I’m not making an argument against your god’s or any gods existence, I don’t have to, the fact that there isn’t any evidence for their existing does it all for me.
Same way I don’t have to argue that Leprechauns don’t exist.
>It’s a bit like saying that it’s not 23C because it doesn’t say so on my ruler.
No it’s not, it’s like saying that it’s 23c because of the environmental conditions rather than the will of some sort of omnipotent being.
What do you think causes the day’s temperature? Cause and effect or your god?
>Probably not. I don’t recall any of the biblical authors expounding on a theology of grammar.
So why do you do it?
>Yes, because Christian theology is all about which side has a bigger tally.. no wait.. that would be Islam.
For some sects of Christianity that is certainly true, or perhaps you are unaware of “soul winning”?
And yes, Islam is oh so different from any other monotheistic religion out of the Middle East!
Silly man it’s all baloney from the same beast.
> To say that no gods exist you are disallowing that possibility, and in fact, making a statement that is unsupported empirically.
I most certainly am. Gods don’t exist because if they did there could be no doubt since there is metric megatons of doubt, they don’t exist. See in all the descriptions of gods “shyness” is never one of them, getting into people’s faces and lives? Oh they do that in spades… well in the old days; they’ve been rather quiet of late. Why do you think that is?
>In fact, even Prof. Dawkins never says God doesn’t exist, only that he ‘almost certainly’ doesn’t.
He most certainly does that’s because he’s a scientist and science doesn’t like absolutes, it always must leave a crack in the door for future scientists to try and pry open with new theories and experiments. Dawkins also says “almost certainly” when talking about evolution even when talking about stuff that he is most certain about. His creed as a scientist leaves him no choice, I am not as bound to such conventions.
>If, however, you do want to assert that no gods exist, then you are forced to accept that this is a step of faith, without empirical basis.
Uh huh.
Right now in my living room is a giraffe named Gerald, his is juggling flaming snowballs while singing Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” (even modulating his voice to capture Water’s lows and Gilmor’s highs).
Does Gerald not exist?
See, you can’t prove a negative; it’s in that rhetorical gap (among others) that your god snuggles into and hides. I can’t prove that your god is unreal; all I can do is look at the arguments for his existence and decide he can’t be real because those arguments do not make a lick of sense.
Your creation myth? Pure nonsense.
Your god’s early history from the OT? Bloody insanity. What’s up with the whole foreskin obsession anyway? Why do gays get sentenced to death but slavers and child molesters go without comment?
Your god’s visit to Earth? Farcical at best. He heals a few lepers but doesn’t bother curing lerpersy. Modern science has done more good than your so-called “savior”.
The religion your god left behind? A messy and ill-defined hodgepodge that has lead to spectacular amounts of blood flowing. Currently I’m studying the Reformation, is the 30 Years War what Jesus intended? Heck even before that Christianity only became the Empire’s main religion after a horrific civil war and only because Constantine’s opponent was too clever for his own good.
Doesn’t that give you even a moment’s pause? The complete mess that is Christianity? How many different sects are there? Obviously your sect is the correct one but how could your perfect god’s message get so mangled? We have everything from monks sitting on poles to snake handlers communing with your god by annoying reptiles every Sunday.
So this is the best your god can do in communicating with his creation?
Some supreme being.
Your god is far too incompetent and weird to be real so I say with no doubt and the absolute certainty that science by its very nature refuses to express; there are no such things as gods, yours in particular.
“I’m not making an argument against your god’s or any gods existence”
As soon as you say ‘God does not exist’ you are making a positive statement, and currently, you have no empirical evidence that says he doesn’t. Lack of evidence for something is not evidence against it. I don’t have a problem with you saying that btw, but just be aware that it’s a faith statement (we all believe a lot of things on faith – reasonable faith normally, but faith none-the-less).
“See, you can’t prove a negative”
yes you can. If you say ‘There’s no money in my wallet’ we only have to look in your wallet, and if there is indeed no money in there, we’ve proven your negative.
The problem here is that one can’t measure that which exists outside of the natural universe from within the universe. (hence my ruler – temperature analogy, of which you helpfully missed the point – using the wrong tool for the job leads to wrong conclusions.) It is a philosophical presupposition which says matter – the universe – is all there is (philosophical naturalism).
“Gods don’t exist because if they did there could be no doubt since there is metric megatons of doubt, they don’t exist.”
That’s a rather large non-sequiter. Where do you get that premise from anyway?
“For some sects of Christianity that is certainly true, or perhaps you are unaware of “soul winning”? ”
What does ‘soul winning’ have to do with keeping a tally of my good and bad actions (which is not a Christian doctrine)
“The complete mess that is Christianity? How many different sects are there? Obviously your sect is the correct one but how could your perfect god’s message get so mangled?”
I think you are seriously confusing primary and secondary issues.
“We have everything from monks sitting on poles to snake handlers communing with your god by annoying reptiles every Sunday.”
Yes, always a good move to argue by the most extreme positions.. Eugenics anyone? Not to worry, I like the smell of burning straw as much as the next person.
“Let me show you how much time I spend on that question:
There are no such things as gods.
About a second? Maybe?”
I reckon you’ve spent more than a second in this thread. And by the look of your website, you seem to be rather more involved in the idea than with leprechauns.
>yes you can. If you say ‘There’s no money in my wallet’ we only have to look in your wallet, and if there is indeed no money in there, we’ve proven your negative.
Oh sweet Jebus. On the first part I’m only going to suggest you study up on some philosophy because it’s actually not my idea that you can’t prove a negative, it’s pretty much established.
Now, if I were to say ‘There’s no money in my wallet’ that would be a rather mundane statement and not one open to much debate. Doubly so if you knew me and how I tear through my money.
BUT if I were to say to you right now in my wallet there is a magic ring that when I put it on I turn invisible and have the ability to spit diamonds would you believe me?
I will go out on a limb and say you don’t.
Buh buh you don’t have any empirical evidence to the contrary so you have to believe me!
BUT of course you do not because THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS.
How do you know there are no such things? You haven’t been everywhere have you? Certainly not inside my wallet.
For you to believe me you would have to see this magic ring in action yourself or at the very least some sort of verifiable evidence.
WHY?
Because it is an extraordinary claim, much like the claim that the lunatic described in the Bible is real and that he made the universe in six days.
>The problem here is that one can’t measure that which exists outside of the natural universe from within the universe. (hence my ruler – temperature analogy, of which you helpfully missed the point – using the wrong tool for the job leads to wrong conclusions.)
Ah classic! Another gap in which your god hides. He’s real only he can’t be measured.
Hey, you know what that’s exactly like?
Something that isn’t real.
A coincidence I’m sure.
What you are talking about is so schoolyard “You can’t know everything so there must be a god someplace!”
Bollocks.
>That’s a rather large non-sequiter. Where do you get that premise from anyway?
It’s not, I explained it by describing one of the common features of a god’s nature; they seem to love attention. Your god for instance is a “jealous” god no? One who demands constant praise? The stories in the early days suggest a very active god, messing about with humanity in all kinds of wacky ways, floods, dead babies, demands for foreskins etc. Strange that your god has been giving us the silent treatment for the last 2,000 years isn’t it?
If your omnipotent god wanted believers, there would be nothing but believers,
Spare me free will an omnipotent god wouldn’t have use for such a thing, we’d have to be exactly as he wants us to be.
Again, pretty binary.
>What does ’soul winning’ have to do with keeping a tally of my good and bad actions (which is not a Christian doctrine)
LOL! Really? Tell me which sect of Christianity do you subscribe to? Tell me and I’ll show you exactly how your side keeps score.
Of course you won’t, I’ve noticed that Christians are often very reluctant to admit their sect outside that sect. You know what that it leads to me pointing out all the difference between Christians and that’s always very uncomfortable for your kind.
>I think you are seriously confusing primary and secondary issues.
Nope, your perfect god left a pig’s breakfast in his wake, what’s up with that? Was all this war and schism part of his plan? If so, nice god you got there.
Hey do you know what the Catholics in Paris did to their Protestant counterparts one crazy weekend in the 16th century? Give you a hint; rape, fire, murder, rape aaaaaand then more fire. Mild in comparison to Bloody Mary and her rein but she had some serious Daddy issues. Speaking of which was Henry VIII part of Jesus’s plan for his Church? Isn’t that odd they way Henry was able to stroll away from the Vatican like that? You think Jesus stopped listening to the Pope at that point? Divided his attentions?
See it’s when you look at your religion as a whole from start to today that you start to notice just how insane it all is. You ever look at the big picture? I suspect not.
>Yes, always a good move to argue by the most extreme positions..
Okay, Catholics or Protestants, which ones got it right? Or are they extremes too? So are snake handlers offensive to your god? What about Mormons? Are they ‘extreme” too? What about the heretical sects in North Africa that were crushed by the early church? Extremists too?
>Eugenics anyone?
Yes, atheism’s declaration that humanity needs to enter into a selective breeding program to wean out the weak certainly isn’t… oh wait a second… no, that’s not atheism, that’s got nothing to do with it.
Hey at this point would it be wrong to mention that Hitler was raised as a Christian? That the Nazi oath mentions your god? That the Vatican was Hitler’s buddy? I mean if you want to talk Eugenics I’m all for it but I don’t think you’d like where it would go.
>Not to worry, I like the smell of burning straw as much as the next person.
Ah so we can add strawman to the list of things you don’t understand. A strawman is setting up a flawed argument and ascribing it to your opponent’s beliefs in order to knock it down and by extension your opponent’s argument. My point is that Christianity’s countless splinters is more than enough evidence that its source is not divine but mortal. No god could screw up like that. If Jesus were really a god the church he would have left behind would have been universal and atheism all but impossible.
Yet here we are!
So, no silly man, not a strawman argument at all.
But it’s easier to call it such than say answer it point for point huh?
And like I said, theism is all about the easy.
“BUT if I were to say to you right now in my wallet there is a magic ring that when I put it on I turn invisible and have the ability to spit diamonds would you believe me?”
We can still open up your wallet and have a look, and if there is a ring there, we can see if it really does turn you invisible.
“Ah classic! Another gap in which your god hides. He’s real only he can’t be measured.”
So if you cannot measure it scientifically, then it cannot exist, right?
It’s only your unjustified philisophical assumption that something has to be measurable by science. Science is great, but it can’t answer everything.
“What you are talking about is so schoolyard “You can’t know everything so there must be a god someplace!””
I didn’t say that.
“Strange that your god has been giving us the silent treatment for the last 2,000 years isn’t it? ”
You mean he’s been silent to you by not speaking or revealing himself in a way that you expect?
“If your omnipotent god wanted believers, there would be nothing but believers”
False assumption.
“Spare me free will an omnipotent god wouldn’t have use for such a thing, we’d have to be exactly as he wants us to be.”
Who said anything about free will? Perhaps you should drop the attitude and stop assuming what I think.
“LOL! Really? Tell me which sect of Christianity do you subscribe to? Tell me and I’ll show you exactly how your side keeps score.”
Did you real roll on the floor?
Perhaps you should tell me which “sect” you’ve assumed I subscribe to? And we’re not talking about how we keep score – you suggested that God keeps score.
“Of course you won’t, I’ve noticed that Christians are often very reluctant to admit their sect outside that sect. You know what that it leads to me pointing out all the difference between Christians and that’s always very uncomfortable for your kind.”
‘my kind’? I’m a human being, just like you.
I’m happy to admit that I’m an evangelical Christian. Why would it be uncomfortable for me to know that different Christians hold different beliefs on various issues? I do know that. I’m not as ignorant as you assume.
“Nope, your perfect god left a pig’s breakfast in his wake, what’s up with that? Was all this war and schism part of his plan? If so, nice god you got there.”
No, really, you mistake secondary issues (which sometimes do divide in less than amicable ways!) for the central issue of the gospel. Pick any mainstream denomination and we’ll agree on the gospel, which is the main message of the NT. There is far more cross-denominational unity within the church than you seem to be aware of.
Yes, the church in history is guilty of some terrible things, but that doesn’t change whether Jesus’ teaching is true or not.
I’m sure I don’t need to point out that the C20th, what many hoped would see the emergence of religion-free society, is littered with corpses from the failed Atheist states.
