Making a case or even proving that Jesus is not God, does not prove that there is no God. Further, there are also Deists that believe god created the Universe, gave it natural laws, and then left it to function on it's own. It's fair to say that if God existed we'd have found indisputable evidence of his interactions by now. However, don't you think limiting it to the last 2000 years in a universe that 14.x Billion is a somewhat narrow focus?
I'm not sure how you can say with confidence that no god(s) exist when many, like Pascal, recognize that if God exists, he is ineffable. If your merely confident the Christian God does not exist, then you may be justified in your strong belief God does not exist, but if your certain all god(s) including the Deist ones do not exist, it seems you have a burden of proof to meet.
1. That wasn;t my case.
2. Yes, I reject the existence of any and all Gods. My proof is the lack of proof to prove anything different, after 2, 20, 200, 2,000, 20,000, 200,000 2,000,000 20,000,000 200,000,000 2,000,000,000 or 20,000,000,000 years.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
Being deliberately obtuse? What a bizarre accusation. It's crystal clear beyond a shadow of a doubt with no possibility whatsoever for a modicum of confusion that he's referencing the birth of JC.
It was a fitting accusation since the insinuation itself was historically, socially and culturally bankrupt. By implication, Duffman's childish drive-by basically asserts that there were and are NO religious developments to either precede or follow the life of Jesus. It's a typical form of Western cultural bigotry that I have become quite accustomed to seeing from him.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
At the risk of making a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, those people don't sound like atheists to me even if they self-label with that term. What you describe reminds me of the new age "I'm spiritual but not religious" types one frequently encounters.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too, otherwise you are just as guilty as Chill Cosby of overloading the word "atheist" to mean something much more than it simply does.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
What's up for debate is the legitimacy of the version in the Bible, considering there are quite a few contradictions regarding his teachings and particular events.
But yeah, Jesus was a dude who actually existed.
Jesus was late for the party even in the fairy tale bible, but please post a link where any scholar or historian wrote of him anywhere else but the bible.
Seems kind of strange to me that 60+ scholars in that time period wrote about politics, court systems, agriculture,food trains and just about everything else but fail to mention a dude born of a virgin that could perform miracles never seen before or since. Did God block them?
I'm not sure this question can be answered with complete certainty. Textcritic makes a very good case for saying that the existence of a historical Jesus is highly probable, but it is based on circumstantial evidence, and not so much on contemporary evidence.
I think it should not matter so much if he was real or not. It is the message that is important. The reference, not the symbol.
FYI: Richard Carrier's book in which he makes his case for the non-existence of Jesus was just published by a legitimate(!) academic publisher a couple months ago:
I'm still waiting for responses and reviews by scholars. I'm considering ordering my own review copy from Sheffield Phoenix, but I honestly don't know if I have the time to review something that really is not my field. I'm too cheap to buy my own copy (and this is in no small part because I think that Carrier is a hack), so I will probably just end up doing a brusque read at the book table at SBL this November.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I'll ask you again, show me one historical writing for existence of Jesus during his so called lifespan. and leave the insulting "he was just a commoner" out of it.
I agree. I was simply rejecting the idea that not a single scholar had recorded evidence or found evidence of his existence.
Except that part would be false. Troutman is right. Virtually all the evidence for the existence of Jesus is circumstantial. There is nothing that any historian would accept as direct evidence for the existence of Jesus. However, where most people make mistakes in this discussion is dismissing circumstantial evidence as worthless. We accept all sorts of historical probabilities as virtually incontrovertible on nothing more than second hand circumstantial source material.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
1. That wasn;t my case.
2. Yes, I reject the existence of any and all Gods. My proof is the lack of proof to prove anything different, after 2, 20, 200, 2,000, 20,000, 200,000 2,000,000 20,000,000 200,000,000 2,000,000,000 or 20,000,000,000 years.
Just so I'm clear, are you making a knowledge/metaphysical truth claim or a belief claim when you say you reject the existence of all and any Gods?
I'll ask you again, show me one historical writing for existence of Jesus during his so called lifespan. and leave the insulting "he was just a commoner" out of it.
Why is that "insulting"? It's the plain truth. Your challenge is a straw man and you know it.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
You're focusing far too much on the parts instead of the whole. A belief system has to check multiple boxes.
Wholes are comprised of parts, if parts are missing the whole isn't whole.
If the boxes don't make for a good definition of a belief system then yes lots of things might check all the boxes and be a belief system by that definition. I don't need to look at the whole to decide if a check box is reasonable or not because each box must in itself be valid.
"A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs." is the simplest definition I can find. By that definition atheism is not a belief system.
You've talked about an academic definition, but you haven't provided it just proposed a variety of boxes. Lets have the academic definition, then we'd have something to proceed on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
If you can HONESTLY tell me that believing you can't fly informs your world view and that you base significant social, political, and philosophical beliefs on the idea of not being able to fly, while being part of a community that all should follow particular beliefs associated with not flying, then you're right, it's a belief system. We can call it Anti-Flightism if you'd like.
So by your criteria if believing I can't fly doesn't "significantly" influence my social, political, philosophical beliefs and create a community where all should follow particular beliefs then it's not a belief system? What constitutes significant? How do you measure it? Beliefs grow up into belief system if they randomly happen to become influential?
Doesn't make sense, I think the clear academic definition you spoke about is necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Atheism is a belief system. If it isn't, why would it matter if an Atheist believes in Aliens? Or Crystal Power? According to MarchHare, those people probably aren't atheists, and even you agree it's hard to pin down.
It doesn't matter that they believe in aliens or crystal power. That someone's beliefs are hard to pin down because they lack the ability to properly reason and articulate clearly isn't relevant. If on a questionnaire that asks "Do you believe in god(s)" if they check no they are an atheist, because that's what the word means.
