The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > On blind hope and the awful truth > Comments

On blind hope and the awful truth : Comments

By Brett Walker, published 26/11/2008

The defenders of religion preface their entire argument upon the acceptance of their position on blind faith.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All
When societies are at their best the rules of all fulfill the test; no matter what belief they have – whatever god, or none at all:

BUDDHISM: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” - Undarsayarga
CHRISTIANITY: “Do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” - Jesus Christ
CONFUCIANISM: “Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you.” Confucius
HINDUISM: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you>” – Vyasa
ISLAM: “Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you and reject for others what you would reject for yourself.” - Prophet Muhammad
JUDAISM: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.” – Rabbi Hillel
ATHIESM: “Do good, for good is good to do, spurn bribe of heaven and threat of hell.” – the common standard.

And when there are so many god-fearing intemperates saturating the media with declarations equating to “there is but one God, Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet”, especially from the Christian dogmatists, it is no wonder a grumpy word or two gets written about religions.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 9:39:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brave article. Let's wait for the circular logic from defenders of the faiths.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 9:58:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
excellent, touching article.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 10:14:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A thoughtful well written article and only a day after the usual balderdash from Sells and his supporters. And fully in tune with the proposed ads on the UK buses,'There probably is no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life'.
The last comment in the article sums up Peter Singer's arguments in 'How are we to live?'. Singer argues that a person who lives a life based on achieving improvements outside his own direct benefit will fare well.
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 10:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny you write this today, I heard on radio national this morning (must have been the religion report) some dude that belongs to an ' atheist club' and another that belongs to the ' fruitcakechristio4eva' club, Oh it was about a bus company in SA rejecting a request for an ad on their busses that said something about " atheism and reasoning" so anywayhow.
Which got me thinking over my initial reasoning that led me to that A word.
I reasoned that if I was born and mysteriously had not come into contact with any human that had a method of brainwashing me " I would be as every other living thing" and be pure of mind and therefore 'sane' as well as godless.
I also read what i could in encylopaedia's about the history of religion ' christianity' and brushed over the muslim faith in an effort to be slightly diverse in my knowledge although I'd sort of made up my mind with my philosophy of innocence.
Yep everlasting life is a great yarn to suck in those that don't want it to end, and what an amazing powerbase it is. "Is blind faith a primate attribute?" What about Lemmings?
Just imagine what minds could acheive without the ever oppressive religious attitude to confuse and control them. " a healthy earth for our offspring " or 'just a springboard to eternal life so who cares what I'm leaving'
etc.. Cheers
Posted by neilium, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 10:39:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article and a very well throught-out conclusion.

I wholeheartedly agree that what an individual chooses to believe in is up to that individual. My personal opinion in that using one's beliefs to discriminate in any way against others is one of the worst forms of arrogance.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 10:46:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everything we do both personally and collectively is an attempt to deny the overwhelming reality and fact of death. And to de-sensitise ourselves to our hell-deep fear and trembling (which in some sense is fair enough--because to be suddenly stripped of our "self"-armouring would be absolutely terrifying)

Put in another way it, is an attempt to account for the seeming gap between us, each other and everything that is presumed to be not-"self".

The "god of the gaps" being a perennial topic of Christian theology.
But ALL of our philosophies, however grand or mundane, are a desperate effort to deny our mortality.

But what if the Understanding of the meaning and significance of death is the ESSENTIAL key to right life altogether?

And thereby of individual and collective sanity?

http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp

http://www.aboutadidam.org/dying_death_and_beyond/index.html

Plus I quite like the work of Ernest Becker--particularly his Flight From Death.

http://www.flightfromdeath.com/becker.htm

If you read the biographies of the great saints from any of the traditions, you will find that their turnabout, or conversion, always involved going through the process summed up in the phrase the "dark night of the soul"
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 11:08:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
who lives on swampy ground best learn to swim

you wrote;Perhaps if religion had just been confined to dealing with these unpleasant events we might not live in a world where religious zealots routinely kill other people,or call for the imposition of their moral code on others..<<

the quran begins with the prayer to the mercyfull
jesus revealed love others as i loved you

you ramble on about blind hope

but it is evil that glories in their powers
HERE AND NOW
that live in blind hope to have no life hereafter

sad for them that chose to reject god
they cast dispersions on all believers

this hardly seems fair
let alone is verifiable by serious study

think how evil has hidden gods good
by death murder rape in war
all of which misses the point god is love

much like israel [means ]wars with god
and islam [meaning to follow gods will]

thus israel decares wrongly it[alone] is gods people
when by their deeds of murder on palistinians
proves they serve death[not the god who created life]

it is not believers who war[but unbelievers]

who not given to live FROM god[light sustaining life]
jesus said even a beast knows its masters voice

this 'voice' we aqre hearing is reflected by that we do
those condeming [or deneying gods gifts are decievetrs as much as decieved, but when you cant reply your own child with the truth and the hope

[based upon YOUR own fears, how can you ever forgive yourself when you are proved wrong[you for eternity know you decieved even your own child, who wrongly thinks you knowitall, you cannot even rightly describe death [let alone the next life]

the full value this life offeres was stolen from you
now you stole it from your own child
great one[duh]

you are so sure
but your surity is based on faith not fact

if you havnt done the research with an open heart
you will never get the real meaning

for who can read a single word
without thirsting for the fact it hides or reveals
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 11:09:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho Hum, why do you say that 'Everything we do both personally and collectively is an attempt to deny the overwhelming reality and fact of death'? I don't think that is the case for many people - I don't particularly want to die, but I am quite accepting of the fact that sooner or later I will. I have no concerns about being dead (and I do not believe in life after death, or reincarnation, just that my life will cease), although the process of dying worries me.

In relation to the article, I'm not sure I agree with the premise that religion arose from an unwillingness to discuss death. I think it arose out of need to explain the (then) inexplicable, and to give authority to those who wished to impose order under their own rules. It certainly worked and still operates today - just think of the misery of aids and starvation caused by overpopulation, thanks to the Catholics' irrational prohibition on birth control and the use of condoms.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 11:33:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brett, can’t you see how absurd it is that you and other atheists get annoyed with people who have religious beliefs? It is not as if they can help it after all.

An atheistic, materialistic world leaves no possibility of there being free will. So if you are correct, religious people simply have happened to come to those views because of the nature of the universe and they are unable to choose to believe otherwise.

Equally it is pointless to exhort people to “try and leave a better world behind when you go”. Nobody has any control over what they do; everything just happens.

Of course this is highly unpalatable but if you are going to espouse atheism you have to take the whole package. (But of course this comment and all meaningful discussion is necessarily premised on there actually being free will, and hence atheistic materialism being false.)
Posted by GP, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 12:20:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GP, i don't get annoyed at people with religious beliefs. i get annoyed at arrogant tools who deliberately and repeatedly misrepresent "the whole package".

for the thousandth time, the problem of consciousness and free will is deep. but atheists do not pretend to solve this problem. and, the suggestion that the problem is solved by reference to a god is logical balderdash.

grow up.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 12:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
brett wrote 'life is pitifully short, so grasp it and enjoy it as much as you can, and try to leave a better world behind when you go'...

man...you had all the necessary ingredients...mother-life journey over, child- life journey beginning, and you-alive and middle of life journey...and to make the above conclusion...without causing offense...is just lazy...

as first off answer to question your child asked...what dying meant...guess we all/must ask at some point...above good answer...but move on...

to me basically there are 3-stages we must go through...
1. 'who am I'...as in the person I am from assessing one-self from acts/wants/achievement, ending at hopefully, 'when I die, is it all black for ever(in which case this is all there is-so enjoy yourself as death has no consequences) or something survives my body into the afterlife(so you believe in a 'soul' that is with you in you body currently)'...

2. One moves eventually into stage2 'god and I'...when they answer 'yes' to something survives...thought process leads to issue of 'god' and all religious texts available...about god and soul and whats common and different etc...ending usually at 'our soul began as one of gods, proceeded through this 'journey of life'(ofcourse itching to finding out why god started this in the first place...) to eventually becoming part of god again...as end of cycle...

3. then comes this butt kicking stage...'what in this life I do affects me in my afterlife'...yep...where all religions and leaders go to town on with their own interpretations...but fact is when you die...they dont hold your hand and join you...if you know what I mean...so we each need to get this right for ourselves...an absolute requirement that goes with 'life'...irrelevant of what others near and far do...the closer one is to the 'truth to this'...apparently happier and effective we are in the life thats given...

sam
Ps~hopefully your daughter would get a better answer for her stage...so your statement...'enjoy your life-you think this all there is...then 'leave a better place(ie'constructive in acts'....opposed to 'unbalanced-self-interest acts' almost always effecting destructive outcome to others...)...seems you got your feet on both sides...
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 12:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One-under-god............I have often wondered, is English your first language - your mother tongue ?
Posted by snake, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 1:00:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aww snake....give him a break...I enjoy reading his rants. I ge to spend hours trying to understand what the point is. Perhaps we could have competition about the hidden meaning. You know...a bit like the Da Vinci code.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 1:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GENESIS 3:19 should suffice
Posted by sillyfilly, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 1:42:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is being too simplistic in assuming that belief in life after death is the sole motivator for religious belief.

Many Christians don’t believe in life after death – I’m one, Peter Sellick is another.

Sells’ articles here draw the distinction between folk religion and authentic Christianity:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=491
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4777

For much of its history Judaism had no belief in life after death as a place of pleasure or punishment. The Hebrew Scriptures mention only the vague and rather gloomy belief in Sheol, the place of shades, which had no theological significance. Judaism is the forerunner and antecedent of both Christianity and Islam. It’s not historically sustainable to argue that belief in an afterlife is “the true genesis (pun intended) and rationale behind religion as we know it.”

Jesus’ message was overwhelmingly about how we are to live, not about what happens when we die.

I don’t deny that inability to face the truth of mortality underlies many believers’ hope in a heaven as a pleasant abode for the virtuous dead. But there is far more to all religions than that
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 3:02:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've known plenty of religious people, both good and bad.

Funny though that militant athiests are invariably intolerant, sneering tools.
Posted by grn, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 3:50:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brett summarizes

'Letting religion obscure your rationality is your own personal problem unless and until you drag the rest of us into your strange little world.'

I would suggest that Brett's self righteousness blinds him of his need of forgiveness and a Saviour. His ridiculous notion that religion causes more pain and death than the god deniers is a straight out deceit. Just look at the number of people killed by Marxist and more recently the millions of murdered unborn babies. Brett really needs a bit of honesty or a calculator.

'Using your religion as a pretext to cause others pain is an obscenity.'

It seems to me that those who fight against the Only One who can heal peoples pain are doing far more of a dis service than most. Most pain is caused by either one's own disobedience to God or someone else's disobedience. Brett adds to peoples pain by failing to acknowledge the Only Physician who can heal a persons life and give them eternal life.

'Believe in whatever helps you get through the day but spare us the sermons - and the violence.'

After giving a sermon to others Brett then concludes by demanding others don't give him a sermon. A touch of hypocrisy I would say. The violence is more likely to come from the mother's womb than the Salvation Army or Mother Teresa.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 4:02:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forgive me if I am a little confused, Rhiann.

>>Many Christians don’t believe in life after death – I’m one, Peter Sellick is another<<

Maybe it's just me, and the fact that I find Sells rather opaque, but this would seem to an outsider to turn the New testament on its head.

Where does John 14:2-3 fit into all this?

"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also"

Or John 17:3?

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Or John 3:16?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Perhaps it was just that John had the whole messaging thing wrong?

Would it not be better if you all got together and decided exactly what it is that Christians believe and don't believe.? It is horrendously difficult for us atheists to keep up with your "make it up as you go" approach.

It would also help if you encouraged Peter to write a form of English that is accessible to the somewhat meaner intelligences about him.

"The gospel does not save us for the afterlife but transforms life in lived time by opposing the automatic thinking generated by our evolved minds. Rather than affirm nature, the gospel actively opposes it when it suffocates love and dehumanises the neighbour. This is yet another reason why natural theology must be opposed, because it asserts the order of loveless evolution, of the beast in us. To be created in the image of God is to be created as reflective, critical beings that are able to transcend their biological determinism by countering the impulses that arise in their minds."

Yep, that should do it.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 4:14:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Many theologians see “kingdom of God,” “father’s house” and similar references as talking about this world, not the next.

John uses the phrase “eternal life” mainly as a descriptor of the life of faith, which consists primarily in knowing and being known by God through Jesus – not the life after death (see especially 17:2 3). He uses it a lot – see 3:16, 3:36, 4:14, 4:36, 5:24, 39-40, 6:27, 40, 47; 6:54, 63, 68; 10:28; 12:25. 50; 17:2-3. While in some of these passages you could argue that “eternal life” means “life after death,” in most it clearly doesn’t. A similar use is in Acts 13:36. John 10:10 “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” also points clearly to Jesus’ focus on a complete and authentic life in this world, not the next.