“Okay, Catholics or Protestants, which ones got it right? Or are they extremes too? So are snake handlers offensive to your god? What about Mormons? Are they ‘extreme” too? What about the heretical sects in North Africa that were crushed by the early church? Extremists too?”
I have no idea what you’re going on about now…
“Yes, atheism’s declaration that humanity needs to enter into a selective breeding program to wean out the weak certainly isn’t… oh wait a second… no, that’s not atheism, that’s got nothing to do with it.”
Eugenics is based on Darwinian theory. It was used, for example, as a basis for the ‘stolen generation’. Most atheists today reject the idea, and rightly so, presumably because they find it reprehensible (and that begs the question of ‘on what basis?’). It’s worth noting that Christians such as G.K. Chesterton were among the early critics of the idea.
“Hey at this point would it be wrong to mention that Hitler was raised as a Christian? That the Nazi oath mentions your god? That the Vatican was Hitler’s buddy?”
So what? That doesn’t make Hitler a Christian. It doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t historically raised from the dead. It doesn’t mean a thing.
“Ah so we can add strawman to the list of things you don’t understand. A strawman is setting up a flawed argument and ascribing it to your opponent’s beliefs in order to knock it down and by extension your opponent’s argument.”
yes, I know what a strawman is. And that is exactly what you have done.
“My point is that Christianity’s countless splinters is more than enough evidence that its source is not divine but mortal. No god could screw up like that. If Jesus were really a god the church he would have left behind would have been universal and atheism all but impossible.”
These premises are simply false assumptions.
“So, no silly man, not a strawman argument at all.”
It is a strawman, because you’ve made inaccurate assumptions and vulgar caricatures about Christian beliefs.
And this sentence just demonstrates the utter disdain you have for anyone who might hold to theistic beliefs – you presume them to be less intelligent than you and assume they simply couldn’t have decent arguments and so simply scorn. Well.. if that’s the case. Good day.
“But it’s easier to call it such than say answer it point for point huh?”
Well, maybe if the other person looked like they were actually interested in a discussion.. but I don’t get that feeling here. There are simply too many false assumptions to bother with when there is such antagonism.
Why are you so aggressive?
“And like I said, theism is all about the easy.”
I’m sure that’s what all those Chinese Christians think when they get put in jail by the Atheist state.
I might add that most schisms happen when churches take their focus off the primacy and centrality of the gospel, to pursue other agendas. Jesus can hardly be blamed for that!
“People sit around in lunch room “Did you SEE what I’ve got for lunch?”, “I can SEE you’ve bought a new shirt”, “I’ll SEE what I can do”
Caption: Lunch time at the OBSERVATORY ”
There’s no sense of the unexpected around that one though. Had it been at the “school for the blind” perhaps it would have been an equivalent.
I didn’t think it was that funny. I was just trolling. It’s my blog. I’m allowed.
Also, I think it is kind of funny because rather than saying “I can’t believe” the atheists, if they’re true to form, should be explaining why the food is good, the prices are low etc empirically. Rather than making a statement of belief or unbelief.
There’s not much I can add to the other debate on this thread – Andrew has done a pretty good job of articulating the Christian position.
I will though, put a “label” on myself just to see what Savage has to say…
I’m a Presbyterian.
I think I’d respect you atheists more if you weren’t hiding behind the cover of a nickname.
But Smiz there’s no sense of the unexpected in the original either.
Here’s another altrernate version which is very much a troll
Three people stand in a store
“This is the only muffin that there is”
“My muffin is greater than all the other muffins”
“This is the one true muffin”
Caption: “Theists at a hammer store”
EPIC TROLL!
Can you draw? If you draw it I’ll post it.
God no. I used to have a web comic actually that’s why I know so much about what isn’t funny. Calling it awful would have been too kind.
>We can still open up your wallet and have a look, and if there is a ring there, we can see if it really does turn you invisible.
No, you can’t see it, it’s an invisible ring, see there you go using the wrong instrument to measure and I’m invisible right now, can you seem me? No? Well there you go and you can’t prove otherwise.
>So if you cannot measure it scientifically, then it cannot exist, right?
No, there are many things that can’t be measured that exist, theoretical elements for one, but there are reasons to believe that those things exist, there isn’t for your god.
> Science is great, but it can’t answer everything.
Science is the greatest and it’s can’t answer everything… yet. But it’s answered and done far more in the last 100 years than your religion has done in the last 2,000.
>You mean he’s been silent to you by not speaking or revealing himself in a way that you expect?
Well in the past he’s shown up as a foot, as a burning bush or he’s shown up to individuals telling them to build arks (by the way did that really happen?), sacrifice their kids, cut off their foreskins so yeah, I would expect that he would reveal himself in the same bizarre ways.
Burning bush? Ok, ten out of ten for style but minus several million for making any sense.
>Did you real roll on the floor?
No, I said LOL which means Laugh Out Loud which I did.
>Perhaps you should tell me which “sect” you’ve assumed I subscribe to?
I have no idea that’s why I am asking.
>And we’re not talking about how we keep score – you suggested that God keeps score.
No your god doesn’t keep anything, his believers on the other hand certainly do. There a feeling that many theists think they’re bit players in some cosmic chess game between their god and Satan. The whole “Left Behind” business. Will you be whisked up to the sky naked and blessed leaving us to be cannon fodder for the Final Alpha to Omega Conflict? I think of that as Tom Clancy Christianity.
>‘my kind’? I’m a human being, just like you.
Yes, I’m calling you less than human. Your kind as in theist, please don’t get silly like that.
>I’m happy to admit that I’m an evangelical Christian. Why would it be uncomfortable for me to know that different Christians hold different beliefs on various issues?
Now doesn’t that disturb you on some level? Do you think that’s what Jesus wanted to leave behind? Have you ever studied the history behind the Reformation and the origins of evangelical Christianity? The issues that caused the very violent splitting? Does all of that sound like it went to a divine plan?
>No, really, you mistake secondary issues (which sometimes do divide in less than amicable ways!) for the central issue of the gospel.
Jesus left behind a Church yes? That was part of his legacy, a new covenant sealed with his blood. How is this “secondary”? This Church went from an obscure mystery cult to an occasionally persecuted minority to official religion only to shatter some 1,000 years later under its own weight and corruption.
Point is I expect better from the son of a god.
>Pick any mainstream denomination and we’ll agree on the gospel, which is the main message of the NT.
And yet you’re not in the same churches saying the same prayers. Why is that if you agree on the main message you can’t agree on the… well what other messages are there? Did Jesus rank them?
See no matter how you try and square the circle it doesn’t change the simple fact; Christians are not united around Christ, they are united around themselves so what would make any of you think that there is anything divine going on? A real savior, messiah, god would leave no doubt in their wake, why would they want to? Why just reveal yourself to a sliver of humanity only to insist that the billions that follow take that sliver’s word for it some 2,000 years later.
Answer me this, why did Jesus leave? Wouldn’t it have been more effective if after rising from the dead he flew back to the Temple held out his still bleeding wrists the pharacies and say “Any questions?” then actually directed the framework of his the New Testament from prayer to purpose to morality? Then go off to heaven? Instead he vanishes and then 30 years later someone starts writing it all down.
If your god is real he is criminally incompetent and each time he tries to help he makes things worse. A cosmic Gilligan.
>There is far more cross-denominational unity within the church than you seem to be aware of.
And yet those denominations exits, so you guys can unite when there’s gay marriage to oppose or abortion clinics to yell at but at the end of the Sunday you still sat in different pews in different buildings each worship your own personal Jesus.
>Yes, the church in history is guilty of some terrible things, but that doesn’t change whether Jesus’ teaching is true or not.
In history? Oh check out the news, still guilty of so much but you’re right it doesn’t, what it does suggest is that Jesus isn’t true. Once again, I find it hard to believe that your god started an organization that would end up settling out of court because their staff can’t keep their penises out of children.
And as for Jesus’ teachings, they’re nothing new, all of what he said was said before by Greek and Far East Asian philosophers.
>I’m sure I don’t need to point out that the C20th, what many hoped would see the emergence of religion-free society, is littered with corpses from the failed Atheist states.
Yes! Unlike the religion-stuffed societies that were littered with corpses from their failed states.
>I have no idea what you’re going on about now…
Yes you do, any Christian sect that you think is “weird” you’ll dismiss as “out of the mainstream” and nothing to do with your sect but again, it all comes from the same place and again it only shows what a poor communicator your god must be for there to be so much confusion.
>Eugenics is based on Darwinian theory.
Oh fer… read the following very carefully because you still don’t seem to get it.
Atheism means there are no such things as gods.
It has nothing to do with biology, astronomy, physics, morality and only as far as it goes in philosophy, which isn’t very far.
So, what does Darwin have to do with atheism?
Nothing.
What does eugenics have to do with atheism?
The exact same thing.
And blaming Darwin for eugenics is like blaming the guy who invented gunpowder for Columbine.
> It’s worth noting that Christians such as G.K. Chesterton were among the early critics of the idea.
It’s also worth noting that many Christians were among the supporters of the idea.
Let’s get something clear. Being a theist does not make anyone good or bad. I know many theists who are better smarter and happier people than I.
>So what? That doesn’t make Hitler a Christian.
No, being born and raised a Christian in a Christian nation did.
>It doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t historically raised from the dead.
No, the fact that doesn’t make any sense and that there was no mention of a Jewish criminal rising from the dead from the sources of the day means that he didn’t raise from the dead.
>“My point is that Christianity’s countless splinters is more than enough evidence that its source is not divine but mortal. No god could screw up like that. If Jesus were really a god the church he would have left behind would have been universal and atheism all but impossible.”
>These premises are simply false assumptions.
Huh? Christianity didn’t splinter? Or it’s a false assumption to assume that a perfect god would do things perfectly.
>It is a strawman, because you’ve made inaccurate assumptions and vulgar caricatures about Christian beliefs.
Such as? You haven’t pointed out what I’ve gotten wrong, please tell me.
>I’m sure that’s what all those Chinese Christians think when they get put in jail by the Atheist state.
Yeah, that Atheist Revolution in China really… oh no wait a second, it was a Communist revolution, Commies are atheists not because it’s true but because they want the people worshiping the state and so they must eliminate the competition. I’m well aware of China’s human rights record and as such try to do as little business with them as possible. For instance I don’t save money by shopping at Wal-mart because they’re China’s biggest customer. They sell their stuff cheap because they use something close to slave labour. I have written letters of protest to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s effort to whitewash China’s crimes so they can do business here in Canada. I cheered the Conservative Party’s initial attempts at linking trade with human rights. They of course slowly backed off that policy when they realized how entwined our economies are and how persuasive the Chinese lobbying effort is.
Granted it’s not much but it’s all I can do and it’s certainly more than praying to a god to come and do something about it.
Chinese Christians would be oppressed if they were Muslim, Fulon Gong, Capitalist or anything else unapproved by that evil state so they have it exactly as hard as everyone else there.
Well except the communists I guess.
Reality is there has only been one case in history where an atheist took power and used it to eliminate theism, it was a short but very bloody rein where they even tried to change the months of the year to names not after gods.
That aside you really don’t want to compare the last 2,000 years of Christian rule to the commies, as bad as they are they don’t come close in body counts as the Holy Empire.
Oh, you’re Canadian.
That explains everything.
“>So what? That doesn’t make Hitler a Christian.
No, being born and raised a Christian in a Christian nation did.”
Hitler is on the record saying that he hated Christianity for its weakness and he only used it because it was politically sensible.
He was not a Christian. A Christian, by definition (ie the name) is one who follows Christ.
“Following” involves living as he lived, doing as he told his followers to do.
Anyone who calls themselves a Christian but ignores these things is on shaky ground.
If you used that as your yardstick for Christianity rather than an individual’s personal proclamation then we could talk.
Even then, you’ve got the problem of human sinfulness (ie that even Christians are bad people) to deal with in your critique.
My problem Savage is that you’re not arguing with the Christianity that Andrew, myself, and many others who we would see ourselves in fellowship with, believe and defend. You’re arguing with exactly the same types of “Christianity” that we would prefer to see eradicated.