My point was that not all atheists are the kind that appreciate science, form educational organizations and discuss it on the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Isn't your definition of atheism the singular lack of belief in god/deities? So why in the world would ANYONE question someone's atheism if aliens and the power of crystals, two entirely separate things from gods and deities, were other beliefs of theirs?
He wasn't questioning it based on aliens or the power of crystals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Would you say that, perhaps, aliens and crystal power do not fall in line with the "system" that which most true atheists follow?
No, because there is no system that true atheists follow. You're the one claiming that it's a belief system, so provide all the foundational beliefs of the belief system. You're the one that says belief systems have "community that all should follow particular beliefs associated" with, what are those beliefs all atheists should follow?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
That is Fundamentalism. That is also a belief. They believe that the Bible is literal and should be taken as such without variation. This belief informs a multitude of other beliefs. It is a belief system.
No, the multitude of other beliefs is the belief system. The belief that earth is 6000 years old doesn't originate with the belief that their religious text is inerrant, it originates from one particular interpretation of the religious text. If they want to know what the correct belief is with respect to the ultimate destiny of a person, they don't (and can't) check their belief that their religious text is inerrant, because that belief doesn't speak to the question of human destiny. They have to check the beliefs formed from the religious text, the belief system.
Just because A follows from B does not mean A IS B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Nearly every belief system has a central belief, and every central belief informs a range of related, important beliefs that are generally accepted by followers of that belief system.
That still doesn't make that central belief a belief system. Just because A follows from B does not mean A is B. Provide your academic definition of a belief system and we can tell from there.
And what important beliefs are generally accepted by all the followers of the belief system that is atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
That, or the Alien Crystal Powers Guru is as much as atheist as anyone else, without even the notion that they should have someone questioning their atheism because of seemingly unrelated beliefs they hold.
Of course the Guru is as much an atheist as every other atheist if he answers no to the question "Do you believe in god(s)?". That's the only criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Well sure you do. You're propositioning your friends with the question of "If there were evidence, would you cease belief in God?".
In order for your question to be comprehensive, you'd surely have to qualify evidence.
Ah ok well I typically wouldn't ask something that specific way because it doesn't work that way (you generally can't prove a negative). I was speaking more generally about the question of what would change one's mind (which is why I said "that exact question (what evidence would change their mind)". Usually the discussion is around positive claims if it's involving evidence.
I didn't see the intended context of your question originally when I talked about burden of proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Absolutely. The only problem is that you talk about Atheism in an "all encompassing way" but talk about Theism differently.
I don't think so, I tried to specifically point out that not all atheists fit into a specific stereotype, and raised the point that not all theists are dogmatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Most Theists, I gather, are flexible and would change their belief system based on known information. Much like most Atheists.
God created the world, so the story goes. Some people (creationists) believe evolution not to be real. Most theists believe it to be very real. That's a pretty prime example of the opinion of theists changing, and a good example of their acceptance towards change given the change of information.
That's my issue with the "Atheists would change if the information was sufficient". I'm sure most would. As would most theists. Neither phrases should be uttered conclusively or in a manner that encompasses all who follow either.
Of course, I always say that digging down to the actual ideas of the person is far more useful than stereotypes or generalizations when talking about specifics. If the discussion is about generalities then information supporting the generalities is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
EDIT: By the way, I'm really enjoying talking about this with you. It's making me think a little more, and my view if adapting as we go. Hope I've been tolerable so far
If I didn't like discussing it I wouldn't be discussing it.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
LeRon is giving a talk based on his book on Thursday night here in Kristiansand at a meeting of the local humanists society, entitled: "Where do gods come from — and why do we keep them around."
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
But you can't have your cake and eat it too, otherwise you are just as guilty as Chill Cosby of overloading the word "atheist" to mean something much more than it simply does.
I don't think I'm trying to have it both ways. To me, atheism is skepticism and disbelief of the supernatural, including but not limited to god(s), angels and demons, life after death, re-incarnation, and new age woo woo like healing crystals, auras, and astral projection. Perhaps there's a better term and atheism is merely a special case subset that applies solely to disbelief in god(s) in the same way that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. If I'm overloading the term and there's a better word for what I described, then I will gladly incorporate it into my vocabulary.
FYI: Richard Carrier's book in which he makes his case for the non-existence of Jesus was just published by a legitimate(!) academic publisher a couple months ago:
I'm still waiting for responses and reviews by scholars. I'm considering ordering my own review copy from Sheffield Phoenix, but I honestly don't know if I have the time to review something that really is not my field. I'm too cheap to buy my own copy (and this is in no small part because I think that Carrier is a hack), so I will probably just end up doing a brusque read at the book table at SBL this November.
Yeah I haven't read it yet, it looks dense. But the reviews I've read have had some positives, and Carrier isn't saying his book is the end of discussion but wants it to be a beginning partly by looking at things that have been used to support the idea and seeing if they're valid. I'm interested more in his alternative theory which he says fits all the available evidence.
Ultimately I think this blog post has the right idea.. the entire topic isn't overly useful in terms of broader discussion:
1. That wasn;t my case.
2. Yes, I reject the existence of any and all Gods. My proof is the lack of proof to prove anything different, after 2, 20, 200, 2,000, 20,000, 200,000 2,000,000 20,000,000 200,000,000 2,000,000,000 or 20,000,000,000 years.
You are a man of faith then and not making rational conclusions based on the available evidence.
It was a fitting accusation since the insinuation itself was historically, socially and culturally bankrupt. By implication, Duffman's childish drive-by basically asserts that there were and are NO religious developments to either precede or follow the life of Jesus. It's a typical form of Western cultural bigotry that I have become quite accustomed to seeing from him.
then is still a pile of 