I don’t think Christians are ever going to reach a consensus on what we believe. I can see that can be irritating and confusing for non-believers, but our subject matter is pretty large and complex and our own scriptures tell us that at best our understanding of God will always be partial and contingent. Anyway, sociologists, physicists mathematicians, economists, socialists, liberals and even atheists disagree on lots of things. Maybe we can be allowed the same latitude. What is a little unfair is to take characteristics and beliefs that are, I’ll admit, true of certain Christians and assume that they apply to all of them.

I struggle with Sells’ language and ideas too sometimes, but I mostly enjoy his articles (even if I quite often disagree with him too). But he is saying here pretty much what John’s gospel is saying – eternal life is a transformed life here and now, not pie in the sky when you die. And his last point about what it is to be created in God's image is in some ways quite close to Dawkins’ argument that humanity, alone of all species, has the capacity to choose not to act according to biological determinism.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My apologies for misspelling your name Rhian.

>>While in some of these passages you could argue that “eternal life” means “life after death,” in most it clearly doesn’t<<

What percentage, would you think, of the faithful are aware of this fine distinction? Would it not be fair to say that your and Sells' interpretation differs substantially from the mainstream Christian view - that "eternal life" actually means heaven and all that goes with it?

Cardinal Newman wrote the Dream of Gerontius (which I know through Elgar's sublime setting) entirely on the topic of a man's final journey, from life, via a fleeting glimpse of God, through to Purgatory and an eventual promise of heaven.

"And ye, great powers,
Angels of Purgatory, receive from me
My charge, a precious soul, until the day,
When, from all bond and forfeiture released,
I shall reclaim it for the courts of light"

If you were to take a poll of Christians - all types - and asked them whether their understanding of their faith is closer to Newman's or to Sells', which do you think they would select?

>>I don’t think Christians are ever going to reach a consensus on what we believe. I can see that can be irritating and confusing for non-believers<<

If I were you, I'd be far less patronizing about the potential for confusing non-believers, and concentrate your concern on those who actually might care. Who would, I suspect, be those who think of themselves as committed Christians.

>>Anyway, sociologists, physicists mathematicians, economists, socialists, liberals and even atheists disagree on lots of things. Maybe we can be allowed the same latitude.<<

Very few of those you mention sell their product in the manner that Christianity does, and none at all pretends that it can offer everlasting life.

>>And [Sells'] last point about what it is to be created in God's image is in some ways quite close to Dawkins’ argument that humanity, alone of all species, has the capacity to choose not to act according to biological determinism.<<

I will have to take your word for that.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:56:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The whole gospel message is totally nullified if there is no heaven and no hell. It seems that Pericles has a better grasp on the Christian faith than some who claim to be believers and followers of Christ. The Apostle Paul made it plainly clear that if there is no resurrection of the dead the Christian faith is useless. Many have willingly gone to their deaths knowing that really they are entering life. Without the resurrection the Christian faith is as impotent as that of any other faiths. Denying the resurrection makes God a liar and Jesus to be a false prophet.

The belief that one day we won't face judgement might be comforting to the god haters and deniers. It won't however change the fact that it is going to happen. Thankfully Christ died a horrible death in order to pay for our punishment. Only complete fools would reject such love and mercy.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 6:02:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My five year old got to see his grandfather alive, and then three weeks later lying in an open coffin. Followed by the body being sent into the fire, and the bones coming out, as bleached as a cow’s skull left out in the sun.

He got to watch as the metal filings, detritus of a long life, were lifted up with a magnet. With me, he carefully wielded one half of a set of large chopsticks as we placed the bones in an urn.

Yep, it did get me to wondering.

10 months later, I was born again.

There are so many responses to death. Yours is just one of them. And while you appear to still be mourning your mother, and angry at anyone with a claim to the afterlife, perhaps this article is just a step toward healing for you.

We all respond to death in different ways. For me, it started a quest for answers, one that I’d abandoned for years with the distractions of life, career, marriage and children. Suddenly, it was very much on the agenda again, and I wasn’t satisfied with the half-baked answers I’d been fed through the catholic school system.

I don’t believe my father-in-law has received the gift of eternal life. I won’t know for sure, but he’d lived a life with his back turned on God, and I’ve learnt that God will respect this choice in death.

Standing on this side of the grave, there is a way to gain confidence in the truth of this matter….and it is not through criticizing those who earnestly seek to know it.

Exactly one year ago, I watched a friend die with multiple brain tumours. I was there moments before his final breath. The day before, while there was so much morphine and very little in the way of consciousness, I read the bible at his bedside. I read Ephesians, and wept at every word. At the same time, my heart leapt with joy.

There is peace and comfort to be found in the word of God. Especially for those bereft.
Posted by katieO, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 9:02:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow...I love it when Pericles defends the faith :) this is a good thing!

At least he is reading the Good book!

GENTLE REMINDER to all... it is not 'blind' faith. We believe in events which are testified to by real people, who ate with, saw.. touched the risen Christ. Their testimony is there for all to see/read. It also includes that of Paul.

Make of them what you wish.. this is a choice we have all been given. I just encourage those who choose not to embrace this faith, to refrain from saying it is 'blind'/

Blessings to all.

HOW WONDERFUL it is that so many threads/topics are being raised by non religious people....about religion :) in this I totally rejoice.

Is it possible that we can discuss such matters without our nicks being butchered, our persons attacked, our credibility undermined or our motives questioned? :) Let's hope so. (I address this to myself also)
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 9:17:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is that the article in itself proves nothing. It admits the pain of our short existence, and our discomfort in explaining death to children, but then the fact remains that we are no closer to actually answering the big questions. In other words, you are attempting to psychoanalyse WHY we are wrong, rather than proving THAT we are wrong. It's an old logical error, but still a very effective and sneaky one.

CS Lewis once had a term for this, it's called "Bulverism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century."
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 10:19:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some atheists have trouble being consistent. Here’s a fine example from Brett Walker:

“Spare us the sermons.” And then he says two seconds later, “try to leave a better world behind when you go.”

Well, which is it? Are we allowed to sermonise or not? If not, then why is he telling us what to do? And who is he to impose his moral code onto me?

For that matter, why should I leave the world better when I go? If Walker agrees with his fellow atheist, Peter Atkins, then people are ‘just a bit of slime on the planet’. We are a curious accident in a backwater. What does it matter when we all disappear down a meaningless, cosmic plughole? Why should I bother leaving the world in a better state than when I found it?

Perhaps I’m just one of those critics with invective in my spleen who Walker predicts will try and drown out his core message. So what was this message in his core? Well, if I’ve got it right, it was something along the lines of not being a squib (like he was honest enough to admit that he was) when telling the young ones about the reality of death; that religion is man’s failed attempt to face the reality of death.

If this was his point, then it lacks something critical. Death is universal, so why (by Walker’s reckoning) is not religious faith?

The very opposite is true. There is a life after death, and many have come to accept this when they squarely face certain realities. When staring at death, the man on the cross next to Jesus said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” When seeing the manner in which Jesus died, the Roman soldiers said, “Truly this man was the Son of God.”
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 27 November 2008 8:32:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely Dan. There is no morality, no moral force, no imperative whatsoever other than pure hedonistic pleasure if there is no God.

If I'm to be "flushed away" into nothingness, what do I care about the world or anything? I might care enough about Australia's state and the region my kids grow up in for their sake, but that's just pure sentiment because they too will one day be flushed away. There simply is no morality. We are just the top of the food chain. While some here have referred to fundamentalist suicide bombers, they've forgotten to admit that some of the worst war-crimes in history have been conducted in the name of fundamentalist Atheism in the likes of Marxism, Stalinism, Pol Pot, etc. But we'll just forget that shall we?

So, from all accounts, on this godless hypothesis, I would go with the Apostle Paul and "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die". But Paul didn't leave it at that did he, because he personally met the risen Christ and it rocked his universe.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 27 November 2008 8:41:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to everyone who bothered to read the piece before offering their thoughts – even the crazies. For one thing you help to prove my point!

To the others, can I suggest you read it with both eyes open and see if it resonates at all. Then try responding using proper sentences. Does wonders for your credibility.

Finally, to those who feel it is their duty to defend the faith or push their own brand of absolutism why not try preparing an argument and submitting it for publication?

The one thing I’ll say in support of Magnum PI’s little brother (Peter Sellick) is at least he does that – no matter how impenetrable his prose.

Cheers
Brett
AKA
Posted by bitey, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:37:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How many times have you been asked a question
"If God is omnipotent, if God can do anything,
then can he draw a square circle?"

"Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?"

Questions like these are examples of incomplete logic.
Once you know the trick, they are easy to refute but as I researched it, I discovered that
these kinds of questions point to a deeper problem,
a problem pointed out by a mathematician named
Kurt Godel pointed out in 1930.

Then along came Kurt Godel.

We realize now that Kurt Godel was one
of the most brilliant mathematicians of the 20th century.
Time Magazine recently even named him one of the top 20 scientific
minds of the last 100 years. And even back then he was
recognized as a man with a good head on his shoulders.

He decided to tackle the problem from a mathematical
perspective, using something called modal logic.

What he discovered rocked the mathematical world.

In 1930, he demonstrated that any logical system
sophisticated enough to make the statement
"1 + 1 = 2" contains within itself propositions that can
not be proved to be true or false.

In short, he showed that every moderately complex logical system
has propositions which must be accepted on faith. You can't
work the system unless you trust certain parts of the system,
and you can't prove why you should trust them, except that the
results work.

Even Godel didn't realize the full extent of what he had done.

What it means is this: physics, math, biology, chemistry - no
matter which scientific system you name, you are talking about an
essentially faith-based system.

Science requires persons to relate to each other in specific ways.
In order to communicate itself in an intelligent way,
science requires faith.

Is this a problem?

Not if you know what faith really is.

Steve Kellmeyer

This is an abridged version, see the entire article at www.bridegroompress.com

Cotton
Posted by Cotton, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:39:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grn said

"I've known plenty of religious people, both good and bad. Funny though that militant athiests are invariably intolerant, sneering tools."

What about militant religious people though - so in the interests of fairness you are not comparing apples with oranges.

My understanding is that the afterlife or another life (reincarnation) was the whole premise of religion ie. to provide an incentive to live a 'moral' and good life. Which of course relies on a belief (misguided IMO)that humans are not intrinsically good (or bad) or cannot form societies in the interests of the common good without the influence of myths and legends and then later religions.

It is interesting that religious folk will argue plausibility in regards to evolution or science but cannot see how overtly hypocritical this stance is with reference to their own worldview.

I don't want to die too early and have no fear of death but more of how I die. Being a bit of a wimp I would prefer no pain. The fact is we are born, we live then we die. The incentive is to live a good life and hopefully leave the world a better place for future generations.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 27 November 2008 10:16:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In order to communicate itself in an intelligent way, science requires faith. Physics, math, biology, chemistry - no
matter which scientific system you name, you are talking about an essentially faith-based system."

Hogwash, Cotton. Following this logic nothing is knowable.

Mathematics is all theory and x + x = 2x only if we agree it does. Anyone can test this theory and no matter what they substitute for x will get the same result. As far as can be "known", it is true under all circumstances. An electron will contain the same charge regardless of what atom it belongs to, and tests will confirm this also. All the sciences are built upon such logic.

Sheesh, the enlightenment was centuries ago. Can we move on?
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 27 November 2008 10:40:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I greatly enjoyed Brett's article and believe it contains a great deal of truth and sensitivity. Alone among animals, we have a cerebral cortex that enables us to reflect on the past and imagine the future. Therein lies the answer to many facets of human nature and behaviour. Among these is the death anxiety that Brett identified. The cerebral cortex has also given us language, for example, with all its implications. This brain structure is an amazing quirk of evolution that has had many spinoffs. Once we as a species could start thinking about the finality of death, the theories emerged that would comfort us in our fear. The notion of an afterlife exactly matches human fears. Also, the time the bible was being constructed (over many centuries) was a time of great ignorance, when magicial thinking abounded. As Bertrand Russell said, its stories were written or told by peasants who didn't understand the mechanics of rainfall. Of course they resorted to the supernatural to explain just about everything. Russell also said that the belief system of Christianity belongs to the infancy of human reason, which is a concise summing up. Human belief systems come and go. Some belief systems of ancient times lasted longer than Christianity has persisted so far. Their adherents were just as committed and sure of themselves and eventually their passions were spent and something else rose up to replace it. It will be the same with Christianity. There seems to be a deep-seated need to believe in something. I would rather people valued the here and now and worked harder at making our evanescent time on Earth happy and peaceful. That would be a far higher morality than believers in the supernatural would have us follow.
Posted by Liz T, Thursday, 27 November 2008 1:33:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,

If we trace the origins of Christianity to Judaism then your argument doesn’t hold water. Ancient Judaism had no developed theology of life after death and such ideas played no role in either reward/punishment for good/bad behaviour or as a personal destination for believers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

Israel understood its moral obligations to God as covenant.