If you’re going to attack us for our beliefs – at least do us the courtesy of attacking what it is we believe, not what it is that you don’t. Particularly if this is an exercise in persuasion.
The tone you’re taking is no good for believers – it’s only good for convincing undecideds. And I’d ask the undecideds reading this to please raise their hands…
“Even then, you’ve got the problem of human sinfulness (ie that even Christians are bad people) to deal with in your critique. ”
Thanks Nathan – this is exactly the problem in the ‘If God is perfect, the church should be perfect’ assumption.
“No, you can’t see it, it’s an invisible ring, see there you go using the wrong instrument to measure and I’m invisible right now, can you seem me? No? Well there you go and you can’t prove otherwise.”
And here we see the folly of argument by analogy – the particulars are so always carefully doctored.
“No, there are many things that can’t be measured that exist, theoretical elements for one, but there are reasons to believe that those things exist, there isn’t for your god.”
Ah! But that’s not an empirical statement, that’s a philosophical one. I happen to think there are very good reasons to believe that God exists – the historical resurrection not the least. You might very well have reasons to think he doesn’t, but you don’t ‘know’ in an empirical sense that he doesn’t, and so it is a statement that relies on an element of faith.
“Science is the greatest and it’s can’t answer everything… yet. But it’s answered and done far more in the last 100 years than your religion has done in the last 2,000.”
Science and religion are not in competition. They are not like two mutually exclusive alternatives. They don’t seek to answer the same questions. Various religious groups have used science for good – such as starting hospitals and universities – and many Christians and Atheists alike have used science for wrong. Indeed, there are examples of top level scientists pursuing knowledge because of their Christian faith, Francis Collins being the obvious example.
The historical culpability of the church at various times is not an argument for anything except the historical culpability of the church as various times.
“I would expect that he would reveal himself in the same bizarre ways.”
So, once again, it’s not actually a real argument, just your own presupposed expectations.
“No your god doesn’t keep anything, his believers on the other hand certainly do. There a feeling that many theists think they’re bit players in some cosmic chess game between their god and Satan. The whole “Left Behind” business. Will you be whisked up to the sky naked and blessed leaving us to be cannon fodder for the Final Alpha to Omega Conflict? I think of that as Tom Clancy Christianity.”
And?
I don’t think either Nathan or I can be accused of subscribing to the ‘whole “Left Behind” business’. Though I do confess that ‘Left Behind’ was the song I learnt in order to teach myself the guitar. Larry Norman was a cool guy, even if I disagree with his eschatology. Anyway, nostalgia aside, I think, as Nathan has also pointed out, you should stop arguing against things we don’t believe.
“Yes, I’m calling you less than human. Your kind as in theist, please don’t get silly like that.”
I knew what you meant. I find it arrogant though. I surely hope you are joking when you call me (and presumably an other theist?) ‘less than human’.
“Now doesn’t that disturb you on some level? Do you think that’s what Jesus wanted to leave behind? Have you ever studied the history behind the Reformation and the origins of evangelical Christianity? The issues that caused the very violent splitting? Does all of that sound like it went to a divine plan?”
It disturbs me when disagreements cause conflict. A conflicted church is not what Jesus wanted to leave behind. But I don’t agree with your assumption that any church he would have left behind would not have disagreement. We are sinful humans after all. Nathan and I disagree about the nature of Baptism, but I can worship and pray and fellowship and start an air guitar band with him none-the-less. We are united around Christ and the gospel of his atoning death and resurrection.
Yes, I’ve read about the reformation.
“Huh? Christianity didn’t splinter? Or it’s a false assumption to assume that a perfect god would do things perfectly.”
Yes, it’s a false assumption that a perfect God = perfect church now. You’re ignoring the element of human sinfulness.
“Yeah, that Atheist Revolution in China really… oh no wait a second, it was a Communist revolution, Commies are atheists not because it’s true but because they want the people worshiping the state and so they must eliminate the competition.”
So… Hitler was most definitely a Christian according to you, but Chinese communism is not really atheistic? You might be Canadian, but you’re sounding rather Scottish right now. It’s binary remember..
At any rate, my point still stands that Christianity is not ‘the easy way’ in place like China.
“Atheism means there are no such things as gods.”
No, it means one doesn’t believe in gods. Most atheists do not assert that no gods exist. On a scale of 1 being certain there is a God and 7 being certain there is no God, Dawkins puts himself at 6. So even he is not saying “there is no God” – he says “there probably is no God”.
One who asserts that no gods exist is more an anti-theist.
“So, what does Darwin have to do with atheism?”
According to Dawkins, Darwinian evolution is the big argument for it!
“And blaming Darwin for eugenics is like blaming the guy who invented gunpowder for Columbine.”
No it isn’t – because it was forumlated on Darwin’s theories. This from Wikipedia:
Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin’s ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a “reversion towards mediocrity,” a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common “regression towards the mean.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Galton.27s_theory
But this whole tangent is off-topic and has nothing to do with God’s existence or not.
“That aside you really don’t want to compare the last 2,000 years of Christian rule to the commies, as bad as they are they don’t come close in body counts as the Holy Empire.”
Who’s to say that “Christian Rule” is actually Christian? As I said before, it’s not an argument for anything about God. That being said, 20m under Stalin? Nearly 2m under Pol Pot? That’s one century! Not only is the comparison fruitless for the issue, I don’t think it actually goes your way at all.
“Let’s get something clear. Being a theist does not make anyone good or bad. I know many theists who are better smarter and happier people than I.”
I don’t see anyone saying that it does? There are smart, happy, dumb, angry people of all persuasions.
“No, the fact that doesn’t make any sense and that there was no mention of a Jewish criminal rising from the dead from the sources of the day means that he didn’t raise from the dead.”
Well, that it doesn’t make sense to you is not an indicator of it’s historicity. Your comment also betrays a lack of understanding of the historical sources. The sources regarding Jesus are very very early, and can be traced to within 5 years of his crucifixion. Show me another ancient event where the source can be shown to be so close. In fact, show me another ancient event where the first written source is from within 30 years of the event.
The fact is that a reliable historical core can be found, and historians and scholars are in overwhelming acceptance of about a dozen facts, which include that Jesus was crucified, buried, the tomb was found empty, his followers were dejected, they had what they claimed were appearances, that this caused a change of heart and character, that Jesus’ brother James was converted, and Saul/Paul was converted, and against all odds, the belief spread quickly.
Any explanation then, according to the Argument to Best Explanation, needs to have sufficient power and scope for all these facts, and rely on the least ad hoc. The one that fulfils this criteria then is most likely to be true.
The only explanation I have seen that does have sufficient scope and least reliance on ad hoc, is the one the disciples originally gave – that it actually happened.
We cannot consider a supernatural resurrection impossible, because we would need to first show empirically that the universe is causally closed. As we cannot, we are forced to assume that it might be possible that it isn’t. And if it might be possible, and it is the best explanation (according the normal criteria) then it is reasonable to think it is likely to be true, even if we prejudge the event improbable. Improbable and unprecedented things can happen.
>And here we see the folly of argument by analogy – the particulars are so always carefully doctored.
Just like every religion with supernatural aspects. See you reject one bit of supernatural nonsense, rightfully so but accept another bit of supernatural nonsense despite the fact that both have the exact same amount of likelihood of being real.
The difference is my invisible ring doesn’t benefit you, your god does so you believe in it.
>Ah! But that’s not an empirical statement, that’s a philosophical one. I happen to think there are very good reasons to believe that God exists – the historical resurrection not the least.
Why do you keep calling it historical? There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, your only source is the Bible and it contains much that is simply not true. What other evidence do you have?
>You might very well have reasons to think he doesn’t, but you don’t ‘know’ in an empirical sense that he doesn’t, and so it is a statement that relies on an element of faith.
The exact same amount of faith needed to believe that I don’t have a magic invisible ring in my wallet.
>Science and religion are not in competition.
Well they were. Before the Enlightenment religion had all the answers, anything that couldn’t be explained was “Gods done it.” That is the anthropological use of myth (the wellspring of all religion) to explain the unexplainable.
Then science comes along with its methods and logic and next thing you know the Sun isn’t Apollo’s chariot it’s a big ball of photon spitting gas, the Earth isn’t 6 to 10,000 years old, it’s 4.5 billion and human beings and all the other critters were not made “as is” but evolved over a couple of billion years from single cell organisms.
Have you not noticed the decline of religion as science answers more and more? All the questions that religion got wrong science got right.
So, no, there isn’t any competition, not anymore. Science proves its “magic” religion is running on the fumes of faith.
>They are not like two mutually exclusive alternatives.
No, you can certainly believe in science and theism but there is a reason to believe in science, theism not so much.
>They don’t seek to answer the same questions.
True, religion doesn’t seek anything, you already have your answers which is why religion in the early days would lock people up for coming up with new ones that contradicted the ones religion has.
>“I would expect that he would reveal himself in the same bizarre ways.”
>So, once again, it’s not actually a real argument, just your own presupposed expectations.
And once again you ignore the point that precedent was set for bizarre revelations by your Bible, that is what I’m basing my assumptions on and I can’t help but notice that you won’t tell me why that’s wrong.
> you should stop arguing against things we don’t believe.
Cool, so you don’t think your god is going to destroy the world in a fiery apocalypse? Revelations then is what? So those Christians like Kirk Cameron are wrong? How did that happen? Once again why is your god such a poor communicator? Or does he enjoy the dissension?
>It disturbs me when disagreements cause conflict. A conflicted church is not what Jesus wanted to leave behind.
And yet that is exactly what he left behind, good we’ve agreed on this point, let’s build.
So we are left with two choices:
Your god made mistakes or your god did it on purpose, if there is another choice I can’t see what it could be considering we are dealing with omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent beings.
>Nathan and I disagree about the nature of Baptism,
So both of you are right about it? Hmmm that can’t be possible… is it possible that you’re both wrong?
>Yes, it’s a false assumption that a perfect God = perfect church now. You’re ignoring the element of human sinfulness.
Nope, I’m not forgetting our flaws in the slightest, your god did when he made the church.
See? Either he made a mistake or did it on purpose, there really can’t be any other choice.
Let’s say you’re teaching a pack of six graders and they’ve been good so you decide to award them with an afternoon of Xbox. You get the console and four controllers put them in the middle of the class room then you tell two of the students that they’re in charge, you whisper the instructions to them as to who gets to play and for how long and then leave.
You come back at the end of the day, would you be more likely to find:
a) The students happily playing Halo, each taking their turn.
b) Lord of the Flies II and a smashed Xbox.
And you’re just a teacher, not an all-knowing universe creating supernatural being. If you were would’t it be within your power to leave behind a system that would work so there would be happy kids playing together?
>So… Hitler was most definitely a Christian according to you,
No, once again, according to Hitler. He was born and raised Catholic in a very Christian nation in a very Christian continent. Christianity was a part of the Nazi plan; Hitler wanted to make his own version. Both the Nazi oaths referred to your god in the first line. The Nazis had strong and cordial ties with the Vatican. This is not me saying this, this is history. Towards the end Hitler did rant in public against the Church but that was as Italy and everything else was falling apart. Hitler was quoted in the early days saying he was “on a mission from god” but probably thought that he was being forsaken so he then started hating said god.
>but Chinese communism is not really atheistic?
Sigh, not what I said. What I said was the Communist revolution was about communism, hence the name, they were atheists because they don’t want any worship other than state worship. This is not exclusive to religion in a communist regime, everything is centered around the state.
And we can add “no true Scotsman” to the stuff you don’t get, I was clearly not defending communism.
>At any rate, my point still stands that Christianity is not ‘the easy way’ in place like China.
And you miss my point, there is no “easy way” for anyone in China who does not obey the rules. Or do you think Tiananmen Square was about Christianity? Are the Tibetans Christians?
> Most atheists do not assert that no gods exist.
Wrong.
And as I explained Dawkins is a scientist, he will not deal in absolutes.
>According to Dawkins, Darwinian evolution is the big argument for it!
Really? You’ll have to show me that, I’ve read all of Dawkins and I don’t recall him saying that, I think you’re getting confused with what made Darwin an atheist.
