6643 replies to this topic

[Brandon Strader]

Man if only God made a brief 5 seconds appearance before everyone then we could spare all these discussions. Thanks God

If God himself appeared before all of mankind they'd be like "Fuck that it's just another 2Pac hologram"

Mankind wouldn't give 3 shits about the appearance of God if God himself appeared and slapped them in the face

They'd be like oh shit my face hurts what happened must be whiplash

[Jaquio]

This... should not have a million replies. Don't meta the internet. Give me video game music.

[Ryan8bit]

Your apparent unwillingness to present any evidence in support of your case seems a bit evasive.

I did present some evidence, but you wanted to discount it because I haven't read it. I did a quick google search and that was just one hit that popped up which cited that source for being what I was talking about. I really don't have the time or the desire to have to come up with and read 100 novels to satisfy your demands just to have you shit on it because you're clearly biased toward Christianity. I had read things in the past in various books and heard things on various podcasts. It isn't the kind of thing that I make mental note of on which author said what about what, and I'm not going to spend more time on this than it deserves.

And I don't feel like stressing it because it was beside my point. I purposefully didn't bring up the Bible because I didn't want to get into debates on the details of its historicity with someone who is so biased toward it. That is why I made sure to not use it in any of my various examples, yet that's the way you wanted to swing it. And we've been over this stuff before, which is why it becomes tiresome. I don't care about the details of the Bible here.

Are you saying that all of the gospels were authored by the same person? Evidence please.

No. When I say independent, I mean truly independent, not some guys who were all part of the same cult.

Why does it matter if the author himself was an eyewitnesses, rather than if he recorded the events of an eyewitness? Last I checked most history textbooks weren't authored by eyewitnesses. Most historical accounts aren't recorded firsthand.

I can't even believe how much you bend to try and make a point. People who write history textbooks aren't writing the history as they go. It's all derived from other historical texts, many of which fit those criteria I mention.

And it does matter because it lends credence to something. Think of it this way: If you see some writing on a bathroom wall that says the end of the world is near, are you likely to believe it? You can't judge the credentials or possible biases of this person who is writing it, so why should you take the statement at face value? On the other hand, if astronomers say there is an asteroid headed toward Earth and the end of the world is near, you have someone to hold accountable for the statements. If it's someone who is respected as an authority and has no reason to lie or make something up, it makes more sense to trust that. Knowing who the writer is and information about their life is very helpful in piecing together history.

The example given of the Trojan War is a bit disingenous since the primary stories we have of the Trojan War were written by a poet. Even so, I wouldn't say that I particularly doubt the divine intervention or the individual accounts.

And that is one of several reasons why you're not a historian. Credulity isn't exactly the most desired trait for the job.

And it's not really disingenuous at all because just upthread you were going on about how it didn't matter that Homer was a poet and that it was accepted that the consensus (which you asserted without evidence, btw) was that the Trojan War happened. It's a great example.

I still don't understand why an account that is truthful concerning non-extraordinary claims should not be trusted concerning extraordinary ones. I'm still looking for a logical explanation for that.

As I said, each claim stands on its own. The ones that are extraordinary require more corroboration and less doubt.

It's unreasonable to demand a demonstration of something that is categorically indemonstrable.

Given how humans actually behave and learn, aka demonstration, it's really not. One could very easily make many wild claims about immaterial things and then hide behind the loophole of not having to demonstrate it, and why should anybody else believe them? It's flimflam.

[arise_shine]

Yeah .. I don't suspect that someone writing a full century after Jesus's life is going to convince me of much. Sure, the early church leaders believed those things, but does that make them true? Of course they're going to claim that the Bible is true: it advances their own faith agenda. How about secular sources about authorship of the Bible?

But again, if these writings ("evidence") are so important (acknowledging that this is less important to Sam than Theo), why didn't Jesus himself write anything? Or preserve it better? Or be of better quality? If evidence is so important, why does is it so crappy?

[Guy In Rubber Suit]

Yeah .. I don't suspect that someone writing a full century after Jesus's life is going to convince me of much. Sure, the early church leaders believed those things, but does that make them true? Of course they're going to claim that the Bible is true: it advances their own faith agenda. How about secular sources about authorship of the Bible?