Runner,

I accept that Paul believed in life after death, but I still argue that this did not feature greatly, if at all, in Jesus’ teaching. Paul was struggling with his community’s mistaken expectation of an imminent return of Jesus. When members of the community started to die off, and Jesus’ return still didn’t happen, they evolved a theology of being reunited with Christ after death. Paul was a Pharisee, and by the first century some Jews, including Pharisees, did believe in an afterlife. It was natural for Paul to incorporate this in his theology and his explanation for Jesus’ delayed return.

Pericles,

Yes, most Christians believe in life after death, and I’m in a minority. However, most mainstream (Catholic, Anglican, Uniting) churchgoers would recognise that “eternal life” is not, or not mainly, about an afterlife. This site gives an orthodox explanation of how eternal life is understood in John – not ruling out a future dimension, but concerned mainly with the present:

http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_life

I also dispute the contention that attaining heaven and avoiding hell is the main motivation for Christians who do believe in an afterlife.

My intention in addressing the disagreements within Christianity was not to be patronising but to answer the points you made about how atheists view those disagreements. I understand that theological differences may be of little interest to non-believers. But when non-believers make generalisations about what Christians believe that are true only of only some Christians, those of us that don’t fit the generalisation are entitled to point that out.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 27 November 2008 3:32:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian,

I know that there are different beliefs among Christians who believe in an afterlife. In Christian beliefs is the afterlife limited to humans. It would seem that someone who lives to a 100 would not want to be resurrected at that age. What age body does one get in the afterlife or is a person a disembodied spirit? I admit that I don't believe in any of it, but I would like to know more about the conditions of an afterlife for those who do believe.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 27 November 2008 3:53:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jews had no afterlife? you mean they rejected the thousands of years of all that pyramidical history etc right where they reckon the world started? Crickey every so called 'civilisation' had an afterlife. What they didn't have is exactly what christians and others don't have still.. ' proof' no one has came back to tell em, unless you go down to madam with the rose tattoo, or that nitwit on tv with an audience of other nitwits having passed over esp type messages through the main nitwit.
You can't reason with a christian because they aren't capable of reasoning whilst having all that mumbo jumbo beliefs in their noggin. Jonestown was so normal of christians, the christians that dissagree could be classed as skeptochristian I reckon, just believing in things as far as they want to go but not ' all the way' jonesy had the right idea but couldn't get enough to come to the party. Primates must have territory and family so competition will always be part of life for us, so keep competing and let me know when you're done eh? And anyone who doesn't think they are a monkey has the brains of a monkey I reckon.
C'mon people get back to the bus ad being rejected! You were all envoirenmental experts the other day when it was global warming... Paint the damn bus I say!
Posted by neilium, Thursday, 27 November 2008 4:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian
You stated that my argument does not hold water (re afterlife) but then go onto say that most Christians believe in an afterlife.

My understanding was based on discussions with religious friends and from reading about various religious beliefs. I must admit I have not done much reading about Judaism. That will be next on my list when I get the time.

Apologies if I was generalising but I have not met any religious people (mainly Christians) who do not believe in either an afterlife or reincarnation (Buddhists for example).
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 27 November 2008 4:54:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Article seems to assume author's own certainty regarding an afterlife. If you don't want to accept the Christian perspective try reading books like "Life after Life" and "The search for Bridie Murphy". Ultimately we all have faith in something regarding the afterlife. The author's is faith in nothing but there are more options.
Posted by pworthy46, Thursday, 27 November 2008 7:05:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irrational circular logic? Subjective? Arrogant? Ignorant? You bet. Reminds me of these "lawyer" jokes:

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a
pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

Brett wrote: "Perhaps if religion had just been confined...we might not live in a world where religious zealots routinely kill other people, or call for the imposition of their moral code on others."

The evidence is religion does more good than you suggest; I suggest only a bias to the truth prevents such an observation. Likewise you imply no moral code should be inflicted on others - dare one then say; atheism leads to anarchy or do you have the irrational view that moral code is ok as long as you agree with it?

Brett: "Believe in whatever helps you get through the day but spare us the sermons - and the violence."

You talk of violence - and your view on abortion? Violence to the defenceless& innocent is ok? Sometimes? Never? Please explain your moral(sic) code...or is it you just want to be left to do as you want whilst feigning moral maturity? [Rather looks like your own brand of "pomposity and self-righteousness"?]

You're confused re bona-fide religions& those not built on love, but I draw readers to Brett's gem:

"He remains sceptical of anyone who would ask him to not be sceptical."

'Encapsulates much of your problem?? Next:

" ...and try to leave a better world behind when you go."

Why Brett?

see next post for continuation ...
Posted by Chris Saidou, Friday, 28 November 2008 9:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued from Chris Saidou's above ...


I believe in God because I've experienced Him. I haven't been 'certified' but rather live a successful& blessed life sofar. I was originally sceptical but use day to day levels of proof, reasoning, observations and emotions for my certainty. You may wish not to believe me [or billions of others] who've concrete experiences with God, but only a wilfully ignorant fool would dismiss the testimony because it isn't convenient for their own "belief bandwagon".

God bless ... sincerely but don't expect it Him to do all the work.

Chris
Posted by Chris Saidou, Friday, 28 November 2008 9:27:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

Jesus Himself spoke often of judgement, eternal life and hell (literal). One would have twist Scriptures nearly as much as the earth worshipers to deny these plain facts.
Posted by runner, Friday, 28 November 2008 9:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again, one last pot shot before the weekend.

Thank you Liz T for the thoughtful walk through the world of bertrand russell.

I had a look at some of his "Why I am not a Christian .." speech from 1927 and part of his point about the Argument from Design reminded me of a (hopefully) funny story I heard about scientific forecasts of the end of the world.

A scientist announces to a conference crowd that because the sun is slowly dying it is due to go supernova in about 5 Billion years and take the solar system with it.

A gasp comes from the crowd. "Surely you can't be serious!" shouts a man in the audience.

To which the scientist replies "Oh yes, perfectly serious, all our calculations point to the end of the world in 5 Billion years."

"Oh, 5 Billion" says the man, "I thought you said 5 Million."

Enjoy your weekend even if you have to spend some of it on your knees in a pew. Remember, in 5 Billion years we won't have to worry about anything anymore.

;))
Posted by bitey, Friday, 28 November 2008 12:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bitey. "Why I am not a Christian" is worth reading and should be read by some of the people inhabiting this site as a matter of urgency. It contains compelling arguments for free-thinking from one of the people who invented modern logic. Well worth opening one's mind to the ideas it contains.
Posted by Liz T, Friday, 28 November 2008 1:16:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brett

Thank you for your thoughtful article - a much needed antidote to the carping sermonising of Peter Sellick.

Whether planet earth has 5 million or 5 billion years left :-) what matters is how we treat each other now - with acceptance and respect irrespective of our various creeds.

I have been thinking a lot about death as I watch my mother shrink physically, while her mind remains (amazingly) as bright and sharp as ever. I know she is accepting that her life will soon close and also that she has not turned to religion out of fear of death. In fact she made a point of telling me that on her details form with the St John of God hospital, she wrote emphatically "no religion". She is courageous, true to herself and has always tried to treat others with the same courtesy she would like for herself.

I feel nothing but contempt for those religious who would judge my mother as less than they simply because she doesn't subscribe to their dogma.

By all means believe in a deity, a religion or follow a dogma if it is of help, but please refrain from judging others, you are no greater than they and you might just be far less.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 28 November 2008 1:20:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faith Versus Reason
Part 1
There are suposedly two camps--The rational and the faithful. Those who won't believe without proof and those who don't require proof. Those who reject the existance of the supernatural because of lack of proof, and those who accept it on faith. Reason versus faith.

This division shouldn't exist.

In possibly the greatest misnomer in philosophical history, faith and reason have been misunderstood by both theists and atheists. I'll explain the confusion from both sides independently, though both misconceptions include many of the same mistakes and fallacies.

Faith

Faith is seen as the enemy of reason. It is the incarnation of the irrational, at least it is seen as such. Rational Christianity stakes its existence on the opposite truth--that faith is the most rational thing an individual can possibly have. But why on earth would this be true? This flies in the face of popular Christian and non-Christian thought. The answer is incredibly simple.

What is faith? Let's start our answer to this seemingly simple question, by first discussing what faith isn't. Faith isn,t believing in things without evidence or reason. Faith is not definitionally irrational, ignoring reason "just because".

Biblical Christianity doesn't argue that belief in God is reasonless. Paul defended the faith with the Greeks--he debated with the philosophically strongest culture in the history of mankind. He presented reasoning. No, even Biblical Christianity doesn't explain faith as belief without evidence.
Posted by Richie 10, Saturday, 29 November 2008 9:50:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faith Versus Reason

Part 2

Granted, many Christians believe that this is faith. They will practice "blind faith", saying that they don't think physical evidence exists supporting the existence of God or the validity of the Christian religion. When faced with the plausibility of a Christian espousing reason above all else, many Christians retort that the Rational Christian doesn't have enough "faith". If that's faith, I don't want any part of it. But it isn't. They're wrong.

One of the founders of the Christian belief, Paul, defined faith as
"believing in things unseen". That's it.
We can't see God. We can't see Jesus. But we believe. Faith is the belief in something without seeing--not in something unknowable. God doesn't call us to believe what we don't know, he calls us to believe what we can't see. Any other understanding of "faith" is not biblical faith, but the end product of an organised religion that has abandoned its roots.

The foundation of reason is a collection of axioms. Some rationalists adhere to more axioms than others, but all adhere to axioms. An axiom is something that cannot be proven without presupposing itself to be true. It must be accepted on faith--not an irrational faith, but a foundational faith.
Faith isn't the enemy of reason--it's the foundation of reason. Without it, reason falls. Reason without faith is impossible.
Posted by Richie 10, Saturday, 29 November 2008 9:52:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting and thoughtful post Richie10.

One can have faith in something because experience has shown the probability is high for something to occur. If a person has shown themselves over and over to be reliable his boss may have faith he will do the right thing which could be translated as confidence and trust.

This faith is based on experiential evidence. It is not faith based on accepting something that is told to you that you have never personally witnessed or experienced. There is no chain of events that lead you to faith.

A scientist may have faith his experiment will work based on previous tests and ideas but it will be the outcome that will test the faith and provide the evidence.

Faith would appear to have different meanings depending in which context it is used and perhaps in definition.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 29 November 2008 10:03:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like Rhian and Peter Sellick, I am one of those Christians who do not believe in a life after death. But perhaps I should qualify that: the ego, that individualistic self that humans tend to identify with, will die with the body. But as many people throughout history have found, it is possible to grow in such a way that you live in and for ever-widening circles of other people, other creatures, the natural environment… To leave your love, wisdom and joy living in the world, to nourish it in whatever way after your passing, seems to me to be a sort of afterlife.

This is what Jesus meant when he said he sought to give us life in abundance. And it starts well before one’s bodily death. To live more and more beyond your ego, being in the world but not of it: that is “eternal life”.
Posted by crabsy, Sunday, 30 November 2008 1:32:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is none as blind as ? How does it go ?

Religion is but a tool, a guide, the first education of civilisation - the good book - the bible was written a long time ago and no doubt like every other book had an editor. Which way was the editors bias?

Supposedly before the bible - there was soddom and gomorra - have you read the story - seems to me that now we know better and don't need religion that we may well be headed back the same way.

There are many groups of people that hijack religion in order to justify their own twisted beliefs - this does not make religion wrong only people.

As for after death and what happens - it would seem to me that there would be no point to life at all if there were no life (of a sort) after death.

People do not want to believe in religion - that way they can do whatever they like and not feel guilty in the process. They can think first of themselves and what they want and to hell with the consequences. That makes for a very dangerous world!

The war against terrorism - people who believe totally and utterly in their religion are at the mercy of the editors - blind faith is not good.

Search for the Truth

Seek and ye shall find

SAVE OUR WORLD

Live for Today
Forget about Tomorrow
But when the Day After Tomorrow Comes
Yes - there will be Sorrow

Floods, Fire & Pestilence
And Still you do not SEE
When you Punish your Environment
Yes - You Punish Me

But I Have Powers Beyond your Means
My Hand reaches Far and Wide
And with All the Future Challenges
I’ll Still walk BY YOUR SIDE

Poet 2007
Posted by Poet, Sunday, 30 November 2008 2:35:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author of the original original article rightly concludes that religion is a personal problem because religion is used as an antidote for uncomfortable questions we would rather not face.