See he started a Christian and then as he took a close look at nature he realized just how vicious and violent a place it was. There’s a wasp that paralyzes it’s prey, lays eggs on it and the offspring eat the poor bug alive. After that Darwin realized that no sane god would ever come up with such a horror show.
All evolution proves is that we came from simpler lifeforms over billions over years, it makes no comment on the supernatural.
>“And blaming Darwin for eugenics is like blaming the guy who invented gunpowder for Columbine.”
>No it isn’t – because it was forumlated on Darwin’s theories. This from Wikipedia:
And the guns at Columbine used gunpowder theory.
Yes, when Darwin discovered (not invented, big difference) evolution he did it because he wanted a master race. He wanted Hitler to kill the Jews and all that. You’ve figured it out!
>But this whole tangent is off-topic and has nothing to do with God’s existence or not.
One I didn’t take.
>Who’s to say that “Christian Rule” is actually Christian?
Ah, now who’s being Scottish here?
They said it was Christian Rule, the title “HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR” certainly suggests, the use of crosses and other Christian iconography seems to support the theory and the fact that they all said they were Christians is pretty indisputable.
But I know, I know, they’re were real Scot… Christians.
>As I said before, it’s not an argument for anything about God. That being said, 20m under Stalin? Nearly 2m under Pol Pot? That’s one century! Not only is the comparison fruitless for the issue, I don’t think it actually goes your way at all.
Yeah, it does. I have 2,000 years of endless war in Europe, 22 million? How many lives lost in the 100 Years War? How many lives lost in the 8 Wars of Religion in the Early Modern Era? How many lives lost in the Crusades? And let’s go to North and South America, how many natives lives lost there? Spain killed an entire nation while waving the cross about.
I know, they weren’t Christians, there were no such things as Christians until The United States of America.
>The sources regarding Jesus are very very early, and can be traced to within 5 years of his crucifixion.
What source is that?
>Show me another ancient event where the source can be shown to be so close. In fact, show me another ancient event where the first written source is from within 30 years of the event.
Really? Okay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico
The Romans were fantastic historians, we have all kinds of sources from that era, everything from soldier’s journals to books to tax records to official documents. We know how the Romans lived, we know all their important players, we even know about the sports heroes (Charity racing could show NASCAR some stuff).
And yet they don’t mention anything about a Jew coming back from the dead or even making any sort of impact. Weird that your god went so unnoticed by the world.
>The fact is that a reliable historical core can be found, and historians and scholars are in overwhelming acceptance
They are not. This is simply not true. But please show me these sources and please, the Bible does not count, that thing didn’t even get Pi right.
>We cannot consider a supernatural resurrection impossible
Yes, yes, more gaps and back to the schoolyard we go! That always boils down to “You can’t know everything therefore everything must be true!”
At any rate your Jesus coming back from the dead makes no sense, he was supposed to be a blood sacrifice to your god right? (why did your god sacrifice himself to himself anyway?) but he comes back from the dead so what sacrifice? What purpose did all that serve? It’s a bit like me giving you 10,000,000 dollars but then taking it back before you spend it and then saying “Hey, I gave you 10,000,000 dollars you have to love me!”.
Doesn’t make a lick of sense and neither does your god.
How bout we try to address one point per comment rather than 12. That would make it much easier for those of us reading along.
“They are not. This is simply not true. But please show me these sources and please, the Bible does not count, that thing didn’t even get Pi right.”
No, that’s true. All the atheist scholars are trying to discredit the Bible. Objective scholars everywhere are comfortable with using the Bible as a historical text.
Salvage,
Can you explain some of your suppositions to us.
1. Why must God be logical?
2. Why would a God conform to your method of revelation (not the book, the act of revealing oneself).
3. Who says God is omni-benevolent – I think we can all agree that the Bible suggests he is not benevolent at all to those he is punishing.
4. Why do you think logical fallacies like the no true Scotsman fallacy apply across the board? It would be helpful if we were discussing “Christians” with the same definition in mind. I would prefer Christian to be defined, as it always has been, as “one who follows Christ” not “one who claims to follow Christ”… we are not a nationality so the “no true Scotsman” analogy is not entirely accurate. Making a claim to be a Christian does not make it so. As you’ve rightly pointed out with Hitler. He used and abused the language of Christianity to advance his clearly non-Christian ideas.
5. Could you also define atheism for us – clearly we’re working on different plains here – are you a strong position atheist or a weak position atheist?
6. Could you try to avoid arguing by analogy – it doesn’t really help anyone, we’re all reasonable intelligent people here.
7. Please try to avoid being condescending – when we show that we have some grasp of the fallacies you accuse us of don’t come back at us and tell us we don’t understand Scotsmen, strawmen, et al. Disagreeing with you does not automatically make us wrong. It makes us wrong in your opinion. Start showing some respect in your comments or you may find my comment policy of editing dissenting voices comes into play.
“Cool, so you don’t think your god is going to destroy the world in a fiery apocalypse?”
No, I don’t.
“Revelations then is what?”
A coded message to Christians suffering under Nero about the hope that we have that Jesus will one day return as judge and those persecuting Christians will be punished.
“So those Christians like Kirk Cameron are wrong? ”
Yes.
“How did that happen?”
People are stupid.
“Once again why is your god such a poor communicator?”
Communication is a two way street – why are you such a poor listener?
“Why do you keep calling it historical? There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, your only source is the Bible and it contains much that is simply not true. What other evidence do you have?”
There is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead – you just don’t find it convincing. To say that our ‘only source is the bible’ is inaccurate and I think betrays your prejudice. ‘The Bible’ as a single volume is of course a later publication, but the books contained within are indeed individual texts.
And a further point is that plenty of ancient texts we readily accept as generally reliable have things that aren’t true. We don’t need to assume inerrency to find a reliable historical core within the NT documents, we need only apply normal criteria of historicity. And besides, we do have other references anyway.
“Really? Okay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico”
Ok.. so you’ve got one contemporary text. Basically the rest of ancient history (i.e. recordings of events – I’m not talking about incidental things like shopping lists) however was written after the event, usually more than 30 years. Indeed, on the wiki you link to, it is Plutarch who tells us the casualties of the Gallic Wars, yet he didn’t live for nearly another hundred years. So pointing out the date of the NT documents’ publication actually serves to support them rather than undermine them when one actually considers the nature of ancient historical sources in general.
30-60 years is still within the life time of witnesses, and scholars have shown that it is insufficient time for any legendary tendancies to wipe out the historical core.
“>The fact is that a reliable historical core can be found, and historians and scholars are in overwhelming acceptance
They are not. This is simply not true. But please show me these sources and please, the Bible does not count, that thing didn’t even get Pi right.”
Pi is a red herring, because we are talking about the NT documents relating to the life of Jesus. And you are simply wrong. Scholars do overwhelmingly accept an historical core.
Habermas has done a review of the literature from 1975 (over 1400 published works from scholars of all persuasions) and it is from this research that he comes up with what he calls the ‘minimal facts’ which are agreed to by most scholars: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
In another article Habermas lists these minimal facts:
“These are a minimum number of facts agreed upon by almost all critical scholars who study this topic, whatever their school of thought. From this summary, at least eleven separate facts can be considered to be knowable history (while another is additionally recognized by many): (1) Jesus died due to crucifixion and (2) was buried afterwards. (3) Jesus’ death caused the disciples to experience despair and lose hope, believing that their master was dead. (4) Although not as widely accepted, many scholars acknowledge several weighty arguments which indicate that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
Almost all critical scholars further agree that (5) the disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Due to these experiences, (6) the disciples were transformed from timid and troubled doubters afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold preachers of his death and resurrection who were more than willing to die for their faith in him. (7) This message was the center of preaching in the earliest church and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, the same city where Jesus had recently died and had been buried.
P. 162
As a direct result of this preaching, (9) the church was born, (10) featuring Sunday as the special day of worship. (11) James, a brother of Jesus who had been a skeptic, was converted when he believed that he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later, Paul was also converted to the Christian faith by an experience which he, likewise, thought was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
Such facts are crucial in terms of our contemporary investigation of Jesus’ resurrection. With the possible exception of the empty tomb, the great majority of critical scholars who study this subject agree that these are the minimal historical facts surrounding this event. As such, any conclusions concerning the historicity of the resurrection should at least properly account for them.”
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/criswell_theol_review/1989-fall_jesusresandcontempcrit_pt1.htm
As Nathan points out, real scholars (not the populist writers writing outside their field of expertise) are quite happy to treat the texts as they would any other historical text. (Indeed, I know of no reputable historian who denies the existence of Jesus, and have read quotes of respected Atheist historians who say they know of none. Quite telling then that Prof. Dawkins relies on a Prof. of German to argue such a case.)
“>We cannot consider a supernatural resurrection impossible
Yes, yes, more gaps and back to the schoolyard we go! That always boils down to “You can’t know everything therefore everything must be true!””
I did not say that at all. I did not say that because we can’t show it to be impossible then it must be true, I said that unless we can show it to be impossible we must consider that it might be possible, i.e. ‘we don’t know’. It is the only empirical stance to take.
“And the guns at Columbine used gunpowder theory.
Yes, when Darwin discovered (not invented, big difference) evolution he did it because he wanted a master race. He wanted Hitler to kill the Jews and all that. You’ve figured it out!”
Yes, of course the guns at columbine relied on gunpowder theory. Are you suggesting they didn’t? How else would their guns fire? I did not argue that Darwin was responsible for eugenics, but you cannot escape the fact that eugenics was developed based on Darwinian theory.
“> Most atheists do not assert that no gods exist.
Wrong.”
I must say that I think in practice, atheists act as if no gods exist, but I maintain that most do not assert that no gods exist, they just don’t believe in any gods.
“>Who’s to say that “Christian Rule” is actually Christian?
Ah, now who’s being Scottish here?
They said it was Christian Rule, the title “HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR” certainly suggests, the use of crosses and other Christian iconography seems to support the theory and the fact that they all said they were Christians is pretty indisputable.”
Nathan has responded to this false assumption already, but an apt (true) illustration is in order.
I have a Scottish rugby jersey, given to me as a gift. I even have red hair and have picked up a few scottishisms from my friends. But I’m not Scottish, because a true Scotsman is someone who is actually Scottish, not someone who claims to be Scottish. It’s only a no true scotsman fallacy when the reason for denying Scottishness is not a logical sequiter (e.g. A true Scotsman wouldn’t drink English beer). A Scotsman is someone who has Scottish citizenship, not just who wears a jersey. Likewise, a Christian is someone who follows Christ, not someone who happens to wear the jersey (a cross perhaps?).
“>According to Dawkins, Darwinian evolution is the big argument for it!
Really? You’ll have to show me that, I’ve read all of Dawkins and I don’t recall him saying that, I think you’re getting confused with what made Darwin an atheist.”
Chapter 4 of The God Delusion.
“All evolution proves is that we came from simpler lifeforms over billions over years, it makes no comment on the supernatural.”
Oh, I agree that it makes no comment on the supernatural – I disagree with Dawkins on this point, but he argues it none-the-less.
(In case you don’t have a copy of TGD handy, I’ll summarise his argument for you:
because apparent design is an argument for God, and because evolution explains that appearance of design, then God (‘almost certainly’) doesn’t exist. Further, he argues that the design argument doesn’t work because.. wait for it… who designed the designer?)
I think Nathan has addressed other points, so I won’t go over them.
One question I missed:
“>The sources regarding Jesus are very very early, and can be traced to within 5 years of his crucifixion.
What source is that?”
The earliest written reference we have comes from Paul in his letter to the church in Corinth, and the creed at the beginning of Ch 15, scholars trace to within a decade of Jesus’ death. Paul probably heard it from Peter and the Apostles when he was in Jerusalem after he was converted, so a number of scholars would argue that it can be reliably traced to within 5 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15
> And besides, we do have other references anyway.
And those are? You don’t mention them, please do so.
The Bible is not a source and certainly isn’t dependable. Basically what you are saying is that the Bible says Jesus was resurrected and that proves that he was resurrected. You have no other source, no one else ever wrote of Jesus coming back from the dead. That would be a pretty remarkable thing would it? Wouldn’t there be other writings? From Roman officials? From people’s own diaries? Works of art? Graffiti? See we have that sort of thing for other established historical events.