But again, if these writings ("evidence") are so important (acknowledging that this is less important to Sam than Theo), why didn't Jesus himself write anything? Or preserve it better? Or be of better quality? If evidence is so important, why does is it so crappy?

Spoiler! Jesus was illiterate.

[GENTLYPORKING]

According to the Vatican, nuns need to step up their gay bashing game.

[TheoConfidor]

I did present some evidence, but you wanted to discount it because I haven't read it.

Sure. You mentioned an entire college textbook in support of a tangential point that is neither relevant nor contested. You haven't presented any evidence or sources for anything that I specifically requested.

I don't care about the details of the Bible here.

You also don't seem to care about the details of history or testimony in general. It isn't just the Bible that you are dismissive of. As I stated, there is ample testimony throughout history that exorcism is a practice of some importance. You blatantly dismiss all of those historical claims simply because they don't fit your concept of the world.

Now, you are free to think whatever you like. But don't claim that reason, rationality, logic and evidence are on your side when you refuse to consider the evidence of history and of personal testimony while offering no logical reason for dismissing such accounts.

And it's not really disingenuous at all because just upthread you were going on about how it didn't matter that Homer was a poet and that it was accepted that the consensus (which you asserted without evidence, btw) was that the Trojan War happened. It's a great example.

You're absolutely right. Historical fiction and history are precisely the same thing. If a particular piece of poetry embellishes the events of a certain part of archaelogically-confirmed history, then it necessarily logically follows that the mentioned historical event did not occur. That's not disingenuous at all.

/sarcasm

I still don't understand why an account that is truthful concerning non-extraordinary claims should not be trusted concerning extraordinary ones. I'm still looking for a logical explanation for that.

The ones that are extraordinary require more corroboration and less doubt.

Please defend this statement. Since doubt has everything to do with the predisposition of the observer and nothing to do with the actual events, how are the two related? Does a true claim become false simply if it is doubted? Does a lie become true if it is believed? How does the disposition of an individual person have any bearing on the accuracy of a written account.

One could very easily make many wild claims about immaterial things and then hide behind the loophole of not having to demonstrate it, and why should anybody else believe them?

One could very easily make true claims about one's own historical experiences and not be believed simply because of the personal bias of the listener.

Yeah .. I don't suspect that someone writing a full century after Jesus's life is going to convince me of much. Sure, the early church leaders believed those things, but does that make them true? Of course they're going to claim that the Bible is true: it advances their own faith agenda.

Your skepticism on the issue also has no bearing on the truth of those things.

How about secular sources about authorship of the Bible?

Most of the secular historians weren't focused on minor details like the authorship of the Bible, especially given all that was appening in Rome at the time. The secular references that pertain to the Gospels make brief reference of Jesus Christ and what he was reported to have done. Even the Apostles aren't deemed significant enough to be mentioned most ancient secular historians.

But again, if these writings ("evidence") are so important (acknowledging that this is less important to Sam than Theo), why didn't Jesus himself write anything? Or preserve it better? Or be of better quality? If evidence is so important, why does is it so crappy?

The writings aren't very important. The life of Christ and the other historical events mentioned in the Bible are what's important. For most people at the time and even through the present, the oral tradition as canonized and preserved by the church is sufficient.

The issue is exorcism, and not old manuscripts.
The issue is Jesus Christ, and not who wrote or said what.
The issue is salvation from sin, and not which Q documents historians use.

The evidence is simply there so that those who reject the truth are stripped of their last excuse. If a person doesn't want to believe in Jesus, that's certainly their choice. If a person doesn't want to believe that the gospels are true, then that's also up to them. But no-one here can truthfully claim, "I would have believed if only someone had given me a little more evidence." The evidence is only needed because of the hardness of peoples hearts. Most people won't be swayed by the evidence, and they won't be saved. But I do know of a handful of people who simply needed their questions concerning the gospel to be intellectually satisfied, and who eventually came to believe based primarily on the evidence.

[TheoConfidor]

No. When I say independent, I mean truly independent, not some guys who were all part of the same cult.

Yeah .. I don't suspect that someone writing a full century after Jesus's life is going to convince me of much. Sure, the early church leaders believed those things, but does that make them true? Of course they're going to claim that the Bible is true: it advances their own faith agenda.