These questions not only centre on death and the afterlife but in my opinion are more concerned with everyday existence. People experience aggression and injustice almost on a daily basis and this causes them to feel fear and anger. It is these two feelings that cause anxiety in most cases and people ‘deal’ with them in all manner of inappropriate ways. Some turn to drugs, some to alcohol, some to work, some to gambling. Religion is just one of those ways people try to deal with anxiety.

Religious people resort to religious behaviour and religious beliefs whenever they cannot deal with everyday anxiety. Dealing with fear and anger is a psychological problem and not a religious or philosophical one. The question is why I personally feel anxiety in this particular situation I now find myself in – like an unjust boss or a bullying partner. Death of a loved one also raises these issues. Telling myself that the unjust boss will get his comeuppance from God or that the bullying partner will not be around in heaven does not work anymore than a whiskey bottle.

Turning psychological problems into philosophical ones is just another ‘coping’ mechanism to avoid dealing with real problems which we can resolve if we are prepared to really confront them.

We don’t know what happens after death because we don’t need to know. We don’t know if there is a God because we don’t need to know. We need to know how to live and we do know that. We can find out only if we let go of our ‘crutches’.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 1 December 2008 7:49:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The expected outrage was there, with the blind faith on display, as with all these sort of articles.

After-life? Seems unlikely.

I do suggest the pro-religionists have a read of AC Grayling's latest paperback 'Towards the light: the story of the struggles for Liberty and Rights that made the modern West'.

Well worth a read to see how much energy the Christian Church has expended in denying 'the Truth' and forcing its absolutist rule on to us all.

The battle to keep the Englightenment light burning continues apace, today, here in Australia, right now.

I had always thought of the Enlightenment as a period of time, in history, past and done with.

Not so, we are still in it, which is probably why Mao (was it him?), said it was too early to tell what the effects of the French Revolution are.

And so it is, because we are still fighting to keep our schools secular, to have intelligent politicians who do not resort to calling up Jesus every five minutes, to finding a way to deal with religion inspired terror, and on and on and on.

Death is a funny thing though. I once faced death square on, having been stuck in the guts by some passing nutter who knifed me and kept on walking. No robbery, I didn't know them, no obvious motive, never caught.

At first I was unaware but then pain made me look down, and I saw my insides sticking out through my cut shirt.

I kept walking home, which was not far.

I had a sudden feeling of 'oh dear, this is all there is to life then.... over so suddenly, what a shame'.

I lived, care of science and medicine, ambo's and friends.

Life is brief, or long, good, or bad, or many shades in between, but it is highly unlikely that any gods, or a single God, have much to do with any of it.

Did 'He' instruct the knifer, or save the knifed?

Like Kerry Packer, I've been to the 'other side', and back, and it wasn't there.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 1 December 2008 2:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While it is certainly tempting to find one simple explanation for religious beliefs, I think it's actually more complicated than that.

For anyone interested in the question of why people believe in gods, spirits, the afterlife, etc - I highly recommend a book called "Religion Explained", by Pascal Boyer.

Boyer looks at a number of the most prominent explanations for the existence of religion - including the one that puts it all down to the human response to death - and shows how none of them is completely satisfactory.

His own explanation (which I found quite convincing) is based on evolutionary psychology, and even though it's quite complex, he manages to explain it in a way that even a simple layperson like me can grasp. And the "response to death" is part of it, but by no means the full story.

A good read if you like that sort of thing!

Cheers,

Rhys.
Posted by Rhys Probert, Monday, 1 December 2008 5:51:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God - actually stands for good
Devil - actuall stands for evil

Life is a constant battle between the two

Religion brings about some self relection

Self reflection can in some cases bring about change hopefully for the better

With no self reflection - religion based or otherwise we become the owners of a very selfish and therefore sick society. Often there are members of society whom are unable to grasp the complexities of psychology for whom religion can do a better job.

Whether people believe in God or not is their own choice - this is not important, what is important is the part we play in our own life just by being here and what we pass on to the next generations.

People do cling to religion when anxious or in fear, others cling to their psychological reasoning. Either way both promote self relection and therefore learning. We are here to learn!

People often connect blind faith to religion - but if you look you will find it very prominent in the scientific area. How many scientists have theories or inventions that they persue often without proof, and often at the disgust of their fellow scientists. There is no proof and until there some scientists will not condone or believe. Therefore those scientists whom go out and prove otherwise often do so with only blind faith that their knowledge was correct.
Posted by Poet, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 10:37:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brett Walker destroyed his credibility with the sweeping statement, “The defenders of religion preface their entire argument upon the acceptance of their position on blind faith.” This is simply untrue. Some people blindly follow religious beliefs, but for many it is an intellectual exercise, an attempt to live a meaningful, fulfilling life. Not that different to people exploring yoga, meditation or environmental causes. Seems a bit hypocritical to complain about unwanted evangelism when you have joined the holy crusade against religion. Yet many readers (zealots!) blindly and uncritically accepted Brett’s article.
Posted by Scholar, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 11:59:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scholar, great summary of the article. I agree entirely. The author makes a stack of huge statements about the "rationale" for religion and so forth.

Yet here's the kicker- his own viewpoint, based on the article, seems to be based on a few personal anecdotes rather than any kind of reasoned evaluation of the truth claims of any religion.

It's kind of funny how people so often malign the religious for having blind faith, and believing with no regard for reason etc. And yet, quite often people reject faith for very simple and childish reasons- 'I've never seen a miracle so I don't believe it happens' and things like that. It just goes to show- regardless of belief, Christian or otherwise, there are people who have blind faith and those that look into evidence and look into reasons for believing what they believe.

I'm not necessarily saying the author falls into that category, it's a general observation. But based on this article alone it seems to be the case. He certainly hasn't made any attempt to back his big claims with any sort of reasoned evaluation in this instance. So basically he's guilty of what atheists so often accuse the religious of. Pot and kettle.
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:18:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seems like Walker is battling his own inner "demons". Does he feel the need to air his own anxieties? Is he inviting us into his own strange little world? Why does he not admit that using ANYTHING (not just religion) to cause others pain is an obscenity (the legal world has been causing tremendous pain for far too long! with its own corruption, injustices etc). Mr walker, spare us your sermons and, with your own hopelessness, the violence your beliefs do. Clean up your own legalistic backyard.
Posted by Francis, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:40:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Blue Cross.....it might not have been there for you.....that does not mean it won't be there for others. Please, don't confine everyone else to your own little world.
Posted by Francis, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:43:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity is the template for our Government. Lawyers hate that but New Testament Principles were made law in 1986, as the ICCPR.

The facts are:
Fact 1: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1986.

Fact 2: The Acts Interpretation Act 1901,is a Law declaring a Schedule as a fully functional part of an Act, in S 13.

Fact 3: The ICCPR forms the basis of the Privacy Act 1988.

Fact 4. The ICCPR is referred to in S 138 (3) (f) Evidence Act 1995 and we are told where it can be found.

Fact 5: The ICCPR is described as "The Covenant" in the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Schedule) Dictionary.

Fact 6: By Sections 5, and 109 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act it prevails over every inconsistent State Law, and repeals the Australia Act 1986, because it was passed at a later date. ( A fundamental tenet of Statutory Interpretation).

Fact 7: The current Human Rights Commissioner, Catherine Branson, in fourteen years as a Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, not once applied its provisions.

Fact 8: The Reverend Father Brennan, should do his homework, and declare that he does not need to examine the ICCPR and its application, because it was ordained as law, 22 years ago. We have had a Bill of Rights, but no one has shifted the rock under which it has been hidden.

Fact 9: Anyone who can drive a computer mouse, can find it on the Official Roll of Laws passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, called Comlaw.

I believe, I believe it is time that someone started being honest. That should include Churchmen, Lawyers, and our Politicians, and accept that Christianity is the fundammental glue, that makes a successful government. Whether you actually believe in an Afterlife or Not, the beautiful logic of the Holy Bible,is a roadmap for life.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 11:46:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter the Believer wrote:

"I believe, I believe it is time that someone started being honest. That should include Churchmen, Lawyers, and our Politicians, and accept that Christianity is the fundammental glue, that makes a successful government. Whether you actually believe in an Afterlife or Not, the beautiful logic of the Holy Bible,is a roadmap for life."

Dear Peter,

Most of the Holy Bible is not Christian. It was written by Jews when Jesus Christ was not even a gleam in his father's eye. Christians hijacked the Jewish Bible and called it theirs.

The honesty could start by admitting that.

Democracies only became possible when European countries could free themselves from the union of church and state. The Bible allows polygamy, slavery, death for violating the sabbath and discourages the questioning that is essential for a democratic society to function. The Bible is definitely not a roadmap for life unless one wishes to travel along the dirt roads of the Dark Ages.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 12:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f.....stop being anti-semitic. You disparage the Jewish Scriptures.
Posted by Francis, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 12:46:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frances wrote: david f.....stop being anti-semitic. You disparage the Jewish Scriptures.

Dear Frances,

I am not disparaging the Jewish Scriptures. It is fact that they accept polygamy, slavery and death for violating the Sabbath. I didn't make that up.

I didn't make up the fact that Christians stole them, put them in their Bible and call them Christian.

They also contain the injunctions to love thy neighbour and not to vex the stranger.

In fact, Jesus' best lines were what he got from the Jewish Scriptures. The good stuff that he said wasn't new, and the new stuff that he said wasn't good.

The beginning of the Jewish scriptures contain Jewish tribal myths like the garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel and the world -wide flood. Too lazy to make up their own myths Christians stole the Jewish tribal myths. If Christianity had started in Australia the Christians would have stolen the Aboriginal tribal myths and would now be pointing out that Darwin ignored the Rainbow serpent.

The 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth is scheduled for 12 February, 2009. Celebrate the day! On 25 December I intend to do something appropriate to celebrate Isaac Newton's birthday. He has inspired many more than three wise men.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 3:40:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are having a lively debate. That is terrific. In its totality, the Holy Bible is a Template for living, and a record of what not to do wrong. Yes it was written by the Jewish scholars living at the time, and most copies nowadays are dated about 1600 AD. The advent of the Printing Press, made it massively available, to those who could read, and the best place to hear the stories told and learn the lessons in it is in Church.

This is still true, even though the quality of the story tellers is a bit patchy. Lousy unimaginative story tellers, don’t fill Churches. We all love a good yarn.

The Jews were worshipping law, 2000 years ago, and God Almighty sent someone to put them right. The New Prophet Jesus Christ preached that there are only two laws, not the endless regulations and ten commandments of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, the printing press also made mass entertainment possible, and to be able to read is to be entertained, and now we have the internet and mass media, all competing to tell the best yarns.

In very few words, the lesson of the four Gospels, adopted by the English, and the United States is that there is only One God, and only Him shall you worship, and secondly, if you aint hurting anyone, you aint breakin the law. With the advent of the heretical, “Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy”, which is a Jewish Idea, the Parliament, not Almighty God is the God. In Exodus 32 the consequences of making a “Golden Calf” are explained. To enforce the Jewish Law, there had to be a Magistrate, and we have adopted that law too. The Federal Court of Australia is a Jewish Magistrates Court, with no electors allowed. I don’t remember a referendum seeking permission to introduce Judaism, as the State Religion? Do you? Abraham Gilbert Saffron, asked for and got what he wanted. Christianity is not just about forever, it is for now. It is not a fear Religion, and should be catching members with honey, not vinegar
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 11 December 2008 7:25:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crickey you sheeple still going on about this?
Christianity is Black Magic, black mail.. it's like the second coming of Jeb " either you're with us, or your with the terrorists" better kow tow to the imaginary and be devious on the sly, you have to 'sin' to be forgiven by the imaginary.. If you don't realise it's all whacko then you need a brain transplant. I'd say go to Jonestown and be a chosen one. The bible is very popular esp among third world indigenous cultures that have had christian idiots forcing that rubbish upon those poor people, stuffing up their way of life forever, oh yes christianity rhymes with insanity.
I say " more jonestowns one in every state, why wait? a 'mecca' macca's take your kids.
Ah I feel better now....
Posted by neilium, Thursday, 11 December 2008 3:50:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth is scheduled for 12 February, 2009. Celebrate the day! On 25 December I intend to do something appropriate to celebrate Isaac Newton's birthday. He has inspired many more than three wise men."

Jesus Christ suffered the most painful death possible, and conquered this horrific death by rising from the dead. He's inspired billions of people. Quite a few more than Darwin or Newton, I'd imagine.

"If you don't realise it's all whacko then you need a brain transplant."