In the case of Julius Caesar and his remarkable career we have his own journals which would not be enough to say that this man conquered not only the known world but radically changed the Roman Republic we would need further evidence which we have, in spades. We have the writing of his friends and enemies, we have official government documents, we have shrines to his “genius”, we have busts of his face, his face on coins and we have physical archeological evidence of his war works in Gaul.
And what do we have for your god?
The Bible.
A book that is clearly a hodgepodge of myth, legend, filtered history and outright apocryphal gobbledygook that is self-debunking so as a source it is clearly suspect.
It’s cute the way you dismiss the whole “Got Pi wrong” as a red herring, but it is a fact, the Greeks got Pi right, the Romans got it right and your Bible got it wrong. One of the most important mathematical formulas there is and your Bible got it wrong. Are you sure it was written / inspired by a supreme being? A mistake like that is pretty glaring.
So show me anything that comes close to the sources that I have for the proof of Julius for not only Jesus actually existing but coming back from the dead
>Plutarch who tells us the casualties of the Gallic Wars, yet he didn’t live for nearly another hundred years.
It’s not just him, see that’s the point you’re going to keep ignoring. History doesn’t take the word of one source, it uses multiple sources to prove something to be true. Plutarch got his numbers from the actual official records, diaries and living witnesses. If I wrote a book on the Civil War where would I get my data?
Also it’s cute the way you dismiss my example if you looked closer you’d see it was one of many, we have all kinds of stuff from that era and from eras before. They wrote down important stuff back then, your god apparently didn’t qualify.
>30-60 years is still within the life time of witnesses, and scholars have shown that it is insufficient time for any legendary tendancies to wipe out the historical core.
Unless of course it was all made up whole cloth. You do know that the story of Jesus is completely unoriginal right? That every plot point can be found in earlier myths and legends? That if one were going to make up a religion back in those days you’d need to include all those plot points. Furthermore you do know that the “slaughter of the innocence” never, ever happened? That Herod didn’t try and kill a bunch of babies?
Not that he was above such a thing, he was a bastard of a man who did horrible things but the baby slaughter wasn’t one of them.
“>The fact is that a reliable historical core can be found, and historians and scholars are in
> that he comes up with what he calls the ‘minimal facts’ which are agreed to by most scholars:
Yes, yes, most theist scholars who like yourself want it to be true, they all use the Bible as their source and they all say the same thing “The Bible says it’s true so it must be true!”.
> (1) Jesus died due to crucifixion and
And the proof of this is? The Bible. Anything else?
> Although not as widely accepted, many scholars acknowledge several weighty arguments which indicate that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
And the proof of this is what? And let’s say they found an empty tomb that is only proof of an empty tomb.
> the disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
I know people who had literal appearances of UFOs. They too never have any proof.
> the disciples were transformed from timid and troubled doubters afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold preachers of his death and resurrection who were more than willing to die for their faith in him.
Muslims, Jews and Branch Davidians are ready to die for their faith, so what does that prove?
> was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, the same city where Jesus had recently died and had been buried.
And yet not one piece of evidence of this survives.
>As a direct result of this preaching,
And now you seem to be saying that because a bunch of people believed it to be true it must be true. Well that applies to all other religions that aren’t yours as well so you’re not making any point here.
> the great majority of critical scholars who study this subject agree that these are the minimal historical facts surrounding this event.
That’s nice, there still isn’t any historical data that supports it. All these men are working from the same, solitary, undependable source; The Bible. Do you have anything outside the Bible?
> I know of no reputable historian who denies the existence of Jesus
No? Look harder. This of course is another negative-denying thing, it’s hard to say someone never existed. But if we look at Jesus, all the stuff that he was supposed to do it’s logical to think that he would leave a rather large footprint but he didn’t. No mention of him save for the Bible and the bits about Jesus were writing decades after the fact. Furthermore those writings contradict each other in more than a few places. Of course the Bible is rife with such contradictions.
Why is that?
>Yes, yes, more gaps and back to the schoolyard we go! That always boils down to “You can’t know everything therefore everything must be true!””
>I did not say that at all. I did not say that because we can’t show it to be impossible then it must be true, I said that unless we can show it to be impossible we must consider that it might be possible, i.e. ‘we don’t know’. It is the only empirical stance to take.
Ah. So then I will change it to “You can’t know everything therefore everything might be true therefore stuff I want to believe is true!”
Nope, still schoolyard. People don’t come back from the dead just to vanish, makes the whole coming back from the dead thing kind of pointless don’t you think?
> I did not argue that Darwin was responsible for eugenics, but you cannot escape the fact that eugenics was developed based on Darwinian theory.
Yeah, you implied it but whatever. And so what? You can’t escape the fact that Columbine was based on gunpowder theory. So what’s your point? That because knowledge can be used for evil we should stop thinking? That certainly would lead to a growth in religion.
> Likewise, a Christian is someone who follows Christ, not someone who happens to wear the jersey (a cross perhaps?).
Once again. Europe was a Christian Continent, every nation in it was Christian and your religion’s roots are from that time and place. The slaughter in the name of your religion at that time and place is well recorded.
Are you seriously suggesting, that for the last 2,000 years there have been no Christians in Europe? Really?
>“>According to Dawkins, Darwinian evolution is the big argument for it!
>Really? You’ll have to show me that, I’ve read all of Dawkins and I don’t recall him saying that, I think you’re getting confused with what made Darwin an atheist.”
>Chapter 4 of The God Delusion.
>“All evolution proves is that we came from simpler lifeforms over billions over years, it makes no comment on the supernatural.”
…
NO COMMENT. That’s not an argument for or against anything. Do you really not understand that?
>Oh, I agree that it makes no comment on the supernatural – I disagree with Dawkins on this point, but he argues it none-the-less.
No… no he doesn’t.
>(In case you don’t have a copy of TGD handy, I’ll summarise his argument for you:
because apparent design is an argument for God, and because evolution explains that appearance of design, then God (’almost certainly’) doesn’t exist. Further, he argues that the design argument doesn’t work because.. wait for it… who designed the designer?)
Yes, that is an old argument to the “prime mover” nonsense and it works just fine. You say everything needs a beginning, that nothing just starts so there must be a god but this hard and fast rule of life existing doesn’t apply to your god.
How convenient.
I will expand Dawkin’s argument in term of intelligent design by pointing out that our design? The way our bodies are built? Not intelligent, not in the slightest.
>I think Nathan has addressed other points, so I won’t go over them.
I’d rather hear it from you if it’s all the same, thanks. Nathan’s disclaimer makes it clear that everything he says is suspect so I shan’t bother with him much less read his posts. It’s very handy that he highlights them in yellow, makes it easy to skip.
“>The sources regarding Jesus are very very early, and can be traced to within 5 years of his crucifixion.
What source is that?”
>The earliest written reference we have comes from Paul in his letter to the church in Corinth, an
Aaaaand a flag on the play, that’s the Bible. Sorry but you can’t say “The stuff in the Bible is true because the other stuff in the Bible says it’s true.” We need third party confirmation on this. C’mon, the son of god comes down to Earth, challenges the establishment, dies and comes back to life? There has got to be all kinds of things written about that, it would have inspired everything from artwork to massive shifts in religious demographics that would have echoed across the Empire. The Romans were historians, they wrote everything down but apparently your Jesus wasn’t impressive enough for anyone to notice until some 30 years later. It took another 250 years for Christianity to make its way to the mainstream and two bloody civil wars to put it on top.
All part of the plan?
All of that leads to me to think that Jesus was about as real as King Arthur and Robin Hood. Two stories that also have many of the same plot points as Jesus’.
>> And besides, we do have other references anyway.
>And those are? You don’t mention them, please do so.
Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus (which I’m guessing you’ll dismiss, at least the first of his references – even though it has the consensus of scholastic acceptance), some have suggested Celsus, Galen, Lucian, and then the Rabbinical writings: Talmud and Midrash.
Of course, this is all on top of the NT references which clearly establish his historicity. No serious scholar doubts it, and so the burden of proof would lie with the one who would deny it.
>The Bible is not a source and certainly isn’t dependable.
I’m afraid the documents contained with what we call ‘The Bible’ most certainly are sources, and the majority of scholars, even the critical ones who reject the resurrection, like Bart Ehrman, accept that a reliable historical narrative can be found within.
>Basically what you are saying is that the Bible says Jesus was resurrected and that proves that he was resurrected.
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that there are a dozen facts that are considered to be historical by far and away the majority of scholars of all persuasions, and the best explanation for all that data is that the resurrection happened. I’m not talking about proof, indeed, to talk of ‘proof’ in an historical setting is foolish. Evidence, yes, but proof, no.
>You have no other source, no one else ever wrote of Jesus coming back from the dead.
The bible isn’t one source, and yes, people wrote about it for several centuries.
>Wouldn’t there be other writings? From Roman officials? From people’s own diaries? Works of art? Graffiti? See we have that sort of thing for other established historical events.
There is graffiti mocking Christians actually – a picture of a donkey on a cross with the caption about ‘Alexander (I think the name was) worships his god’. I suspect if we did have diaries that you would dismiss them as out of hand as you do with the gospels and epistles. Also, you forget that this was an oral culture. And why would the Roman officials write about a ‘nobody’ like Jesus? (as it happens, they did mention him, as I’ve referred to earlier). At any rate, you can’t simply dismiss historical documents because you don’t like something they say in them.
>The Bible.
A book that is clearly a hodgepodge of myth, legend, filtered history and outright apocryphal gobbledygook that is self-debunking so as a source it is clearly suspect.
As I said, the Bible is not one source, but a collection of sources. It is not one book, but a compelation of a number of documents of various genres. And no matter how much you object the reality remains that they are considered legitimate sources by scholars, so I hope you’ll excuse me if I take no notice of your dismissal.
>It’s cute the way you dismiss the whole “Got Pi wrong” as a red herring, but it is a fact, the Greeks got Pi right, the Romans got it right and your Bible got it wrong. One of the most important mathematical formulas there is and your Bible got it wrong. Are you sure it was written / inspired by a supreme being? A mistake like that is pretty glaring.
Whichever biblical book you are referring to may very well have got the number wrong.. I don’t know, but none-the-less, it remains utterly irelevant to the historicity of Jesus. Even if it was Paul, or Mark or Luke who got it wrong, that doesn’t effect their attestations of Jesus one iota. It remains a red herring. You might care to note that at no point have I argued on the basis of divine inspiration.
>So show me anything that comes close to the sources that I have for the proof of Julius for not only Jesus actually existing but coming back from the dead
I don’t doubt Julius Ceasar, btw. The sources for the existence of Jesus are overwhelming, and many other hsitorical figures are accepted on the basis of far less attestation. (Again, we can’t talk proof, even for Ceasar in historical terms, only evidence). The problem is that you’re so prejudiced that you disallow legitimate sources.
>History doesn’t take the word of one source, it uses multiple sources to prove something to be true. Plutarch got his numbers from the actual official records, diaries and living witnesses. If I wrote a book on the Civil War where would I get my data?
Right, we agree that multiple, independant attestation is one criteria of authenticity. But you are fallaciously asserting that the NT documents are one source, when they patently are not. If you wrote a book on the Civil War (which one is ‘the’ Civil Ware btw?) and referenced say the Journal for Civil War Studies (I’m making the journal up btw) and you referenced two different articles by two different authors, then you would in fact be referencing two different sources. That they are collected into one volume doesn’t change that. So too, Paul’s epistles and Luke’s gospel, for example, are independant sources which just happen to have been collated into a single volume at a later date. In regards to research, Luke (who is considered by some notable scholars to be an historian of the first order btw) likewise indicates that he has done his research.
>Also it’s cute the way you dismiss my example if you looked closer you’d see it was one of many, we have all kinds of stuff from that era and from eras before. They wrote down important stuff back then, your god apparently didn’t qualify.
I didn’t dismiss your example, I simply noted that time difference between event and writing, in the case of Plutarch, is greater than any of the NT documents, which you seem to think are suspicially late. The opposite is in fact true. I’ve already noted that Jesus was written about.
>>30-60 years is still within the life time of witnesses, and scholars have shown that it is insufficient time for any legendary tendancies to wipe out the historical core.