I would like to point out that this line of reasoning is logically fallacious. To call into question the veracity of an account solely because of the associations of persons making a claim is to commit the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

You cannot logically dismiss the accounts of the gospel writers and early church fathers without evidence that the accounts in question are false.

[Sam]

Yeah .. I don't suspect that someone writing a full century after Jesus's life is going to convince me of much. Sure, the early church leaders believed those things, but does that make them true? Of course they're going to claim that the Bible is true: it advances their own faith agenda. How about secular sources about authorship of the Bible?

But again, if these writings ("evidence") are so important (acknowledging that this is less important to Sam than Theo), why didn't Jesus himself write anything? Or preserve it better? Or be of better quality? If evidence is so important, why does is it so crappy?

Spoiler! Jesus was illiterate.

Untrue. See e.g. Luke 4:16-19.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[arise_shine]

Evidence is important because you're making extraordinary claims that I don't believe. If there's no evidence, then how am I supposed to believe your claims about the life of Jesus and salvation and all that stuff?

And how is it fallacious to weaken evidence based on someone's motives? Sure, it's not to be discounted *completely*, but surely you can see how someone could be motivated to exaggerate or fabricate something to advance their own cause? Even if it's not fully conscious?

[Ryan8bit]

You mentioned an entire college textbook in support of a tangential point that is neither relevant nor contested. You haven't presented any evidence or sources for anything that I specifically requested.

As a recap, your two requests for evidence were for these two claims:

1. Most historians don't believe in the supernatural parts of the Bible.

2. Authorship of the gospels is unknown and was only attributed to disciples by the church's founding fathers.

Maybe you won't accept the evidence because "heart is too heavy" or some other such nonsense. But here is a little bit more from where I recall having heard these things.

For #1, a podcast I listened to had mentioned the book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard Carrier. Right on the sleeve of the book is written, "Almost all experts agree that the Jesus of the Bible is a composite of myth, legend, and some historical evidence," and as you get further into the book he actually cites other historians who have come to the same consensus: "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend." He provides his sources of field studies done on this by Bart Ehrman in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know about Them), Burton Mack in The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy, and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz in The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide.

For #2, I gave the evidence and you said it isn't contested, so I'm not sure what more to say here.

You also don't seem to care about the details of history or testimony in general. It isn't just the Bible that you are dismissive of. As I stated, there is ample testimony throughout history that exorcism is a practice of some importance. You blatantly dismiss all of those historical claims simply because they don't fit your concept of the world.

I don't disbelieve that exorcism is a practice of importance or that people engaged in these types of activities, that would be ridiculous. I absolutely believe that the people who made such assertions most likely believed in what they were writing. I believe many such things about history, but that doesn't mean I have to believe in their claims. What history says about what people in the past believed has no bearing on what is actually true any more than what people believe today. And I didn't make a decision to disbelieve exorcism based on ancient history or what people believe.

Since doubt has everything to do with the predisposition of the observer and nothing to do with the actual events, how are the two related? Does a true claim become false simply if it is doubted? Does a lie become true if it is believed? How does the disposition of an individual person have any bearing on the accuracy of a written account.

Ancient history is not about "actual" events, and nothing that far back is absolute. It's about piecing together the evidence as best as possible and based upon how much of that is accumulated, deciding how probable it is to be true. Doubt is a natural part of this process because if you have one piece of evidence that claims something extraordinary that was likely to be reported by other sources and is not, it's reasonable to question the validity of those claims.

But no-one here can truthfully claim, "I would have believed if only someone had given me a little more evidence." The evidence is only needed because of the hardness of peoples hearts.

Untrue. People who demand evidence do so because they aren't gullible; because they are honestly interested in what's true so that they aren't made to be a fool. All the same, only a fool would disbelieve in something that had good evidence.

And several of the people here who have spoken out against these types of ideas were once Christian. They once believed because they had a different standard of evidence. And I can't speak for others, but for me it had a lot to do with simply growing up.

To call into question the veracity of an account solely because of the associations of persons making a claim is to commit the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

Except that certainly wasn't my claim. It's not because of who they were or who they associated with, it's because of how related their source. If today I was given two news stories written by anchors that were both from Fox News, I would still look elsewhere for a different perspective because even though they are still likely to not agree on everything, they are too closely related to count as independent. I would especially do so if I found they were filtering the evidence to fit their notions.