If anyone needs a brain transplant, perhaps it's the person who seems to lack a basic grasp of spelling and grammar? ie: You!

Ok, perhaps that was a bit harsh, but your comment certainly warrants criticism. If you'd like to expand on it a little, I'd love to hear more about where you're coming from.
Posted by Trav, Friday, 12 December 2008 1:08:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Inspired them? Probably. Informed them? No.

I would suggest Newton and Darwin have had more effect on today's world than Jesus, for the simple reason there is only one science while there are multitudes of faiths, even within Christianity. What's more, science is consistent in every language, every culture, every age. If someone makes a silly claim you can prove them wrong.

With religion, if someone says something you disagree with you either kill them or condemn them to spend eternity in burning flames. Or something else according to [insert dogma here].

Regardless of where or when you were born the laws of physics and evolution are the same. On the other hand the biggest determinant of one's faith is the time and place of birth. Does that never strike you as odd?
Posted by bennie, Friday, 12 December 2008 1:54:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oversimplification is a disease, and it's made an appearance right here. Your post is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions, and they aren't necessarily ones I share, so it may be difficult for us to find common ground.

When you talk about one's faith, you need to distinguish between the faith one claims and the faith one proclaims. Example- according to the census, 68% of Aussies are Christians. In reality, the vast majority are "practical atheists".

Christianity is worldwide, just as science is. There isn't another faith which is as evenly spread around the world as Christianity.

In 1900, there were 7 million Christians living in Africa. By 2000, there was closer to 400 million. I guess no one told them that everyone keeps the faith of their parents.

So that's Africa, a poor and uneducated land. Then take a look at America- it's the most powerful nations in the world and one of the most educated, yet has more Christians than any other country.

Amazing, isn't it?
Posted by Trav, Friday, 12 December 2008 2:08:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many groups in the United States promote Christianity.

http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/christco.html tells what the Christian Coalition is promoting in the US:

1. abolish the long-held Constitutional doctrine of separating church and state;
2. endanger the quality of education for low-income and special needs children by abolishing the Department of Education and installing voucher programs that divert dollars from public to private schools, which can reject students for numerous reasons (it is presently illegal to use taxpayer funding to support non-public schools);
3. threaten children's basic human rights by rejecting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;
4. end federal funding of the NEA (National Education Association) and PBS (Public Broadcasting System (like Australia's ABC)), thereby endangering educational and cultural exhibits, workshops, and programs;
5. return prayer to schools;
6. deny children potentially life saving sex education under the guise of parental rights to regulate school curriculum;
7. endanger millions of families by transforming the bureaucratic welfare state into a system of private and faith- based compassion;
8. make birth control, family planning and other women's health services unavailable by denying funding to health clinics;
9. and undermine the right of all women to choose abortion.
Posted by david f, Friday, 12 December 2008 2:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm having difficulty discerning any logical track here, Trav.

>>Your [bennie's] post is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions, and they aren't necessarily ones I share, so it may be difficult for us to find common ground.<<

You seem to be saying that you have different presuppositions and assumptions.

Fair enough, but what are they?

Can we assume these, from a previous post of yours?

>>Jesus Christ suffered the most painful death possible, and conquered this horrific death by rising from the dead<<

There's a classic example of multiple and sequential presuppositions/assumptions, piled on top of each other like prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

Are those the ones you mean? But...

>>according to the census, 68% of Aussies are Christians. In reality, the vast majority are "practical atheists"<<

Is this a presupposition, or an assumption? Because on its own, it is pretty meaningless.

>>Christianity is worldwide, just as science is.<<

Well, yes. So are bacteria. So is weather. Neither is dependent on the other.

>>There isn't another faith which is as evenly spread around the world as Christianity.<<

But nitrogen is pretty evenly spread as well, and you don't find many people proclaiming a faith in nitrogen.

Except some farmers, perhaps.

>>In 1900, there were 7 million Christians living in Africa. By 2000, there was closer to 400 million... So that's Africa, a poor and uneducated land.<<

I'm guessing the irony is unintentional.

>>America- it's the most powerful nations in the world and one of the most educated, yet has more Christians than any other country<<

But... how do we know that they aren't "practical atheists" too?

There seem to be a few internal contradictions here, Would you care to clarify?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 12 December 2008 2:53:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f's ravings complain that Christians stole the Jewish scriptures. Considering that the first Christians were Jews this is a bit rich. Did the Christians steal the Hebrew Jewish Scriptures or the Greek Jewish Scriptures?
Secondly, Christians do not call the Jewish Scriptures "Christian". They are identified as the Old Testament or as the Jewish Scriptures.

Of course, Jesus being Jewish, would have used the Jewish Scriptures(nothing new there).

I'm intrigued re the statement: "....and the new stuff that he (Jesus) said wasn't good".What stuff wasn't good, whatever good means in david f's mind?

The last para is a doozy.....(1)Newton. According to the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Newton "possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in nature". I'm not sure if david f will want to celebrate Newton's birthday after learning of this!
(2)Darwin, fairly irrelevant to life but a racist whose work inspired the Nazis no end.
(3)three wise men. I wouldn,t lose any sleep if they never existed.
Posted by Francis, Friday, 12 December 2008 3:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Francis,

What inspired the Nazis was not Darwin, but racist thought and Christian religious prejudice that predated Darwin. The holocaust would have been impossible without the years of hatred for Jews promoted by both the Catholic and Lutheran churches. The Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, could print Luther's hate sermons verbatim. The Holocaust was applied Christianity.

The earliest Christians were Jews, but they were largely wiped out with the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt in 70 CE. Paul gathered mostly gentiles who expressed their hatred for the Jews in New Testament Scripture. It was easy to blame Jews for Jesus' death because the Christians wanted to live under the Romans so did not want to blame the Roman rulers who actually were in control. Anglican Bishop Spong in "Sins of Scripture" has examined the Bible as a vehicle for hate.

The Greek translation converted the Hebrew, alma, meaning young woman into parthenos, meaning virgin. In the prophesy of Isaiah a young woman shall conceive was translated into a prophesy of the virgin birth. Actually the Old Testament appearing in the Christian Bible is not the same as the Jewish Bible. The foregoing regarding the virgin birth is one of many examples where the Jewish Bible was edited and changed into the Old Testament.

Jesus is one of the many false messiahs in Jewish history. You can tell a false messiah because he doesn't usher in a messianic age. He doesn't have to come back to do it because he gets it right the first time.

Isaac Newton was an extremely intelligent man who accepted the superstitions current at his time. Charles Darwin was no racist, but a kindly and gentle person whose work is basic to the current life sciences.
Posted by david f, Friday, 12 December 2008 5:11:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie

Loved your post - science does not distinguish between race, colour, gender or religion.

But religion - most of what religion does is divisive,for example, "you don't believe in my version of christianity AND you read Harry Potter? You're a witch!"

The above is one of the more absurd claims from our religious mafia.

Science can change according to new evidence; religion will only accept the bits that fit in with its dogma and condemns the rest.

Blind AND awful.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 13 December 2008 10:09:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie wrote:

I would suggest Newton and Darwin have had more effect on today's world than Jesus, for the simple reason there is only one science while there are multitudes of faiths, even within Christianity. What's more, science is consistent in every language, every culture, every age. If someone makes a silly claim you can prove them wrong.

Dear bennie,

I wish your statement were true. Unfortunately many religionists believe there is only one true faith – the one they happen to believe in even if it is only by the accident of birth. One bad thing about it is that they believe in propositions that cannot be proven wrong. It seems obvious to me that death is the end of life, but I certainly can’t prove it to someone who believes otherwise.

If someone makes a statement that the wavelength of red light is four angstroms it is possible to check it. If someone talks about eternal life it sounds like complete rubbish to me, but there is no way to check it.

Of course people who call themselves Christians all reject the religion of Jesus since he was not a Christian. I post the following as advice for them so they can return to the ‘true’ faith - the faith of Jesus. It should be sung to the tune of the old jazz standard.

The Imitation of Christ

Six feet two, eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose, There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared by a Roman
In the abdomen
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died, still a Jew
He's a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?
Posted by david f, Saturday, 13 December 2008 5:38:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, allow me to clarify my "contradictions":
"
>>Jesus Christ suffered the most painful death possible, and conquered this horrific death by rising from the dead<<

There's a classic example of multiple and sequential presuppositions/assumptions, piled on top of each other like prisoners in Abu Ghraib."

The only presupposition you need to believe my statement is that miracles might be possible. You need to, at very least, have an agnostic attitude towards the possibility of miracles. If you're a complete naturalist and will a priori dismiss any claims of miracles despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, then it isnt possible for you to believe that someone rose from the dead. Other than that, no presuppositons are required, just a rational mind and the ability to "follow the evidence where it leads".

">>according to the census, 68% of Aussies are Christians. In reality, the vast majority are "practical atheists"<<

Is this a presupposition, or an assumption?"

Neither.

By practical atheist I mean not church going and Not actively worshipping (this does not necessarily mean church) the God they claim to believe in.

">>Christianity is worldwide, just as science is.<<

Well, yes. So are bacteria. So is weather. Neither is dependent on the other."

Correct, I never claimed otherwise. Please re read my post and the context of my reply.

"

>>America- it's the most powerful nations in the world and one of the most educated, yet has more Christians than any other country<<

But... how do we know that they aren't "practical atheists" too?"

40% of Americans regularly attend church, according to recent research. Therefore not as many practical atheists, according to my criteria
Posted by Trav, Sunday, 14 December 2008 1:25:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f....so Darwin did not inspire the Nazis. Read "From Darwin to Hitler" by Richard Weikart, amongst others. For Christian religious prejudice....is this what inspired the Chief Rabbi of Rome, who lived through the Nazi terror to become a catholic after World War 2? The Holocaust was applied Christianity....now we know pigs fly! The Holocaust was the result of humanistic secularism nurtured by Darwinian thought.

And here we go off with the flying pigs blaming Paul. I think your writings are vehicles of hate so pull the log out of your own eye.

I didn't say the Old testament was the same as the Jewish Bible....re-read my article re the LXX. You obviously don't have much grasp of history other than your own bigoted version.

Your second last para is just plain stupid.......flying pigs again!

Re Isaac Newton.....obviously he embarrases you.
Posted by Francis, Sunday, 14 December 2008 3:06:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Francis,

Since Jesus did not bring the messianic age he remains a false messiah, as he didn’t do what a messiah is supposed to do.

Please look at
http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/response-to-critics.htm
It is a statement by Weikart to his critics.
In it is the statement “Darwinism did not lead to any one particular political philosophy or practice.” Read the whole thing to see it in context.

The history of German Christianity remains a history of Jew hatred.
The towns where Crusaders massacred Jews in the Crusade of 1096 were Xanten, Wevelinghofen, Neuss, Cologne, Trier, Eller, Metz, Worms, Speyer, Mainz, Prague and Ratisbon.

In http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm you will find Martin Luther’s recommendations for the Jews:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ….
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed…..
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb…
Go to the URL and read the entire document.

The Crusaders represented Catholic attitudes towards Jews and Martin Luther was the founder of Lutheranism.

The Holocaust regretfully remains applied Christianity. I have no idea why the Chief Rabbi converted. Maybe if you can’t lick them join them.

Isaac Newton certainly is no embarrassment to me. He, like Locke and Milton, the three greatest English intellectuals of their time denied the trinity and recognized one God as Unitarians.

In 1933 Hitler had the backing of most of the German churches and signed a Concordat with the Vatican. Neither he nor and any other Nazi was excommunicated. He died in the bosom of Catholicism.

Hitler banned secular humanism within days of taking power. There is a lot of connections of Christianity with Nazism but no connection of Nazism with secular humanism.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 14 December 2008 5:03:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Council for Secular Humanism has a web site where they define the principles of secular humanism.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what&section=main

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

The above principles are compatible with democracy. They are not compatible with Nazism or any other tyranny.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 14 December 2008 6:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On blind hope and the awful truth are all ideas of dead men . Ideologies serve as the foundation of all governments. Ideas are the source of the conditions on the earth. Ideas that society accepts manifest into social behavour. The only way to replace a bad idea is to replace it with a better idea. Imperialism, monarchism, socialism, communism, democracy and dictatorship are all born of ideas of men long dead. Their ideas still live on and still influence the world.
Death can never kill an idea. every thing is the result of an idea.
Religion is mans idea not Gods. The battle for earth is a battle of ideas. Until we learn Gods big idea for earth we only have mans ideas
and are the source of much strife.
Blind hope and awful truth are not part of Gods Kingdom. His will on earth is as it is in heaven is the kingdom Jesus proclamed. Religious men believing in mans ideas and traditions had Jesus put to death. People perish from lack of knowledge. Gods will is that none perish but ALL BE SAVED. God loves every individual he doesn't have favourites. Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year to all
Posted by Richie 10, Monday, 15 December 2008 10:20:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still struggling to get a grip on your arguments, Trav.