>Unless of course it was all made up whole cloth.
And seeing as this goes against the overwhelmingly accepted scholastic oppinion, it remains for you to show that this is case. As far as I can see it is nothing by wishful thinking.
>You do know that the story of Jesus is completely unoriginal right? That every plot point can be found in earlier myths and legends?
Ah, the old copycat theory..
I’m afraid you can’t just yell ‘copycat’ but have to show where actually points of borrowing have taken place.
To give you a head start, here is a list of ciriteria for establishing borrowing which Glen Miller has taken from Walter Burkert, Charles Pengrase, M. L. West (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html):
1. Similarity of general motifs is not enough to “prove anything”; we must have “complex structures” (e.g., ‘system of deities’, ‘narrative structure’).
2. Ideally, we would need to establish the historical link first, before looking for borrowings.
3. Differences between structures/stories/complexes do not disprove influence, as long as the parallels are ‘too numerous’ and ‘too striking’.
4. Parallels must be ‘striking’ (i.e., unexpected, ‘odd’, difficult to account for).
5. Some/many parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e., identical on the surface), and ‘prove nothing’.
6. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be numerous.
7. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and interrelationships).
8. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be detailed.
9. The details in alleged parallels must have the same “conceptual usage” reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning).
10. The parallels must have the same ‘ ideas underlying them’.
11. The similar ideas in alleged parallels must be ‘central features’ in the material–and not just isolated or peripheral elements.
12. Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing
13. Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that perhaps you’re referring to Osirus or Horus, in which case, most of the comparison are actually spurious. See here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html or perhaps Mithra? see here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html But perhaps you have others in mind?
>Yes, yes, most theist scholars who like yourself want it to be true they all use the Bible as their source and they all say the same thing “The Bible says it’s true so it must be true!”.
You obviously didn’t read the link I posted to Habermas’ research. Here is it again: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
If you read it you’ll note that his literature review was of the publications of scholars of all persuasions, not just those who accept the resurrection. In other words, the ‘minimal facts’ are still accepted by far the majority of scholars, including those who reject the resurrection.
>> (1) Jesus died due to crucifixion and
>And the proof of this is? The Bible. Anything else?
This off-hand dismissal of the historical sources is simply laughable. The fact is the crucifiixon is independatly and multiply attested, and from a very early date, not only by the canonical sources but by Jewish ones as well. And moreover, this fact is accepted by virtually all critical scholars. So you’ll have to do a lot better than that!
>> Although not as widely accepted, many scholars acknowledge several weighty arguments which indicate that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
>And the proof of this is what? And let’s say they found an empty tomb that is only proof of an empty tomb.
Well firstly you’ll note that I’m not saying it’s ‘proof’ of anything. But, an empty tomb does require and explanation. And any explanation for the empty tomb has to account for the appearances and the unlikely existence of the church.
>> the disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
>I know people who had literal appearances of UFOs. They too never have any proof.
That’s great. But these appearances are significantly numerous and at different times, and once again, need explaining.
>> the disciples were transformed from timid and troubled doubters afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold preachers of his death and resurrection who were more than willing to die for their faith in him.
>Muslims, Jews and Branch Davidians are ready to die for their faith, so what does that prove?
It doesn’t ‘prove’ anything. But the important distinction between the disciples and the people you mention here is that those you mention might die for something they hope to be true. The disciples died for something they said they had experienced. Now if you claim that they just fabricated it all (as you did above) then they certainly wouldn’t die for something they knew wasn’t true.
>> was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, the same city where Jesus had recently died and had been buried.
>And yet not one piece of evidence of this survives.
What do you expect – the city was destroyed! There’s also no archeological evidence for Hannibal either – do you doubt his existence too? But that’s actually not true that we have no evidence.. we have an abundance of manuscript evidence. What we don’t have is an extant or reference to contradictory accounts (except for the claim from the Jews that the disciples stole the body) from that time. Quite simply, the ‘jerusalem effect’ meant that this claim could easily be refuted – just produce the dead body of Jesus and the game was up, no one would have believed it.
>>As a direct result of this preaching,
>And now you seem to be saying that because a bunch of people believed it to be true it must be true.
No, I am not saying that at all. It might help if you also quote what the direct result of the preaching was:
>>As a direct result of this preaching, (9) the church was born, (10) featuring Sunday as the special day of worship.
These are important pieces of evidence, because of N.T. Wright has argued extensively, the message was incredibly unlikely in that historical context, and one must explain why anyone believed it at all. One needs to explain why they would change their deeply held religious observances, and any explanation must also makes sense of the other facts such as the empty tomb and the appearances.
The only explanation that actually accounts for how the church even got started against such odds is that what they claimed as the reason actually happened.
>> the great majority of critical scholars who study this subject agree that these are the minimal historical facts surrounding this event.
>That’s nice, there still isn’t any historical data that supports it. All these men are working from the same, solitary, undependable source; The Bible. Do you have anything outside the Bible?
There’s plenty of data, but you simply dismiss it because you happen not to like it. I’ve already explained the fallacy of thinking the bible one source, and I’ve already pointed out the non-canonical sources. And I’ve also already pointed out that these scholars do not all accept the resurrection, but still accept these historical facts. What remains is for these facts to be explained, and so we rely on the argument to best explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#Argument_to_the_best_explanation which has been summed up as:
“if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true.”
>> I know of no reputable historian who denies the existence of Jesus
>No? Look harder.
How about you tell me? You’re the one who says they exist.
>This of course is another negative-denying thing, it’s hard to say someone never existed.
It’s especially hard when that person is so well attested!
You’re the one who’s going against the tide of scholarship, so back it up.. it’s up to you to show that Jesus didn’t exist.
>But if we look at Jesus, all the stuff that he was supposed to do it’s logical to think that he would leave a rather large footprint but he didn’t. No mention of him save for the Bible and the bits about Jesus were writing decades after the fact.
That’s rather convenient. Dismiss out of hand (with no basis) the sources and then claim that there’s no evidence. Saying that there’s no mention of Jesus except for the bible (which is not actually true anyway) is a bit like saying there’s no evidence of the moonland apart from the NASA footage and a couple of rocks. And ‘decades after the fact’ is still very early in comparison to most other ancient sources I suspect you don’t doubt, and certainly within the time-frame of eye-wtinesses and for the historical core to be very much intact. What is obvious is your prejudice.
>Furthermore those writings contradict each other in more than a few places. Of course the Bible is rife with such contradictions.
For this argument to have any value you would need to show where an actualy contradiction occurs in relation to core historical narrative (i.e. with one of the 12 minimal facts).
>Ah. So then I will change it to “You can’t know everything therefore everything might be true therefore stuff I want to believe is true!”
I didn’t say that either. I am saying that we don’t know that the universe is causally closed, so we must accept that it might not be. That’s it.
>Yeah, you implied it but whatever. And so what? You can’t escape the fact that Columbine was based on gunpowder theory. So what’s your point? That because knowledge can be used for evil we should stop thinking? That certainly would lead to a growth in religion.
My point is that science can be used for good or bad just as much a religious view. The problem is not religion, but people! I did not say we should stop thinking. I think you need to stop tilting at windmills.
>The slaughter in the name of your religion at that time and place is well recorded.
Of course, but that doesn’t mean they were actually following Christ.
>Are you seriously suggesting, that for the last 2,000 years there have been no Christians in Europe? Really?
No, and I don’t know how you came to think that I was suggesting any such thing?! Windmills again.
>NO COMMENT. That’s not an argument for or against anything. Do you really not understand that?
Yes, I understood you the first time, no need to shout. I agree with you that evolution makes no comment. But Dawkins doesn’t agree.
>No… no he doesn’t.
yes, yes he does. It’s all there in Chapter 4 of TGD.
And you acknowledge that when you write:
>I will expand Dawkin’s argument in term of intelligent design by pointing out that our design? The way our bodies are built? Not intelligent, not in the slightest.
>>The earliest written reference we have comes from Paul in his letter to the church in Corinth, an
>Aaaaand a flag on the play, that’s the Bible. Sorry but you can’t say “The stuff in the Bible is true because the other stuff in the Bible says it’s true.
Well.. a flag on your fallacious objection to biblical sources. And I’m not saying ““The stuff in the Bible is true because the other stuff in the Bible says it’s true.” I’m saying we have a very early reference to the death and burial of Jesus. I don’t see what grounds you have to object to that. And anyway, if the documents in the bible are written by different authors, then your objection holds about as much credence as objecting to citing two different articles in a journal that agree with eachother. “Dr Johnson supports thie findings that Dr Smith comes too and… “objection, same journal, doesn’t count”” – that’s absurd.
>C’mon, the son of god comes down to Earth, challenges the establishment, dies and comes back to life? There has got to be all kinds of things written about that, it would have inspired everything from artwork to massive shifts in religious demographics that would have echoed across the Empire.
Funny you should mention that…
>The Romans were historians, they wrote everything down but apparently your Jesus wasn’t impressive enough for anyone to notice until some 30 years later. It took another 250 years for Christianity to make its way to the mainstream and two bloody civil wars to put it on top.
The Roman historians would not have been interested in an executed criminal. They were interested in Emporers and rulers. When you say it wasn’t notice until 30 years later, what do you refer to specifically?.
One must ask how such a belief even made it into the mainstream, indeed, how it even got off the ground in the first place.
>All of that leads to me to think that Jesus was about as real as King Arthur and Robin Hood.
All of what? You haven’t shown anything that throws any doubt on the attestation of Jesus’ existence. All we’ve seen is you saying “I don’t like the bible, so I won’t accept any of the documents within it as a legitimate source”. All we’ve seen is your massive prejudice obscuring proper methodology.
>>I think Nathan has addressed other points, so I won’t go over them.
>I’d rather hear it from you if it’s all the same, thanks.
If it’s all the same, then just read what he wrote and pretend that I wrote it. It doesn’t change the content.
Are you putting comments in a queue now Nathan?
hmm.. no.. obviously not.. wonder why it wouldn’t let me post what it said was a ‘duplicate’? I’ll try again:
>> And besides, we do have other references anyway.
>And those are? You don’t mention them, please do so.
Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus (which I’m guessing you’ll dismiss, at least the first of his references – even though it has the consensus of scholastic acceptance), some have suggested Celsus, Galen, Lucian, and then the Rabbinical writings: Talmud and Midrash.
Of course, this is all on top of the NT references which clearly establish his historicity. No serious scholar doubts it, and so the burden of proof would lie with the one who would deny it.
>The Bible is not a source and certainly isn’t dependable.
I’m afraid the documents contained with what we call ‘The Bible’ most certainly are sources, and the majority of scholars, even the critical ones who reject the resurrection, like Bart Ehrman, accept that a reliable historical narrative can be found within.
>Basically what you are saying is that the Bible says Jesus was resurrected and that proves that he was resurrected.
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that there are a dozen facts that are considered to be historical by far and away the majority of scholars of all persuasions, and the best explanation for all that data is that the resurrection happened. I’m not talking about proof, indeed, to talk of ‘proof’ in an historical setting is foolish. Evidence, yes, but proof, no.
>You have no other source, no one else ever wrote of Jesus coming back from the dead.
The bible isn’t one source, and yes, people wrote about it for several centuries.
>Wouldn’t there be other writings? From Roman officials? From people’s own diaries? Works of art? Graffiti? See we have that sort of thing for other established historical events.
There is graffiti mocking Christians actually – a picture of a donkey on a cross with the caption about ‘Alexander (I think the name was) worships his god’. I suspect if we did have diaries that you would dismiss them as out of hand as you do with the gospels and epistles. Also, you forget that this was an oral culture. And why would the Roman officials write about a ‘nobody’ like Jesus? (as it happens, they did mention him, as I’ve referred to earlier). At any rate, you can’t simply dismiss historical documents because you don’t like something they say in them.
>The Bible.
A book that is clearly a hodgepodge of myth, legend, filtered history and outright apocryphal gobbledygook that is self-debunking so as a source it is clearly suspect.
As I said, the Bible is not one source, but a collection of sources. It is not one book, but a compelation of a number of documents of various genres. And no matter how much you object the reality remains that they are considered legitimate sources by scholars, so I hope you’ll excuse me if I take no notice of your dismissal.