[Guy In Rubber Suit]

Yeah .. I don't suspect that someone writing a full century after Jesus's life is going to convince me of much. Sure, the early church leaders believed those things, but does that make them true? Of course they're going to claim that the Bible is true: it advances their own faith agenda. How about secular sources about authorship of the Bible?

But again, if these writings ("evidence") are so important (acknowledging that this is less important to Sam than Theo), why didn't Jesus himself write anything? Or preserve it better? Or be of better quality? If evidence is so important, why does is it so crappy?

Spoiler! Jesus was illiterate.

Untrue. See e.g. Luke 4:16-19.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

He learned that as a parlor trick. Also, he's terrible with the poor, freedom of the prisoners, and the blind.

Why didn't Jesus write anything? Why was it written what he has done about a century after the fact?

[TheoConfidor]

Evidence is important because you're making extraordinary claims that I don't believe. If there's no evidence, then how am I supposed to believe your claims about the life of Jesus and salvation and all that stuff?

But there is evidence.

And how is it fallacious to weaken evidence based on someone's motives? Sure, it's not to be discounted *completely*, but surely you can see how someone could be motivated to exaggerate or fabricate something to advance their own cause? Even if it's not fully conscious?

It is fallacious to discount or discredit an account based on someone's motives when you don't know their motives. Just because someone could exaggerate or fabricate something to advance their cause doesn't mean that they have.

If you are suggesting that the disciples were lying or exaggerating, then I would invite you to present some evidence in support of such a claim.

[TheoConfidor]

Maybe you won't accept the evidence because "heart is too heavy" or some other such nonsense. But here is a little bit more from where I recall having heard these things.

I will accept any valid evidence in support of factual assertions. I'm more than happy to grant supported facts as valid.

1. Most historians don't believe in the supernatural parts of the Bible.

For #1, a podcast I listened to had mentioned the book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard Carrier. Right on the sleeve of the book is written, "Almost all experts agree that the Jesus of the Bible is a composite of myth, legend, and some historical evidence," and as you get further into the book he actually cites other historians who have come to the same consensus: "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend." He provides his sources of field studies done on this by Bart Ehrman in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know about Them), Burton Mack in The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy, and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz in The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide.

Your evidence does seem to clearly suggest that there are an ample number of historians who don't believe in the supernatural parts of the Bible.

There are also a good number of historians who do believe in the supernatural parts of the Bible (Michael J Wilkins, Gary Habermas, Graham H. Twelftree...)

So, I suppose that both of us can agree that at least some historians do believe in the supernatural parts of the gospels, and at least some historians do not believe in the supernatural parts of the gospels.

2. Authorship of the gospels is unknown and was only attributed to disciples by the church's founding fathers.

For #2, I gave the evidence and you said it isn't contested, so I'm not sure what more to say here.

For the part about the authorship, I've heard and read that in several places that the authorship of the Bible was anonymous and that only the church fathers attributed the names to the writings in the 2nd century.

Here you've changed the wording of your claim slightly. I do agree that the gospels were not originally published along with the names of the authors and that the formal attributions were made by the early church fathers around the 2nd century. I do not agree that the authors of the gospels were unknown.

And I didn't make a decision to disbelieve exorcism based on ancient history or what people believe.

I read on about several of the other famous cases, but no matter where you looked there was a skeptical side to each one, and with good reason. In conjunction with the application of reason, that was all I needed to be wary of any such claims.

Okay. From your earlier statement, you said that when you looked into various exorcism you found that there was a skeptical side to the cases you examined. So far that's all I've heard.

So, on what basis do you disbelieve in the reality of exorcism (and the accompanying reality of demonic oppression/possession)?

Ancient history is not about "actual" events, and nothing that far back is absolute. It's about piecing together the evidence as best as possible and based upon how much of that is accumulated, deciding how probable it is to be true. Doubt is a natural part of this process because if you have one piece of evidence that claims something extraordinary that was likely to be reported by other sources and is not, it's reasonable to question the validity of those claims.

Now you are confusing the subject with the method. The subject of ancient history is the events that historically occurred. The process of doing/studying ancient history involves piecing together evidence.

The question then is by what means someone determines what actually occurred.