>>The only presupposition you need to believe my statement is that miracles might be possible<<

This is a nonsense.

It can be used as an argument in favour of the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Or, slightly more relevantly, to believe that Icarus really did fly close to the sun, melt the wax on his wings and fall to his death.

Trooly rooly he did. I know it is impossible, but all you need is a belief that miracles are possible, and suddenly it becomes true.

>>If you're a complete naturalist and will a priori dismiss any claims of miracles despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, then it isnt possible for you to believe that someone rose from the dead.<<

What is "a complete naturalist" Trav? And I have never been presented with "a mountain of evidence" for the existence of miracles, so I am unable to dismiss them, a priori or otherwise.

Nonetheless, I still believe that it is perfectly reasonable to reject the notion that anyone "rose from the dead" in the form described in the Bible.

I asked whether your assertion that the vast majority of declared Aussie Christians are "practical atheists" was a presupposition, or an assumption? You said:

>>Neither. By practical atheist I mean not church going and Not actively worshipping (this does not necessarily mean church) the God they claim to believe in.<<

From your reply, it is actually both. The presupposition being that all theists are active worshippers, while the assumption is that these are in the majority.

>>40% of Americans regularly attend church, according to recent research. Therefore not as many practical atheists, according to my criteria<<

Again, you presuppose that all people attending church are by definition active worshippers. Social conformity doesn't come into it, mere attendance will brand you as a religionist.

I would suggest that your arguments not only rest upon presuppositions and assumptions, but are wholly and entirely composed of them.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 December 2008 11:50:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f.....What is the messianic age?

Read the last para of Weikart's response. I never maintained that Darwin was responsible for Naziism....but his ideas helped. read Weikart's book as well and you'll see the danger of Darwinism. That Darwin was a racist is beyond dispute.

Now you have narrowed Christianity down to German Christianity. I have read luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies".The secularists (Stalin, Hitler, Mao Ze Dong etc)unleashed the world's greatest blooshed in the twentieth century.

The Holocaust is applied secularism nourished by Darwinism. Your response re the Chief Rabbi is silly.Read his book.

Newton etc still believed in God etc....another embarrassment for you.

Read the history of the Concordat. So Hitler died in the bosom of the Church. Read his hatred of catholicism: Alan Bullock

Alan Bullock is a journalist and biographer of Adolf Hitler: It was 'the great position' of the Church that he respected, the fact that it lasted for so many centuries; towards its teaching he showed the sharpest hostility. In Hitler's eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle, and the survival of the fittest. 'Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.' [Hitler's Table Talk, London 1953, p. 57] From political considerations he restrained his anti-clericalism, seeing clearly the dangers of strengthening the Church by persecution. [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 304]

...The truth is that, in matters of religion at least, Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist. 'The dogma of Christianity,' he declared in one of his wartime conversations,gets worn away before the advances of science...The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches, and that why they're heading for ruin—for science is bound to win. [Hitler's Table Talk, pp. 59-61]

[Bullock, p. 387-88]

NB...Hitler's appeal to Darwinism
Posted by Francis, Monday, 15 December 2008 1:03:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

There is no COMPLETELY fool proof way to determine who is and isnt a "practical atheist". The majority of church attenders are actually "actively worshipping". Yes, some sit in their pews daydreaming, but the majority do participate in worship. A visit to a church on any given Sunday will tell you that.

Regarding the resurrection:

">>The only presupposition you need to believe my statement is that miracles might be possible<<

This is a nonsense.

It can be used as an argument in favour of the existence of the Easter Bunny."

I never used anything as an argument. We were simply discussing whether any presuppositions would be required to believe in someone rising from the dead. I'm saying, yes, you have to open with the presupposition that a resurrection may be, at least metaphysically possible, given good evidence.

"I have never been presented with "a mountain of evidence" for the existence of miracles, so I am unable to dismiss them, a priori or otherwise."

How about a mountain of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Almost all critical new testament scholars and historians, (including atheist scholars, and there are plenty of them) grant the following as historical facts:

- Jesus was crucified

- The disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them after he died. They proved this by going on to proclaim the message, including facing sufferring and martyrdom for this belief.

- Paul previously a Christian persecutor, had an experience, after which he converted to Christianity. He then became a church leader and was later martyred for his faith.

- James, the brother of Jesus, who previously didnt believe, also believed he met the resurrected Jesus. he then became a church leader and later suffered greatly and was martyred for his faith.

A 5th fact is agreed to by 75% of all scholars:

- Jesus tomb was empty after his crucifixion.

These facts are, by and large, sourced from both the bible plus numerous external sources.

Given that you claim to have no a priori presuppositions, my suggestion is that a resurrection is the best explanation for the facts.
Posted by Trav, Monday, 15 December 2008 1:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav, this may indeed be a blind alley, but let's walk down it just a little further.

>>I'm saying, yes, you have to open with the presupposition that a resurrection may be, at least metaphysically possible, given good evidence.<<

Does not compute. The only need for a presupposition here is to enable me to deny reality, should I choose to do so.

If the evidence itself were "good", there would be no need for presuppositions. Resurrection would be proven. Case closed.

>>How about a mountain of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?<<

I'm listening.

>>Almost all... grant the following as historical facts: Jesus was crucified<<

You're saying that numbers are key, right? Those who disagree are what... wrong? Just like Galileo was wrong, when the numbers were against him.

But ok, I can live with this.

>>The disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them after he died. They proved this by going on to proclaim the message, including facing sufferring and martyrdom for this belief.<<

On that basis, Joseph Smith was right about those golden plates. And those earnest guys in dark suits who accost you on street corners too, huh? Good job we don't kill people any more for their beliefs, I guess.

>>Paul previously a Christian persecutor, had an experience, after which he converted to Christianity<<

He hallucinated. He found a career path. Good for him. I won't go through the rest of the "evidence", except to say that every single piece of it has generated multiple theories.

>> my suggestion is that a resurrection is the best explanation for the facts.<<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U3pZFPNcc

I'm sure that you agree, the "best" explanation for this is that the performer was cut in half, and the two pieces later restored.

We know this can't be true, right?

People like me automatically, when faced with an impossibility such as this, search for alternative explanations. So far, I haven't found one for the David Copperfield trick. But I can certainly piece together an explanation that a few folk put together a new religion, and broadcast it to the world.

As did Joseph Smith.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 December 2008 3:01:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If the evidence itself were "good", there would be no need for presuppositions. Resurrection would be proven. Case closed."

Not at all. We can't "prove" the resurrection, just like we can't truly prove anything. It was 2000 years ago, I wasn't there and neither were you so we don't really know. But we can look at the evidence and ask where it points. What was the most probable event that took place, given the evidence we have?

"You're saying that numbers are key, right? Those who disagree are what... wrong? Just like Galileo was wrong, when the numbers were against him. "

No, not at all.

I'm no historian or NT scholar. But when 90% of NT scholars agree on something, that would suggest that there's very good reasons that they're right. I can go through each evidence I listed if you like, but as you haven't asked, I won't. Suffice to say, they're verified by biblical and external sources and good, critical historical scholarship find them to be true.

Regarding Paul:

"He hallucinated. He found a career path. Good for him."

If I wanted a new career path, I wouldn't pick one that have me continually getting thrown in jail, stoned and martyered for it. Not to mention betraying my former beliefs. Paul's conversion is the olden day equivalent of Osama Bin Laden converting to Christianity and then becoming a Christian missionary and being killed for it.

Regarding hallucination, sure. But this doesn't account for the empty tomb, or the appearances to the other disciples, or the conversion of James.

" I won't go through the rest of the "evidence", except to say that every single piece of it has generated multiple theories."

I don't doubt that there are multiple theories. I'm suggesting that none of those naturalistic theories account for the evidence in front of us. The resurrection however, does.

Regarding Mormonism, there are numerous, massive difference between Joseph Smith's tablets and the resurrection of Jesus. There are many good reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Mormon religion, and those claims. Will return to this comparison tomorrow.
Posted by Trav, Monday, 15 December 2008 3:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Francis,

Isaiah 2:4 "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." describes the messianic age. A real messiah brings it. Jesus didn’t.

I am not embarrassed because people believe in God or convert to another religion. Those are facts.

People have converted from Christianity to Judaism and vice versa. Count Potocki of Poland was burned at the stake because he converted to Judaism. There was a wise Hindu called Vinoba Bhave who advised people who were thinking of converting from one religion to another to look deeper in their own religion and see if they couldn’t find there what they were looking for.

Christianity is much more than German Christianity. However, it was the prejudices and hatred engendered by German Christianity that made Hitler’s Jew hatred acceptable to many of the German people.

Hitler did hate Catholicism, and the Pope hated Hitler. Nevertheless the Pope never made a public statement against the Nazi persecution of the Jews, and neither Hitler nor any other Nazi was excommunicated. The pope apparently saw the Soviet as a greater evil, and Hitler appreciated the tacit support of the Church.

The rabbi’s conversion does not erase the horrors and hate promoted by years of Christian persecution.

The Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary recognises Christian responsibility for the Holocaust:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel7.htm

Time and again the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of Christians. They have been humiliated, deprived of their rights, accused of murdering God and blamed for every imaginable calamity. During the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms and, most horrific of all, the Holocaust, millions of Jews have suffered flagrant injustice.

At the beginning of the third millennium we can only confess this terrible guilt in deep shame before God and the Jewish people, deploring the involvement of many Christians. We seek His forgiveness for all the anguish that Israel, His chosen people, have suffered. By the grace of God we resolve to turn from these ways.
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 December 2008 7:24:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav, the article that began this thread postulated that "...defenders of religion preface their entire argument upon the acceptance of their position on blind faith".

You seem to be doing your best to prove it.

Your needing religion is absolutely no concern of mine. But I do object to the propagation of myths disguised as logic, which was why I questioned your loose application of "presuppositions and assumptions" in your response to bennie.

>>We can't "prove" the resurrection, just like we can't truly prove anything<<

This is of course the classic Christian reductio ad absurdum.

I can prove I got out of bed this morning. I can prove my train was three minutes late, and that the guy in the coffee shop said "Good morning Pericles".

What you really mean is that there is insufficient direct evidence available to settle the matter historically, due to a complete absence of contemporary records. But at the same time, there is entirely sufficient circumstantial evidence to convince a Christian that their faith is based on something more than an idea, nurtured by contemporary religious zealots.

>>I'm no historian or NT scholar. But when 90% of NT scholars agree on something, that would suggest that there's very good reasons that they're right.<<

Not at all. Vide Galileo.

>>Suffice to say, they're verified by biblical and external sources<<

Now that simply is not the case, as your mate Boaz knows full well, having had this discussion before.

If you would like to have a go yourself, be my guest. But there is no "verification" of the miracles, no "verification" of the crucifiction, and certainly no "verification" of the resurrection.

The closest you'll get is reference to a death sentence that might possibly have been carried out on someone who might possibly have been Jesus.

>>Regarding Mormonism, there are numerous, massive difference between Joseph Smith's tablets and the resurrection of Jesus.<<

I was not referring specifically to the plates, Trav, but to the creation of a religion via information whose provenance could not be categorically established, and whose disciples spend their lives propagating "the word".
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 1:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding Mormonism- Remember my above posts- early Christians Paul (former Christian enemy), and James (former Jewish Skeptic) had an experience with the risen Jesus and became church leaders who suffered martyrdom for their faith. Stephen was also martyred and so were other disciples.

However, in the case of the Mormon witnesses, there were two groups of early witnesses. “The three witnesses" then the "eight witnesses". The first 3 witnesses all left the mormon church during Joseph Smith's lifetime. And 3 of the others also ended up LEAVING the mormon church! So 6 of the 11 Mormon witnesses left the Mormon church at one point or another. Some of them then returned. Most of these witnesses were also already related to each other, which also brings their testimony into massive question.

(read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses)

Compare this to the witnesses to Jesus- they had every reason to leave and give up their faith, but they all stood strong and endured great suffering to proclaim their beliefs.

There’s no comparison. One group of witnesses was far more reliable than the other, and their lives showed it.

“no "verification" of the crucifixion”,

John Dominic Crossan, co founder of the Jesus Seminar (a group of radically critical scholars who claimed that only 18% of Jesus words in the bible are words he actually said), is quoted as saying that the crucifixion of Jesus is as historical as a fact can ever be.

Why? Because it’s recorded in all four gospels, plus numerous other sources- eg: Jewish Historian Josephus, roman historian Tacitus and others.