>It’s cute the way you dismiss the whole “Got Pi wrong” as a red herring, but it is a fact, the Greeks got Pi right, the Romans got it right and your Bible got it wrong. One of the most important mathematical formulas there is and your Bible got it wrong. Are you sure it was written / inspired by a supreme being? A mistake like that is pretty glaring.
Whichever biblical book you are referring to may very well have got the number wrong.. I don’t know, but none-the-less, it remains utterly irelevant to the historicity of Jesus. Even if it was Paul, or Mark or Luke who got it wrong, that doesn’t effect their attestations of Jesus one iota. It remains a red herring. You might care to note that at no point have I argued on the basis of divine inspiration.
>So show me anything that comes close to the sources that I have for the proof of Julius for not only Jesus actually existing but coming back from the dead
I don’t doubt Julius Ceasar, btw. The sources for the existence of Jesus are overwhelming, and many other hsitorical figures are accepted on the basis of far less attestation. (Again, we can’t talk proof, even for Ceasar in historical terms, only evidence). The problem is that you’re so prejudiced that you disallow legitimate sources.
>History doesn’t take the word of one source, it uses multiple sources to prove something to be true. Plutarch got his numbers from the actual official records, diaries and living witnesses. If I wrote a book on the Civil War where would I get my data?
Right, we agree that multiple, independant attestation is one criteria of authenticity. But you are fallaciously asserting that the NT documents are one source, when they patently are not. If you wrote a book on the Civil War (which one is ‘the’ Civil Ware btw?) and referenced say the Journal for Civil War Studies (I’m making the journal up btw) and you referenced two different articles by two different authors, then you would in fact be referencing two different sources. That they are collected into one volume doesn’t change that. So too, Paul’s epistles and Luke’s gospel, for example, are independant sources which just happen to have been collated into a single volume at a later date. In regards to research, Luke (who is considered by some notable scholars to be an historian of the first order btw) likewise indicates that he has done his research.
>Also it’s cute the way you dismiss my example if you looked closer you’d see it was one of many, we have all kinds of stuff from that era and from eras before. They wrote down important stuff back then, your god apparently didn’t qualify.
I didn’t dismiss your example, I simply noted that time difference between event and writing, in the case of Plutarch, is greater than any of the NT documents, which you seem to think are suspicially late. The opposite is in fact true. I’ve already noted that Jesus was written about.
>>30-60 years is still within the life time of witnesses, and scholars have shown that it is insufficient time for any legendary tendancies to wipe out the historical core.
>Unless of course it was all made up whole cloth.
And seeing as this goes against the overwhelmingly accepted scholastic oppinion, it remains for you to show that this is case. As far as I can see it is nothing by wishful thinking.
>You do know that the story of Jesus is completely unoriginal right? That every plot point can be found in earlier myths and legends?
Ah, the old copycat theory..
I’m afraid you can’t just yell ‘copycat’ but have to show where actually points of borrowing have taken place.
To give you a head start, here is a list of ciriteria for establishing borrowing which Glen Miller has taken from Walter Burkert, Charles Pengrase, M. L. West (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html):
1. Similarity of general motifs is not enough to “prove anything”; we must have “complex structures” (e.g., ‘system of deities’, ‘narrative structure’).
2. Ideally, we would need to establish the historical link first, before looking for borrowings.
3. Differences between structures/stories/complexes do not disprove influence, as long as the parallels are ‘too numerous’ and ‘too striking’.
4. Parallels must be ‘striking’ (i.e., unexpected, ‘odd’, difficult to account for).
5. Some/many parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e., identical on the surface), and ‘prove nothing’.
6. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be numerous.
7. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and interrelationships).
8. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be detailed.
9. The details in alleged parallels must have the same “conceptual usage” reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning).
10. The parallels must have the same ‘ ideas underlying them’.
11. The similar ideas in alleged parallels must be ‘central features’ in the material–and not just isolated or peripheral elements.
12. Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing
13. Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that perhaps you’re referring to Osirus or Horus, in which case, most of the comparison are actually spurious. See here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html or perhaps Mithra? see here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html But perhaps you have others in mind?
>Yes, yes, most theist scholars who like yourself want it to be true they all use the Bible as their source and they all say the same thing “The Bible says it’s true so it must be true!”.
You obviously didn’t read the link I posted to Habermas’ research. Here is it again: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
If you read it you’ll note that his literature review was of the publications of scholars of all persuasions, not just those who accept the resurrection. In other words, the ‘minimal facts’ are still accepted by far the majority of scholars, including those who reject the resurrection.
>> (1) Jesus died due to crucifixion and
>And the proof of this is? The Bible. Anything else?
This off-hand dismissal of the historical sources is simply laughable. The fact is the crucifiixon is independatly and multiply attested, and from a very early date, not only by the canonical sources but by Jewish ones as well. And moreover, this fact is accepted by virtually all critical scholars. So you’ll have to do a lot better than that!
>> Although not as widely accepted, many scholars acknowledge several weighty arguments which indicate that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
>And the proof of this is what? And let’s say they found an empty tomb that is only proof of an empty tomb.
Well firstly you’ll note that I’m not saying it’s ‘proof’ of anything. But, an empty tomb does require and explanation. And any explanation for the empty tomb has to account for the appearances and the unlikely existence of the church.
>> the disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
>I know people who had literal appearances of UFOs. They too never have any proof.
That’s great. But these appearances are significantly numerous and at different times, and once again, need explaining.
>> the disciples were transformed from timid and troubled doubters afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold preachers of his death and resurrection who were more than willing to die for their faith in him.
>Muslims, Jews and Branch Davidians are ready to die for their faith, so what does that prove?
It doesn’t ‘prove’ anything. But the important distinction between the disciples and the people you mention here is that those you mention might die for something they hope to be true. The disciples died for something they said they had experienced. Now if you claim that they just fabricated it all (as you did above) then they certainly wouldn’t die for something they knew wasn’t true.
>> was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, the same city where Jesus had recently died and had been buried.
>And yet not one piece of evidence of this survives.
What do you expect – the city was destroyed! There’s also no archeological evidence for Hannibal either – do you doubt his existence too? But that’s actually not true that we have no evidence.. we have an abundance of manuscript evidence. What we don’t have is an extant or reference to contradictory accounts (except for the claim from the Jews that the disciples stole the body) from that time. Quite simply, the ‘jerusalem effect’ meant that this claim could easily be refuted – just produce the dead body of Jesus and the game was up, no one would have believed it.
>>As a direct result of this preaching,
>And now you seem to be saying that because a bunch of people believed it to be true it must be true.
No, I am not saying that at all. It might help if you also quote what the direct result of the preaching was:
>>As a direct result of this preaching, (9) the church was born, (10) featuring Sunday as the special day of worship.
These are important pieces of evidence, because of N.T. Wright has argued extensively, the message was incredibly unlikely in that historical context, and one must explain why anyone believed it at all. One needs to explain why they would change their deeply held religious observances, and any explanation must also makes sense of the other facts such as the empty tomb and the appearances.
The only explanation that actually accounts for how the church even got started against such odds is that what they claimed as the reason actually happened.
>> the great majority of critical scholars who study this subject agree that these are the minimal historical facts surrounding this event.
>That’s nice, there still isn’t any historical data that supports it. All these men are working from the same, solitary, undependable source; The Bible. Do you have anything outside the Bible?
There’s plenty of data, but you simply dismiss it because you happen not to like it. I’ve already explained the fallacy of thinking the bible one source, and I’ve already pointed out the non-canonical sources. And I’ve also already pointed out that these scholars do not all accept the resurrection, but still accept these historical facts. What remains is for these facts to be explained, and so we rely on the argument to best explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#Argument_to_the_best_explanation which has been summed up as:
“if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true.”
>> I know of no reputable historian who denies the existence of Jesus
>No? Look harder.
How about you tell me? You’re the one who says they exist.
>This of course is another negative-denying thing, it’s hard to say someone never existed.
It’s especially hard when that person is so well attested!
You’re the one who’s going against the tide of scholarship, so back it up.. it’s up to you to show that Jesus didn’t exist.
>But if we look at Jesus, all the stuff that he was supposed to do it’s logical to think that he would leave a rather large footprint but he didn’t. No mention of him save for the Bible and the bits about Jesus were writing decades after the fact.
That’s rather convenient. Dismiss out of hand (with no basis) the sources and then claim that there’s no evidence. Saying that there’s no mention of Jesus except for the bible (which is not actually true anyway) is a bit like saying there’s no evidence of the moonland apart from the NASA footage and a couple of rocks. And ‘decades after the fact’ is still very early in comparison to most other ancient sources I suspect you don’t doubt, and certainly within the time-frame of eye-wtinesses and for the historical core to be very much intact. What is obvious is your prejudice.
>Furthermore those writings contradict each other in more than a few places. Of course the Bible is rife with such contradictions.
For this argument to have any value you would need to show where an actualy contradiction occurs in relation to core historical narrative (i.e. with one of the 12 minimal facts).
>Ah. So then I will change it to “You can’t know everything therefore everything might be true therefore stuff I want to believe is true!”
I didn’t say that either. I am saying that we don’t know that the universe is causally closed, so we must accept that it might not be. That’s it.
>Yeah, you implied it but whatever. And so what? You can’t escape the fact that Columbine was based on gunpowder theory. So what’s your point? That because knowledge can be used for evil we should stop thinking? That certainly would lead to a growth in religion.
My point is that science can be used for good or bad just as much a religious view. The problem is not religion, but people! I did not say we should stop thinking. I think you need to stop tilting at windmills.
>The slaughter in the name of your religion at that time and place is well recorded.
Of course, but that doesn’t mean they were actually following Christ.
>Are you seriously suggesting, that for the last 2,000 years there have been no Christians in Europe? Really?
No, and I don’t know how you came to think that I was suggesting any such thing?! Windmills again.
>NO COMMENT. That’s not an argument for or against anything. Do you really not understand that?
Yes, I understood you the first time, no need to shout. I agree with you that evolution makes no comment. But Dawkins doesn’t agree.
>No… no he doesn’t.
yes, yes he does. It’s all there in Chapter 4 of TGD.
And you acknowledge that when you write:
>I will expand Dawkin’s argument in term of intelligent design by pointing out that our design? The way our bodies are built? Not intelligent, not in the slightest.
>>The earliest written reference we have comes from Paul in his letter to the church in Corinth, an
>Aaaaand a flag on the play, that’s the Bible. Sorry but you can’t say “The stuff in the Bible is true because the other stuff in the Bible says it’s true.
Well.. a flag on your fallacious objection to biblical sources. And I’m not saying ““The stuff in the Bible is true because the other stuff in the Bible says it’s true.” I’m saying we have a very early reference to the death and burial of Jesus. I don’t see what grounds you have to object to that. And anyway, if the documents in the bible are written by different authors, then your objection holds about as much credence as objecting to citing two different articles in a journal that agree with eachother. “Dr Johnson supports thie findings that Dr Smith comes too and… “objection, same journal, doesn’t count”” – that’s absurd.
>C’mon, the son of god comes down to Earth, challenges the establishment, dies and comes back to life? There has got to be all kinds of things written about that, it would have inspired everything from artwork to massive shifts in religious demographics that would have echoed across the Empire.
Funny you should mention that…
>The Romans were historians, they wrote everything down but apparently your Jesus wasn’t impressive enough for anyone to notice until some 30 years later. It took another 250 years for Christianity to make its way to the mainstream and two bloody civil wars to put it on top.
The Roman historians would not have been interested in an executed criminal. They were interested in Emporers and rulers. When you say it wasn’t notice until 30 years later, what do you refer to specifically?.
One must ask how such a belief even made it into the mainstream, indeed, how it even got off the ground in the first place.
>All of that leads to me to think that Jesus was about as real as King Arthur and Robin Hood.
All of what? You haven’t shown anything that throws any doubt on the attestation of Jesus’ existence. All we’ve seen is you saying “I don’t like the bible, so I won’t accept any of the documents within it as a legitimate source”. All we’ve seen is your massive prejudice obscuring proper methodology.