My argument is that if an account seems to be supported by evidence, then it should be accepted as factual, concerning both extraordinary and non-extraordinary claims.

Your argument seems to be that ancient accounts that mention extraordinary events should not be believed because they makes claims that are extraordinary.

If this is your argument, then please support it. If this is not your argument, then please present an argument to me demonstrating how the extraoridnariness of a claim has any bearing on the veracity of a historical account.

And several of the people here who have spoken out against these types of ideas were once Christian. They once believed because they had a different standard of evidence. And I can't speak for others, but for me it had a lot to do with simply growing up.

I too grew up being taught a good number of things. In the process of growing up, I came to realize that various things I was taught weren't supported by rational thinking or proper evidence. I critically examined all of my major beliefs and considered the evidence for each.

Like you, my standard of evidence changed when I reached adulthood. However, many of beliefs were strengthened by the process of inquiry because I found there to be solid and sound evidence.

It's not because of who they were or who they associated with, it's because of how related their source. If today I was given two news stories written by anchors that were both from Fox News, I would still look elsewhere for a different perspective because even though they are still likely to not agree on everything, they are too closely related to count as independent. I would especially do so if I found they were filtering the evidence to fit their notions.

There's nothing wrong with looking for corroboration. However, one cannot logically dismiss an account or similarly-sourced accounts simply because of personal association.

Have you found a credible conflicting account that suggests the gospel-writers were lying? Have you found some basis for believing that the gospel-writers did filter or tamper with the true account of Jesus life?

If so, go ahead and present your case. I'm genuinely curious...

[Brandon Strader]

There are asshats who make Christianity look bad. SO so bad, that's an understatement.

Then there's the Christians you know from your town. The nice, upstanding people.. warm and welcoming, friendly. But it's the radical ones that make the world shit for the rest of us. I could understanding hating Christianity if the only exposure you had was Westboro Baptist Church (the God hates fags people).

News flash;

God is not anti-fag.

The Bible says NOTHING about gay marriage, and mentions homosexual relations a few times, but never in a disapproving way.

People point to Leviticus to say that the Bible says "Gay people should be put to death." But I challenge you, actually read Leviticus. It says nothing like that at all. You have to pay attention to the context of what was actually said. For one thing, much of that section of leviticus is concerning priests, not an all-encompassing law. And we have a lot of catholic priests today who fuck young boys. That is bullshit, and those are the people who should be put to death, not gays in general. Pay attention to the context.

The one thing the Bible does say is to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR as you love yourself, be peaceful and welcoming. There's a lot of dicks who claim to be Christians and follow exactly 0 of the actual Bible teachings. God doesn't care if you open a door for someone once to be polite, he cares that you sit there hating and bashing someone for no reason.

Atheists can be condescending with all their "we are peaceful and helpful even without God" sentiments. That's fine, if that helps you feel superior, good for ya. No judgment. Maybe I've spent too much time on reddit but atheists dwell WAY too much on the actions of God. "Oh my life is so bad, I must blame God" or "Oh something good happened, let's attribute this success to the scientists, God had nothing to do with it."

It's just hypocrisy, and it's so stupid. And you point that out on reddit and you get downvoted.

I don't ever expect to convince anyone of Christianity just like you won't convince me to believe in no God or afterlife. If believing in an afterlife comforts people, let them do it. I do believe in God and I believe there is something for us in the afterlife when God calls on us. You might not respect me or anything I have to say, especially in light of my depression and drinking problems, but you should at the very least consider the feelings of others. You don't believe that there can be a God -- that's fine. You have free wil lto believe in anything that you choose. That's what free will is. We are the humans that remain after the initial humans tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and had forsaken the guidance and love of God. It is human nature to deny God. That is an obvious observation... Just like children rebel against their parents, et al. I was a rebellious kid and I got the fuck beat out of me on a regular basis. God could smite you straight up and you wouldn't realize or care. He could rip your land apart with lightning, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, volcanos... He could righteously fuck you to pieces, and you would damn his name. I've told the people on reddit that they need to stop contributing the bad occurrences as an "act of God" while the good ones are an "act of science". It's an incredibly short-sighted way to live and I pity them, honestly. I truly pity them. I thought being an atheist was about not believing in God, not about blaming God for everything bad that happens to you.

But whatever... sorry for the rant.