“What you really mean is that there is insufficient direct evidence available to settle the matter historically, due to a complete absence of contemporary records”

We have records of over 40 different sources referring to Jesus within 150 years. As historical figures go, that is a LOT. So much of the first and second century writing has been lost because it was written on material that wouldn’t survive 2000 years. We have only scant remainders of what was written at that time, yet we STILL have so many references to Jesus
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 1:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f......Is that all! Jesus did bring the Messianic Age because he lived it by his example, his teaching, his dying and rising(and it's much bigger than Isaiah's vision.......in fact, scholars are not convinced that Isiah was speaking of the Messianic Age and invites his disciples to live it. The fact that it doesn't equate with your limited view is irrelevant.

Now you admit that Hitler did hate Catholcism yet you previously stated that he died in the bosom of the Church. I'm confused: how can he have hated the Church and died in its bosom at the same time! Did he attend Mass? Did he receive Holy Communion before he died? Was he married in the presence of a Catholic priest? I think you're thrashing around for excuses.

Re the Pope of the time and his silence re Naziism......read some history. Particularly, Jewish writers who praise the Pope for what he DID.....not for what he didn't say. Did not the Polish Jews beg tha Pope to be silent lest he make their plight worse? Did not the Belgium bishops learn from the Dutch bishops who openly criticised the Nazi treatment of Jews and made matters worse for Jews. Did not the Nazis admit at the Nuremberg trials that they had a policy of retaliation? I wonder how brave you would have been in a similar situation?

I repeat, Naziism fed off Darwinism and it had nothing to do with religion!

You seem to think that only Jews have suffered. One of the things that annoys me is the ethnic harping about injustice that ignores the exact injustice imposed upon other ethnic groups. I don;t give a stuff what a person is......we all have the same rights.
Posted by Francis, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 1:46:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does Theosophy count as religion? It certainly doesn't count as 'Darwinism'.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 2:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<I repeat, Naziism fed off Darwinism and it had nothing to do with religion!>>

Repetition doesn't make it true. It demonstrates either that you're ignoring the evidence and/or you have a desperate need to believe it.

Racial supremacy was popular long before evolutionary theory was developed. Check out Exodus 34 and Leviticus 26. The Biblical god was totally into genocide and choosing particular races for their purity.

You're using the silly argument that selective breeding - exploited by humans since animals were domesticated 15000 years ago - is a sort of applied Darwinism.

The bible mentions lots of shepherds. How do you think they bred them for the best meat and wool? Did god send a copy of "The Origin of Species" back through time to give them a hand, or were they smart enough to know that if you breed similar animals together you get future generations with the same qualities? Do you think the Nazis needed evolutionary theory to know that breeding blue-eyed blondes together produces more blue-eyed blondes?

In fact, Hitler was a vocal critic of the idea of evolution. He found the ape/man link disgusting (see quotes below).

I'm sure you're already aware of his many appeals to Christianity. He hardly acted in the Christian spirit, but the simple fact of history is that he won support for his atrocities by painting them as Christian.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 2:46:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And now, a Hitler highlight reel:

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise." - Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them." - speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people." - Speech, April 26, 1933

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

Quotes courtesy of http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution

Oh, and the page also addresses Hitler's use of the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf. He uses it the way Christians do: to describe what he would like it to mean, not what it really does.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 2:47:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frances wrote:

I repeat, Naziism fed off Darwinism and it had nothing to do with religion!

Dear Frances,

No matter how many times you repeat nonsense it remains nonsense.

From http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

“Hitler's anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Christian Austria and Germany in his time took for granted the belief that Jews held an inferior status to Aryan Christians. Jewish hatred did not spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, "On the Jews and their Lies," Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War II. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther.

Hitler did not have to parade his belief in God, as so many American Christians do now. Nor did he have to justify his Godly belief against an Atheist movement. He took his beliefs for granted just as most Germans did at that time. His thrust aimed at politics, not religion. But through his political and religious reasoning he established in 1933, a German Reich Christian Church, uniting the Protestant churches to instill faith in a national German Christianity.”

If you want to deny reality I certainly can’t stop you.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 2:59:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting approach, Trav. I was wondering where your starting point would be.

>>John Dominic Crossan... is quoted as saying that the crucifixion of Jesus is as historical as a fact can ever be.<<

Are you telling me that you believe everything this “biblical scholar” writes?

Or are you saying that you have carefully selected from his writings one opinion that you agree with?

>>[the crucifixion is] recorded in all four gospels, plus numerous other sources- eg: Jewish Historian Josephus, roman historian Tacitus and others<<

None of the gospel writers was there at the time. There were no recorded contemporary witnesses. This is clear from the fact that the four “accounts” differ: in the date, how he got to Golgotha, who carried the cross, what the two criminals said to Jesus and what he himself says, at what time he died and what were his last words, and so on. All this is evidence of an oral “tradition”, where a moral tale is passed along. And of course, as soon as you move outside the Gospels, you find that he was hanged from a tree! Acts 5:30, Acts 13: 29 etc. Which version, incidentally, is supported by the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a).

There is no indication where Tacitus, writing c109 CE obtained his information on “Christus'” death. Given the complete absence of supporting evidence from Roman historical sources, the most likely explanation is that he got it from Christian stories.

As for Josephus, I'm surprised you even mention him – the famous “reference” was added centuries later. Even Bishop Warburton described it as “a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too”

My question would be, why would anyone attempt such a blatant addition? Could it be that there was no real evidence, and it was important to manufacture some?

>>We have records of over 40 different sources referring to Jesus within 150 years<<

Original sources, Trav?

Or sources that used each other as “sources”.

Your serve.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 3:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I do object to the propagation of myths disguised as logic”

Ok, that’s fine. Object all you wish. But please, provide me with some reasons for your objections so I can understand where you’re coming from. Why do you believe that Jesus resurrection is a myth?

“>>I'm no historian or NT scholar. But when 90% of NT scholars agree on something, that would suggest that there's very good reasons that they're right.<<

Not at all. Vide Galileo.”

So let me get this straight.

Critical scholars examine some historical data and over 90% of them come to a certain conclusion. Yet, you think that they do NOT have any good reasons for coming to that conclusion? THAT’s an illogical and unreasonable stance.

Science is based on assumptions, which can be tested and challenged, as Galileo did. These assumptions frequently change over time. However, the historical method is unlikely to change. The way historians go about coming to conclusions about historical events, is unlikely to change.

Of course our knowledge of history will change in the future. The data we have can only grow stronger as we discover more ancient writings and ancient artifacts.

“I can prove my train was three minutes late, and that the guy in the coffee shop said "Good morning Pericles"

You can tell me that your train was late. You can’t prove to me uncategorically, that it happened. If you think you can, please try. I’ll then look at the evidence and decide whether it’s likely that your train was actually 3 minutes late.

In the same way, we can look at the evidence regarding Jesus and ask ourselves- where does this point? My contention is that the evidence that we have points to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.

We can, however, come to conclusions based on the historical data. You seem to strongly disagree with my conclusion, so please, feel free to go into further detail as to why.

(I realise this is a late reply. I wrote it this morning, will reply to your most recent reply when I get a chance).
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 3:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho,

You're not making much sense other than that you have a desperate need to believe what you want to believe. You confuse evolutionary theories (and there are many) with Darwin's contribution, which wasn't evolutionary theory, but natural selection. Read Darwin's book "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Note Hitler's appeal to Darwinian Natural Selection in the quote I gave 15 December. Hitler might have hated evolution but he loved Natural Selection for the preservation of the favoured races. Who are the favoured races? I couldn't give a stuff about evolution (there are far too many theories anyway) but natural sleection is a worry.

It's easy to quote Hitler's early appeals to Christianity but have a look at his later loathing of it! Seems he's on your side! Refer my reply 15 December. I note you've been extremely selective in your quotes.....naughty boy!
Posted by Francis, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 11:10:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is natural selection a worry?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 11:23:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Francis,

What you are worried about is not natural selection, but artificial selection.

The only time evolution via natural selection becomes a worry, is when evil people in a position of power don’t understand it, and then think that they can somehow artificially apply it to suit a warped and twisted idological belief.

Like with anything else, ignorance is the danger here, not natural selection, and we have religion - particularly the religious fundamentalists - to thank for much of society’s ignorance in this area.
Posted by AdamD, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 1:07:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some odd questions, Trav. And some reasonable ones.

>>please, provide me with some reasons for your objections [to the propagation of myths disguised as logic] so I can understand where you’re coming from.<<

I'm puzzled that you need reasons. I object, simply because each reiteration of the myth needs a belief in the myth that precedes it. That's not argument, that's dogma.

>>Why do you believe that Jesus resurrection is a myth? <<

Because independent evidence for its occurrence is non-existent. And the event itself has never been explained, except in terms that require a pre-existing belief in the religion that has been built around it.

>>Critical scholars examine some historical data and over 90% of them come to a certain conclusion. Yet, you think that they do NOT have any good reasons for coming to that conclusion?<<

Their profession is "critical scholar". That's reason enough.

But it's also why I referred to Galileo.

Right up to the point at which denial becomes ridiculous, the reactionary belief holds "true". The first voice of truth is necessarily a lone one - at which point 99.9999% of "critical scholars" come to a certain conclusion.

And are wrong.

But this is key also:

>>Of course our knowledge of history will change in the future. The data we have can only grow stronger as we discover more ancient writings and ancient artifacts.<<

You are, of course, automatically assuming the new material will support your view.

What if it doesn't? Will you accept it, or dispute it?

>>You can tell me that your train was late. You can’t prove to me uncategorically<<

That's my point.

I don't need faith to see my train is late, merely a watch. Nor do I need to prove it to you, in much the same way that you don't need to "prove" Christianity to me.

If, however, I decided that we should go to war against the SRA on the strength of my tardy train, you would be very much within your rights to interrogate all concerned.

Especially if all I said was "have faith that I am right".
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 3:08:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Are you telling me that you believe everything this “biblical scholar” writes?”

No, but I’m happy to agree with things that he says which 95% of other scholars agree on. Some of Crossan’s positions are controversial, but I’m not taking any controversial position here, or any position which is difficult to prove. The evidences I outlined in my above post are agreed to by virtually all scholars (except 75% with the empty tomb). I’m using him as an example, to prove that even the most radical of scholars agree Jesus died by crucifixion.

“None of the gospel writers was there at the time”

There is serious debate about this. Many scholars hold that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry.

Regardless, this shouldn’t influence our conclusions on whether Jesus rose from the dead. As far as I’m concerned it’s a red herring in this discussion, because it’s not something that’s assumed with any of the evidence I’ve offered.

There were however eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus. Namely, James and the other disciples.

“As for Josephus…….the famous “reference” was added centuries later”

One of the biggest experts on Josephus is Louis Feldman, who surveyed scholarly writings on Josephus between 1937-1980. He was asked for an estimate of how many contemporary scholars accept Testimonium Flavianum in one form or another. His response? A ratio of at least 3 to 1, possibly as much as 5 to 1 accept it*. In other words, 75% to 90% of scholars accept the writing in one form or another (ie: There are two versions, both mention Jesus in some form). Remembering that there are only 3 sentences in any serious dispute.

(*footnotes, Case for the resurrection of Jesus, Habermas/Licona)

This means we can be fairly sure that this was an extremely early, and hostile/nonchristian historical reference to Jesus, the crucifixion, and early followers.


Regarding sources, many were independent.

But regardless, this is why we consider the earliest sources to be the best evidence. The oral tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 dates the resurrection story to Jerusalem, within a maximum of 5 years of Jesus cruxifixion
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 18 December 2008 9:09:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
P:“Because independent evidence for its occurrence is non-existent.”

T:Not true. I can give you several different lines of evidence for all of the 5 historical claims I provided you with earlier in the discussion. Which particular one would you like me to provide those lines of evidence for?

P:”the event itself has never been explained, except in terms that require a pre-existing belief in the religion that has been built around it.”

T:No pre-existing beliefs are required, just an open mind and the ability to follow the evidence where it leads.
The reason why the event has never been adequately explained, in your opinion, is because you’re not accepting the conclusion to which all the evidence points.

Regarding the Galileo example, I already explained the differences between the scientific method and the historical method which differentiate these examples. You’re going over old ground here, and you haven’t addressed the points I made.

Anyway, that’s not actually the point. If you think the vast majority of scholars are incorrect on any of the 5 historical facts I claimed, then give your reasons why.

P:“You are, of course, automatically assuming the new material will support your view.”

T:I’m not assuming anything. The current evidence supports my view, and that’s what’s relevant in this discussion.

P:”Nor do I need to prove it to you, in much the same way that you don't need to "prove" Christianity to me”

T:Correct.
I don’t need to prove anything. I’m merely providing you with some evidence and telling you where I think it leads.
If you want to reject my evidence or my conclusion, go for it. But I’m interested in finding out your reasons for doing so. And if you aren’t interested in providing reasons, then I’m not sure why we’re even having this discussion!