>>I think Nathan has addressed other points, so I won’t go over them.
>I’d rather hear it from you if it’s all the same, thanks.
If it’s all the same, then just read what he wrote and pretend that I wrote it. It doesn’t change the content.
>> And besides, we do have other references anyway.
>And those are? You don’t mention them, please do so.
Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus (which I’m guessing you’ll dismiss, at least the first of his references – even though it has the consensus of scholastic acceptance), some have suggested Celsus, Galen, Lucian, and then the Rabbinical writings: Talmud and Midrash.
Of course, this is all on top of the NT references which clearly establish his historicity. No serious scholar doubts it, and so the burden of proof would lie with the one who would deny it.
>The Bible is not a source and certainly isn’t dependable.
I’m afraid the documents contained with what we call ‘The Bible’ most certainly are sources, and the majority of scholars, even the critical ones who reject the resurrection, like Bart Ehrman, accept that a reliable historical narrative can be found within.
>Basically what you are saying is that the Bible says Jesus was resurrected and that proves that he was resurrected.
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that there are a dozen facts that are considered to be historical by far and away the majority of scholars of all persuasions, and the best explanation for all that data is that the resurrection happened. I’m not talking about proof, indeed, to talk of ‘proof’ in an historical setting is foolish. Evidence, yes, but proof, no.
>You have no other source, no one else ever wrote of Jesus coming back from the dead.
The bible isn’t one source, and yes, people wrote about it for several centuries.
>Wouldn’t there be other writings? From Roman officials? From people’s own diaries? Works of art? Graffiti? See we have that sort of thing for other established historical events.
There is graffiti mocking Christians actually – a picture of a donkey on a cross with the caption about ‘Alexander (I think the name was) worships his god’. I suspect if we did have diaries that you would dismiss them as out of hand as you do with the gospels and epistles. Also, you forget that this was an oral culture. And why would the Roman officials write about a ‘nobody’ like Jesus? (as it happens, they did mention him, as I’ve referred to earlier). At any rate, you can’t simply dismiss historical documents because you don’t like something they say in them.
>The Bible.
A book that is clearly a hodgepodge of myth, legend, filtered history and outright apocryphal gobbledygook that is self-debunking so as a source it is clearly suspect.
As I said, the Bible is not one source, but a collection of sources. It is not one book, but a compelation of a number of documents of various genres. And no matter how much you object the reality remains that they are considered legitimate sources by scholars, so I hope you’ll excuse me if I take no notice of your dismissal.
>It’s cute the way you dismiss the whole “Got Pi wrong” as a red herring, but it is a fact, the Greeks got Pi right, the Romans got it right and your Bible got it wrong. One of the most important mathematical formulas there is and your Bible got it wrong. Are you sure it was written / inspired by a supreme being? A mistake like that is pretty glaring.
Whichever biblical book you are referring to may very well have got the number wrong.. I don’t know, but none-the-less, it remains utterly irelevant to the historicity of Jesus. Even if it was Paul, or Mark or Luke who got it wrong, that doesn’t effect their attestations of Jesus one iota. It remains a red herring. You might care to note that at no point have I argued on the basis of divine inspiration.
>So show me anything that comes close to the sources that I have for the proof of Julius for not only Jesus actually existing but coming back from the dead
I don’t doubt Julius Ceasar, btw. The sources for the existence of Jesus are overwhelming, and many other hsitorical figures are accepted on the basis of far less attestation. (Again, we can’t talk proof, even for Ceasar in historical terms, only evidence). The problem is that you’re so prejudiced that you disallow legitimate sources.
>History doesn’t take the word of one source, it uses multiple sources to prove something to be true. Plutarch got his numbers from the actual official records, diaries and living witnesses. If I wrote a book on the Civil War where would I get my data?
Right, we agree that multiple, independant attestation is one criteria of authenticity. But you are fallaciously asserting that the NT documents are one source, when they patently are not. If you wrote a book on the Civil War (which one is ‘the’ Civil Ware btw?) and referenced say the Journal for Civil War Studies (I’m making the journal up btw) and you referenced two different articles by two different authors, then you would in fact be referencing two different sources. That they are collected into one volume doesn’t change that. So too, Paul’s epistles and Luke’s gospel, for example, are independant sources which just happen to have been collated into a single volume at a later date. In regards to research, Luke (who is considered by some notable scholars to be an historian of the first order btw) likewise indicates that he has done his research.
>Also it’s cute the way you dismiss my example if you looked closer you’d see it was one of many, we have all kinds of stuff from that era and from eras before. They wrote down important stuff back then, your god apparently didn’t qualify.
I didn’t dismiss your example, I simply noted that time difference between event and writing, in the case of Plutarch, is greater than any of the NT documents, which you seem to think are suspicially late. The opposite is in fact true. I’ve already noted that Jesus was written about.
>>30-60 years is still within the life time of witnesses, and scholars have shown that it is insufficient time for any legendary tendancies to wipe out the historical core.
>Unless of course it was all made up whole cloth.
And seeing as this goes against the overwhelmingly accepted scholastic oppinion, it remains for you to show that this is case. As far as I can see it is nothing by wishful thinking.
>You do know that the story of Jesus is completely unoriginal right? That every plot point can be found in earlier myths and legends?
Ah, the old copycat theory..
I’m afraid you can’t just yell ‘copycat’ but have to show where actually points of borrowing have taken place.
To give you a head start, here is a list of ciriteria for establishing borrowing which Glen Miller has taken from Walter Burkert, Charles Pengrase, M. L. West (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html):
1. Similarity of general motifs is not enough to “prove anything”; we must have “complex structures” (e.g., ‘system of deities’, ‘narrative structure’).
2. Ideally, we would need to establish the historical link first, before looking for borrowings.
3. Differences between structures/stories/complexes do not disprove influence, as long as the parallels are ‘too numerous’ and ‘too striking’.
4. Parallels must be ‘striking’ (i.e., unexpected, ‘odd’, difficult to account for).
5. Some/many parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e., identical on the surface), and ‘prove nothing’.
6. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be numerous.
7. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and interrelationships).
8. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be detailed.
9. The details in alleged parallels must have the same “conceptual usage” reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning).
10. The parallels must have the same ‘ ideas underlying them’.
11. The similar ideas in alleged parallels must be ‘central features’ in the material–and not just isolated or peripheral elements.
12. Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing
13. Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that perhaps you’re referring to Osirus or Horus, in which case, most of the comparison are actually spurious. See here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html or perhaps Mithra? see here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html But perhaps you have others in mind?
>It’s cute the way you dismiss the whole “Got Pi wrong” as a red herring, but it is a fact, the Greeks got Pi right, the Romans got it right and your Bible got it wrong. One of the most important mathematical formulas there is and your Bible got it wrong. Are you sure it was written / inspired by a supreme being? A mistake like that is pretty glaring.
Whichever biblical book you are referring to may very well have got the number wrong.. I don’t know, but none-the-less, it remains utterly irelevant to the historicity of Jesus. Even if it was Paul, or Mark or Luke who got it wrong, that doesn’t effect their attestations of Jesus one iota. It remains a red herring. You might care to note that at no point have I argued on the basis of divine inspiration.
>So show me anything that comes close to the sources that I have for the proof of Julius for not only Jesus actually existing but coming back from the dead
I don’t doubt Julius Ceasar, btw. The sources for the existence of Jesus are overwhelming, and many other hsitorical figures are accepted on the basis of far less attestation. (Again, we can’t talk proof, even for Ceasar in historical terms, only evidence). The problem is that you’re so prejudiced that you disallow legitimate sources.
>History doesn’t take the word of one source, it uses multiple sources to prove something to be true. Plutarch got his numbers from the actual official records, diaries and living witnesses. If I wrote a book on the Civil War where would I get my data?
Right, we agree that multiple, independant attestation is one criteria of authenticity. But you are fallaciously asserting that the NT documents are one source, when they patently are not. If you wrote a book on the Civil War (which one is ‘the’ Civil Ware btw?) and referenced say the Journal for Civil War Studies (I’m making the journal up btw) and you referenced two different articles by two different authors, then you would in fact be referencing two different sources. That they are collected into one volume doesn’t change that. So too, Paul’s epistles and Luke’s gospel, for example, are independant sources which just happen to have been collated into a single volume at a later date. In regards to research, Luke (who is considered by some notable scholars to be an historian of the first order btw) likewise indicates that he has done his research.
>Also it’s cute the way you dismiss my example if you looked closer you’d see it was one of many, we have all kinds of stuff from that era and from eras before. They wrote down important stuff back then, your god apparently didn’t qualify.
I didn’t dismiss your example, I simply noted that time difference between event and writing, in the case of Plutarch, is greater than any of the NT documents, which you seem to think are suspicially late. The opposite is in fact true. I’ve already noted that Jesus was written about.
>>30-60 years is still within the life time of witnesses, and scholars have shown that it is insufficient time for any legendary tendancies to wipe out the historical core.
>Unless of course it was all made up whole cloth.
And seeing as this goes against the overwhelmingly accepted scholastic oppinion, it remains for you to show that this is case. As far as I can see it is nothing by wishful thinking.
>You do know that the story of Jesus is completely unoriginal right? That every plot point can be found in earlier myths and legends?
Ah, the old copycat theory..
I’m afraid you can’t just yell ‘copycat’ but have to show where actually points of borrowing have taken place.
To give you a head start, here is a list of ciriteria for establishing borrowing which Glen Miller has taken from Walter Burkert, Charles Pengrase, M. L. West (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html):
1. Similarity of general motifs is not enough to “prove anything”; we must have “complex structures” (e.g., ‘system of deities’, ‘narrative structure’).
2. Ideally, we would need to establish the historical link first, before looking for borrowings.
3. Differences between structures/stories/complexes do not disprove influence, as long as the parallels are ‘too numerous’ and ‘too striking’.
4. Parallels must be ‘striking’ (i.e., unexpected, ‘odd’, difficult to account for).
5. Some/many parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e., identical on the surface), and ‘prove nothing’.
6. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be numerous.
7. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and interrelationships).
8. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be detailed.
9. The details in alleged parallels must have the same “conceptual usage” reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning).
10. The parallels must have the same ‘ ideas underlying them’.
11. The similar ideas in alleged parallels must be ‘central features’ in the material–and not just isolated or peripheral elements.
12. Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing
13. Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that perhaps you’re referring to Osirus or Horus, in which case, most of the comparison are actually spurious. See here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html or perhaps Mithra? see here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html But perhaps you have others in mind?
>>30-60 years is still within the life time of witnesses, and scholars have shown that it is insufficient time for any legendary tendancies to wipe out the historical core.
>Unless of course it was all made up whole cloth.
And seeing as this goes against the overwhelmingly accepted scholastic oppinion, it remains for you to show that this is case. As far as I can see it is nothing by wishful thinking.
>You do know that the story of Jesus is completely unoriginal right? That every plot point can be found in earlier myths and legends?
Ah, the old copycat theory..
I’m afraid you can’t just yell ‘copycat’ but have to show where actually points of borrowing have taken place.
To give you a head start, here is a list of ciriteria for establishing borrowing which Glen Miller has taken from Walter Burkert, Charles Pengrase, M. L. West (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html):
1. Similarity of general motifs is not enough to “prove anything”; we must have “complex structures” (e.g., ‘system of deities’, ‘narrative structure’).
2. Ideally, we would need to establish the historical link first, before looking for borrowings.
3. Differences between structures/stories/complexes do not disprove influence, as long as the parallels are ‘too numerous’ and ‘too striking’.
4. Parallels must be ‘striking’ (i.e., unexpected, ‘odd’, difficult to account for).
5. Some/many parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e., identical on the surface), and ‘prove nothing’.
6. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be numerous.
7. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and interrelationships).
8. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be detailed.
9. The details in alleged parallels must have the same “conceptual usage” reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning).
10. The parallels must have the same ‘ ideas underlying them’.
11. The similar ideas in alleged parallels must be ‘central features’ in the material–and not just isolated or peripheral elements.
12. Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing
13. Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that perhaps you’re referring to Osirus or Horus, in which case, most of the comparison are actually spurious. See here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html or perhaps Mithra? see here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html But perhaps you have others in mind?