Regarding the train, you need faith in
- Your memory
- Your brain
- Your watch

What if the train was 1 min late instead of 3 like you said?

If you tell me your train was late, I need faith that your eyewitness testimony’s valid, along with any other evidence
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 18 December 2008 9:10:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy and AdamD....read Prof Richard Weikart's book "From Darwin to Hitler". Darwin's mentor in the natural sciences at Cambridge uni, Adam Sedgwick, in a letter to Darwin 1859 expressed his fears: "....humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history". It was Darwin's book "The Origin of Species....or the Preservation of Favoured Races....." (NB the full title of his book....is that not enough to ring alarm bells?)that appealed to the Nazi mentality. Favoured races? Who are the "unfavoured" races? Did not Darwin state in the introduction that one of the 3 goals of his book was to consider "the value of the differences between the so-called races of man".

AdamD....you over simplify by a long shot. "Artificial selection"? What does that mean. No, Darwin was talking about "natural selection", "favoured races"; "inferior races" etc.....if anyone wrote like that today they'd have the antidiscrimination crowd yelling for their heads! But, of course, Charlie Darwin is infallible! a messianic figure! a genius!

Davidf......you still haven't answered my questions re your contradiction of your own position. Also the internet reference you give refers to Hitler;'s book Mein Kampf published in the 1920's for God's sake. Look at his rantings in the late 30's and early 40's if you're game. Please do not be so selective in your references
Posted by Francis, Thursday, 18 December 2008 10:35:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Francis wrote:

Davidf......you still haven't answered my questions re your contradiction of your own position.

Dear Francis,

When you keep repeating the nonsense that the Holocaust had nothing to do with religion I feel it is pointless to continue any discussion with you.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 18 December 2008 11:20:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav, we don't seem to be making much progress.

This is almost certainly because:

i) you are predisposed to believe the stories that you are told

ii) it makes no difference to me whether you believe them or not, i.e. I am not trying to persuade you that you are wrong to believe what you believe

But I would point out that you are relying upon other believers to confirm your story.

If you were able to offer a Muslim historian, for example, I would put some additional weight on his observations.

It is also instructive, for me at least, that you choose not to answer any of the specific points I raised, merely the general ones.

Is Bishop Warburton's assessment of the additions to Josephus credible, for example?

Would he be more, or less credible than your own source?

You do address one point:

>>There is serious debate about this [that none of the gospel writers was there at the time]. Many scholars hold that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry<<

The other half of your statement is that "many other scholars hold that there were no eyewitness accounts".

Including, I might add, Christian scholars.

Non-radical ones.

You believe the ones you want to believe, that's fine. But don't kid yourself that we are dealing in facts here. Just stories.

>>Regarding sources, many were independent<<

Which ones?

Look, there really is little point in continuing this conversation.

You believe, and that's fine with me. I don't, and cannot find a shred of independent historical evidence that would even begin to persuade me to review my position.

The minute there is some, I'll be there.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 18 December 2008 2:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Francis,

I agree that Darwin was talking about “natural selection”, not “artificial selection”, that was my whole point. Nature works independently, we can’t control it. There is nothing "natural" or "nature-driven" about Social Darwinism.

Darwin’s use of the term “race” was used to describe variety, not human races. But let’s pretend for a moment that Darwin did really mean “human races”.

So What? That has absolutely no bearing on the factuality of natural selection or evolution.

Back to reality though, Einstein’s atomic theory has brought us nuclear weapons, but do the religious complain about him? Do they spread false propaganda about his motivations?

No. Why? Because Einstein’s theories don’t conflict with religious views.

This double-standard is very revealing of the cynical attempts by creationists to smear Darwin’s name simply to create feeling in others of disgust for a field of science that threatens their fragile beliefs.

In regards to Professor Richard Weikart, personally I wouldn’t trust a word he says, and Wikipedia summerises why very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Weikart

“His [Weikart’s] third book, From Darwin to Hitler has been widely criticized by the academic community, but promoted by Christian creationists...”

Promoted by Christian creationists. These are people who couldn’t lie straight in bed. And as if that wasn’t bad enough:

“The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, provided crucial funding for the book's research [From Darwin to Hitler].”

The Discovery Institute. The irony of this organisation’s name is bad enough. Let’s not even get into some of the things this organisation has done.

But you sounded a little too manic in your last post to think rationally, so I’m not sure that any of what I’ve said will sink in, or that there is any point in discussing this with you further unfortunately.
Posted by AdamD, Thursday, 18 December 2008 6:13:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am disgusted by the repetition of the statement that religion had nothing to do with the Holocaust. In September 1941 the Jews in and around Eishyshok were rounded up and slaughtered.

The Holocaust would not have happened if years of Jew hatred justified by New Testament accounts had not preceded the Holocaust. In my grandmother's village of Eishyshok the local Christians heard a sermon after the slaughter. On page 594 of "There Once was a World":

"On Sunday, September 28, 1941, the tolling of the bells at the bells at the Juryzdyki church called the people to worship, just as it did every Sunday, and the sanctuary was filled to capacity, just as it always was. The pews were lined with people in their Sunday best, which in many cases had been the Sabbath best of their Jewish neighbors, whose homes they had looted. Ostrauskas [the Lithuanian chief of police who had murdered Jewish children by smashing them against stones] was there, and was observed to make confession. While the freshly covered graves were still moving and still spouting blood, the parishioners listened to their priest explain to them that the Jews had at last been called to account for the killing of Christ. The priest himself had not advocated killing them; nor did he approve of the looting of Jewish homes. In fact, at least one account says that he asked any one in the congregation wearing stolen Jewish clothes to leave (although no one did). But he seemed to feel that the murder was understandable. Even if it was wrong, a kind of justice had been done."
Posted by david f, Thursday, 18 December 2008 7:21:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a lively discussion this has provoked. We owe a debt to Brett Walker for starting it. The real problem Brett Walker faces, is the merger of Church and State, effected by the Liberal Party, in New South Wales in 1970. Just like Hitler’s Germany, the State became Almighty God just like the Germans believed in Hitler as a God. Menzies thought he was God. His nickname was Ming the Merciless. So he set out to create the world in his image.

I have stood sickened by the obsequious groveling of barristers as they wheedle a Judge, to give their client what he is paying them for. I have sat in the back of a “court” ( deliberately little “c” ) when a State barrister, called Miss Crown, ( Clown) was making a monumental fool of herself in front of eleven jurors. I have seen the standard of conduct by a Justice with a jury, and the standard of conduct by a Justice without one. The New Testament contains an account of when the Lord Jesus Christ, drove the moneychangers out of the Temple. The merger of Church and State, was continued by the Federal Government with the Family Law Act 1975, commenced by the Liberals in 1976. They then merged the Church and State in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 , and the High Court of Australia Act 1979 and gave us a Jewish Style Government by Priests.

Bob Hawke, as a Pastors Kid, resented all things Christian, so he did nothing except reinforce the merger, with a gradual tightening of Church/State control over who gets to “Court” ( deliberately capitalized.). Paul Keating, who would probably claim not to be Christian, presided over some marvelous legislation, abolishing the Church/State nexus, but sadly left office in March 1996.

We have created another church, and merged it with the State, made membership compulsory by the threat of a fine, and appointed State Public Servants as Administrative Judges, instead of the Christian Jury system. This is all unconstitutional. See what some scholars say here: http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238 Lawyers are the new priests.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Friday, 19 December 2008 5:48:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The awful truth is the creation of multifarious replacements for the Holy Bible as the Ultimate Rule Book. The Supreme Court Rules in New South Wales, is where a cabal of lawyers, were authorized in this way, to write a bible for court use. Here it is: S 6 Supreme Court Act 1970: Any Act in force immediately before the commencement of this Act which is inconsistent with the rules shall be superseded to the extent of such inconsistency and while such inconsistency continues to exist.

The awful truth is that no referendum was held before the coup d’etat was effected by the Liberal Party in New South Wales. Lawyers and Priests both Rule, by interpreting the rules. The awful truth is that the Constitution prohibits such Rules, but the Federal Court Rules and High Court Rules 2004 as now promulgated, are both the bible of those institutions. We all must believe in lawyers, or no justice is available. We must pay, but just buying justice is not enough. Unless you buy the right brand, then you will not get it anyway. At a time when most people are no longer compelled to attend church, as any ambitious man or woman did, before 1900, we are all compelled by summons to attend State Church, stripped naked by the lawyers there, exposed to ridicule by the media, and deprived of as many of our assets as the lawyers can grasp. Jury trials stop all that.

The awful truth is that there is an industry of parasites, sucking the life out of society. Family Law is just one example. A mans poor bloody wife, gets post partum depression, and instead of seeing a Pastor, or a doctor sees a lawyer instead, the man is ruined, and the lawyers get the lions share, of his estate. A Church/State, that despises the fundamental contract of life, marriage, is sick. Whenever a lawyer sees a client with money, the feeding frenzy starts. The Labor Party in 1900, was already infiltrated. See here: http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=362 Thank God Kevin07 is not a lawyer.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Friday, 19 December 2008 6:37:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“You believe the ones you want to believe, that's fine. But don't kid yourself that we are dealing in facts here. Just stories.”

The 5 pieces of evidence I provided are reliably established historical facts, which are agreed to by nearly ALL scholars, except the empty tomb which is agreed to by most, but not “nearly all”.

So it’s not a case of “believing” the ones I “want to believe”, it’s a case of only accepting things where there is almost universal consensus. I’m only using evidences where there’s agreeance amongst all of those who study the materials and write in peer reviewed journals- from conservative scholars to very skeptical ones.

If I wanted to take the scholarship of only some scholars, I’d use the bible only and claim that everything in it is pretty much an accurate representation of Jesus’ life- a position held by many of the more conservative scholars, and a position to which I could make a strong argument. There are plenty of books out there which argue that the gospels are a completely historically reliable collection of stories about Jesus life, if you want to look into it.

Going in the opposite direction, there’s even one or two scholars in the world who weave together an intricate web of speculation and selectively chosen evidence, whilst completely ignoring the body of evidence or finding bizarre ways of explaining it away, and make the claim the Jesus the person never existed. Most scholars are disgusted by this idea and laugh at it (including the leading atheist/agnostic scholars), and they’ll tell you it’s just baseless fiction based on little if any historical evidence.

So, there are extreme positions out there. Just like, in science there are some (not many) scientists who argue that the world is 6000 years old, and some (again, not many) who think there are infinite universes out there.

But it’s pointless trying to justify controversial positions if they aren’t particularly relevant in a discussion anyway.

Therefore, where there’s major controversy, it’s a no-go zone. I’m only using evidence where there’s universal acceptance
Posted by Trav, Friday, 19 December 2008 9:11:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Point form, for succinctness:

- I strongly disagree with you about why we’re “getting nowhere”. I’ve offered you 5 historical claims in the origins of this discussion, and you’re yet to provide anything which makes me doubt any of those claims.

- You claim I’m “believing what other believers tell me”, while I can counter by pointing out that you haven’t actually thrown any of my original claims into any doubt whatsoever.

- I’ve been mostly replying to your general claims rather than specific as we have a 350 word limit, so I’ve been gunning for maximum effectiveness by arguing against your main assertions.

“many other scholars hold that there were no eyewitness accounts".

What does this prove in relation to the resurrection?

- My point (which you seem to have missed, misunderstood or ignored…) is that gospel authorship isn’t central to the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead.

- Many scholars do doubt that eyewitnesses wrote the gospels, but these same scholars grant the historical claims I gave- empty tomb, crucifixion etc.

- What does that tell you?

Josephus:

- Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough here. The scholarly debate isn’t over whether Josephus mentioned Jesus, it’s over exactly what he said about Jesus. Ie: The exact wording.

- Warburton refers to the version which is obviously interpolated.

- There’s also another universally accepted mention of Jesus in Josephus writings.

Evidence:

- Lets simplify this. One piece at a time.

- 1 Corinthians 15 was authored 51-55AD.

- Paul mentions a creed (oral tradition), which predates his writing. Nearly all scholars date this AD35 or prior (within 5 years of Christ), using the original language employed by Paul and knowledge of early creeds/oral traditions. Some conservative scholars date it to within 1 ½ to 2 years, but the overall consensus is that Paul received this around 33-35AD, or 3-5 years after Jesus crucifixion.

Therefore:

- Based on the oral tradition Paul reports in 1Corinthians15, we can reliably establish that people were reporting Jesus resurrection. Probably within 2-5 years of it’s alleged occurrence, and definitely no more than 20.
Posted by Trav, Friday, 19 December 2008 9:12:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy