I dont post too often on OLO, but I do try to read most posts, and I have certainly noticed we tend to get many hardline religious posters, and equally some very aethistic / sceptical posters.

Rather than a thread where everyone bangs on about their beliefs, my question to everyone is;

"What evidence would you need to completely change your religious / non-religious beliefs?"

For example, if you are a committed, born again Christian, what evidence would make you become a convinced aethist? On the other hand if you are a firm humanist what would give you belief in a higher being(s)?

To start us off, I'll have a go. I'm a very committed sit-on-the fence centrist, with a hard-line agnostic 'dont know' attitude. So for me I could go either way.

To believe in a God of some kind I would need to see some miraculous event that completely defied science and could only be some kind of bona-fide miracle caused by a god of some kind. Its hard to imagine how that might work, but lets say a Jesus / Mohammed kind of figure came to earth, who was able to pass James Randi's $1 million dollar challenge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation#The_One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge

On the other hand to be completely atheist I would need to see some kind of massive scientific breakthrough that answered some of the great unknown questions of our time;
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
Maybe a visition from a galatic alien civilization that revealed the answers to these questions and proved that life in the universe had been going for millions of years before the earth was even created would be sufficient.

So to the religious; Could you ever be given factual evidence that would make you abandon your faith?

and to the non-believers; What miraculous acts would make you believe?

Oh, and by the way just to make it more challenging, no quoting from either religious texts or Mr. Dawkins and friends!

cheers,

gw

GW,

You've got me thinking here.

I'm a Christian, I believe in the Bible, I believe in God and in his son Jesus, therefore any evidence I see will enforce my beliefs rather than turn me against my faith. Belief for me is a matter of choice. I life a happy life, and in general Christians are the happiest people. I became a Christian because I saw that Christians had something that I didn't have. In my case that was the evidence I needed to convert me.

So I suppose, if I was to become an Athiest, I will need to see athiests enjoying life a lot more than I do. Athiesm would have to offer hope, and I would have to hear testimonies from Atheists about life changing experiences.

I would say that to prove the existance of God, one must first start looking for him. An athiest cannot look for God as he does not believe there is a God to be found.

Even those that saw Jesus walk this earth, still didn't believe, and if God was to appear today, and appear as a guest on a TV show, I think there are a lot of people who still would not believe.

"Athiesm would have to offer hope, and I would have to hear testimonies from Atheists about life changing experiences.

Sorry Steel Mann, I doubt many atheists are into doing 'testimonies'. They've usually seen and heard enough of them from the growing numbers of born-agains in their midst to be completely turned off anything that might remotely resemble the practice.

*"What evidence would you need to completely change your religious / non-religious beliefs?" *

Oh that is quite simple really. If the alleged Almighty, alleged
creator of the heavens, planet earth, the galaxy etc, is out there,
it would clearly be in his ability to write the rules by which
he wants us to live, on the face of the moon for all to see.

He-she has so far never bothered. Just countless claims by
countless people, that only their version of the truth is the
correct one. From the pope, to the JWs, the muslims etc, etc,
everyone squabbles. It could so easily be sorted out with
one simple click of his magic. Until then I will remain skeptical
and based on my knowledge, assume that when people hear voices,
its more likely to be dose of schizophrenia, then any direct line
to the Almighty him-herself.

It's a bit of a non-question, isn't it?

For a start, you cannot ever prove a negative. So by definition, there will never be sufficient concrete evidence that a supreme creator does not exist, in the eyes of a believer.

On the other hand, if there were factual, easily available, verifiable evidence of an Almighty Creator, we wouldn't need religion anyway, would we?

In such a world, there couldn't be any such categories as believers and non-believers.

The concept of believing would be like telling someone "I believe in grass". They'd say, "yes, and?" because the grass would be there.

Or non-believing would be like telling someone "I don't believe in motor cars". They'd say "sure, why don't you take a walk down the middle of Parramatta Road, and tell me again when I visit you in hospital?"

Sorry, the question can only be answered emotionally, not factually.

Which leads us straight back to the tired old arguments between religion as an emotional crutch, and science as a belief system.

Bronwyn and Yabby,

You criticise, but you dont answer the original question...

Pericles,

I dont agree that this is as simple as you make out. For example lets say you are trying to convince a blind person that the colour Red exists. Given they cannot see it, and have never seen it, what evidence would you give them that the colour red does actually exist?

I quite like Steel's original answer. All the other responses have been just negatives.

BTW to Yabby, Brownwyn and Pericles answer me this; if I performed some verifiable miracle in front of you (flying, walking on water, raising the dead etc) and told you this was a power given to me by God would you not believe?

cheers,

gw

gw, I certainly did answer your original question. If God's rules
are posted on the moon, for all to read, I and others will take
notice!

* if I performed some verifiable miracle in front of you (flying, walking on water, raising the dead etc) and told you this was a power given to me by God would you not believe?*

GW, in India this kind of stuff goes on all the time, its a very
lucrative industry. From walking on hot coals to holy ash flaking
off pictures of Sai Baba, once they are purchased by the true believers, its all happening. There is a group called the Indian
Rationalists, which goes around explaining to the less educated and
gullible, why all this "magic" happens, in scientific terms.
Yet many true believers still believe, worship Sai Baba and others.

The thing is, when true believers want to believe, emotion takes
over reason and that is what they believe, ie. it satisfies emotional
needs. Jesus really loves them etc. They feel better!

If you take some time to understand the human mind, you will realise
that its full of brain chemicals being manufactured on a constant
basis. Homeostasis matters! The rational, deductive part of the
human brain, is only one small section.

Hey it keeps you happy and content, fair enough. So what about
those rules on the moon for evidence?

I think you are closer to understanding my point than you realize, gw.

>>For example lets say you are trying to convince a blind person that the colour Red exists. Given they cannot see it, and have never seen it, what evidence would you give them that the colour red does actually exist?<<

What, exactly, would be the point of attempting to provide evidence?

By definition their belief (yes, I believe there is a colour red, gw, just like you tell me) or disbelief (carn, gw, you're kidding me, right?) aren't going to matter a fig, either to them or you.

It is not, after all, information that they can actually use, is it?

If you had to say "look out, the colour red is about to land on you and kill you, move out of the way!", then belief would become important.

Very important, very quickly.

>>if I performed some verifiable miracle in front of you (flying, walking on water, raising the dead etc) and told you this was a power given to me by God would you not believe?<<

Once again, the believing here has nothing to do with the miracle, but to the telling me it's God part. I might look at you, raising the dead left right and centre, and still walk away saying "there has to be a scientific explanation to this"

The only "proof" would be the permanent, unquestioned existence amongst us, of that supreme being. Christians have told me that hey, that's exactly what we are talking about. But without belief, it can't occur.

As I said before, it is a non-question. If there were an obvious, self-evident and available supreme creator, both belief and non-belief would be meaningless concepts.

Thus the question - what would make you believe/not believe - is also meaningless.

Doesn't logic count for anything these days?

gw, as a former believer I've had some experience at this.
I doubt that there was one single thing but rather a variety of factors.

The biggest issue came down to the lack of differentiation in the lives of believers in different belief systems especially in the christain church which claims the indwelling of the holt spirit, renewing of minds etc. For the most part those claims don't stack up when compared to non-christains with lives that are values centered. If those claims were true then christains should be better people than those around them who place emphasis on values outside themselves. I'm not sure that I've explained that concept well.

I was also bothered by corporate governance in the church, if christ really was the head of the church, all knowing and all powerfull then the final responsibility for ongoing abuse of children by church employee's lies with him along with final responsibility for a bunch of other stuff that I wanted no part of.

I was bothered by the number of twists and turns christains seem to have to do to try and place a rational framework around their faith - Davids obsession with "make it up as you go" whilst trying to ignore the changing practice and theology of the church being a good example, his obsession with the violence in the foundation documents of Islam whilst ignoring the violence promoted by his god in the old testament being another.

I wrote the above when the opening post was the only one in the thread. Steel Man, from my perspective life is a lot better without the christian god but thats just my experience and it may not be the case for others. As I pointed out earlier the comparisons make more sense if done based on people living by a chosen value system. My own view is that there is not a clear difference when you look like that.

R0bert

OK trying to follow your logic here Pericles.

- on the point about the colour red, you could argue that it is quite important. Red is a danger signal in many parts of life, which a blind person doesnt see. But I take your point that it doesnt matter, because they cant see it. But that doesnt mean it doesnt exist right? Are you saying that you have to be able to experiance something with one of your primary senses for it to be real? What about something like time? You know time exists, and it is important but you dont experience it through touch, smell etc...

- on the point about wether the debate has any purpose I agree that if a God was obvious to all (like writing on the moon) then yes the debate about belief would be meaningless. But that wasnt what I asked! I was trying to ascertain how much evidence you would need...

cheers,

gw

If Christianity is wrong and athiesm is the truth, then when I die, I will be no worse off than the unbeliever. The only difference it would make to my life now is:
-I would be wasting about 10 to 15 minutes each day reading my Bible - but nevertheless the Bible contains some useful information on how to live a better life.
-I would be wasting my Sunday mornings in Church, but I still enjoy the fellowship with friends.
The atheist says that they will believe in God if they see him. I'l suppose I'll stop believeing in God when God tells me he doesn't exist.

Surely this question hinges on what people perceive god to be?

The god I read about in the old and new testaments is a judgemental, vengeful man who claims to love all his creation and lives in a place called heaven.

If this is the god that is being discussed here, no I do not believe in a being like this anymore more than I believe in Santa.

Do I believe there is an infinity of knowledge still waiting to be discovered?

YES

Do I believe that there may be a greater intelligence in the entire universe?

Possibly.

Did this greater intelligence create this universe?

Don't know.

For the sake of argument, if this greater intelligence did exist and did create the universe, would it expect me to worship it?

I don't think so; anything that arrogant wouldn't deserve worship.

If it was that clever, it would have better things to do than sit around in judgement of a bunch of primates on a tiny little planet at the far end of a starry arm of an ordinary galaxy.

As Pericles made very clear, this is a non-question. Not least because there are as many interpretations of god as there are people.

So, which god do you believe in GW?

gw
Everything Jesus said about the state of the human heart has shown to be 100% correct. A two year old can see that a complex world could not happen by chance. The corrupt nature of mankind has never been more evident than today. Jesus teachings are without equal. Jesus death and resurrection were predicted long before the events took place. Jesus proved to be the only incorruptible person to ever live. No one else qualifies to take away your and my sin. No of the above has been disproved. It takes less faith to believe in the truth than to believe in the hideous unscientific whopper of evolution. Wherever the gospel has taken route the country has prospered (ie hospitals and schools were established). Things have steadily gone down hill since the secularist have promoted and preached their dogma. I could go on but hopefully this explains just a little why I believe.

gw like RObert I am a former believer.
Sorry but nothing can make me believe in a God again.
I can however tell you the strangest thing, it would be so great to know one existed.
To know I could lay back and enjoy the ride forever.
In truth I think evidence may already be in government hands to prove no God exists.
We would never be told, far too many could not handle the truth.
If only we could debate why so many different Gods are followed on one planet.
Surely the real one would make us all aware he/she is the one and only?

gw, you are trying to complicate matters unnecessarily.

>>on the point about wether the debate has any purpose I agree that if a God was obvious to all (like writing on the moon) then yes the debate about belief would be meaningless. But that wasnt what I asked! I was trying to ascertain how much evidence you would need...<<

That's exactly the point.

The level of evidence that I would need is that which alows God to be plainly, clearly, irrefutably in plain sight and obvious to all.

I'm not even sure the writing on the moon would do it for me. It would need to be explained to that blind guy, for a start, which would mean that my requirement "obvious to all" is not met.

Religious belief is in fact a misnomer.

Religion requires a total and complete suspension of disbelief, which is not the same thing as belief.

This allows a person to bypass the senses, and the intellect, in order to determine that - against all physical and mental evidence - God exists.

To those who believe, no amount of physical or mental evidence will cause disbelief. You cannot prove a negative.

I am at the opposite end of the same measurement scale, and the opposite of zero is infinity.

Which of course would mean that if there is an infinite amount of evidence available, paradoxically, none would in fact be required at all.

It's an interesting question but one that I think, can't be answered.

Perhaps it's a matter of ingrained personal experience, upbringing and other environmental factors that are mostly out of your control - not a matter of adopting some sort of fashion trend. It's not a mental switch that can be turned on or off.

You may as well ask "What would it take to make you turn gay/straight?".

It's not a matter of whether you believe or not believe something that cannot be proven, or even a matter of choice.

What's important is how you deal with others who don't share your personal view of the universe.

The item implicitly assumes that atheists and religionists may not have already changed their beliefs.

I was brought up to believe in God and the Jewish Bible. As I grew older I found I could no longer believe in either as entities I could accept as existing or valid. I cannot believe in a suspension of natural law, in a deity or a supernatural of any kind.

What caused me to abandon religious belief was my refusal to accept contentions without evidence.

It would be interesting to hear from believers in a religion who were formerly atheists as to why they changed.

What has caused people on this list to change from atheism to belief in a deity and vice versa?

I can't think of anything that would make me adopt religious belief. If a gigantic god-face appeared in the sky or a burning bush spoke to me, I'd be more inclined to question my mental health.

But other people give a range of reasons for adopting or dropping belief.

Wanting to marry, a sense of belonging, existential angst, explaining the otherwise unbearable (like losing a child), a love of incense.

Disillusion with the hypocracies of organised religions, god's failure to live up to expectations, critical reflection, wanting to marry, being kicked out.

People also change their minds several times throughout life. They pick up and drop several belief systems as it suits them. What would it take for non-believers to adopt Jedi or paganism? Hollywood for some, archaeology for others.

The question is flawed, but it's an interesting topic anyway.

gw: "I performed some verifiable miracle in front of you (flying, walking on water, raising the dead etc) and told you this was a power given to me by God would you not believe?"

If you follow evidence-based belief systems, such as the scientific method, then the concept of a 100% "verifiable miracle" becomes problematic.

You can have a 'verifiable experiment' with actions ('person steps onto clear water') and observations ,('person does not sink') that can be verified by different independent experimenters. That doesn't prove 100% that the event was a miracle though. In fact it is so far outside of the current well-established and thoroughly interlocking frameworks of evidence-based belief (science, etc.) that I and many others would search long and hard for other explanations before settling on the miraculous: that would include advanced or secret technologies: holograms, magnetic levitation, unknown advances in physics, or even outlandish theories such as alien tech.

In fact, if you follow Kurzweil et al's ideas on the technological singularity:

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

then I wouldn't be too surprised to be walking on water with the next 3-5 decades :-)

The spaghedeity has already proved his existance.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/33E09D3344384BD899775D8C1998D8B2/the-spaghedeity-spotted-over-d.aspx

There have been many such spottings.

http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/from-the-archives.jpg

The above photo was provided by Pastafarian Eric. I will assume it’s legitimate unless someone proves otherwise (as per all matters of religion).

There have been many acedemic endorsements...

http://www.venganza.org/evidence/endorsements1/

Following on from Sams post.

If an event can be verified then it is no longer a miracle now is it, GW?

For example, the first time people observed a solar eclipse it must have appeared to be miraculous watching the sun being obscured in the middle of the day. However, we now know that it was the new moon's transition directly between sun and earth that caused the sun to temporarily disappear.

There can never be evidence for religion or it ceases to be religion.

By this I mean, when something is known it is no longer a matter of 'belief', it becomes a part of our fabric of quantifiable knowledge. Whereas religion is all about faith or belief; it is an explanation for ignorance.

I don't care what your name is, nobody walks on the water where I'm fishing!

Beautifully put, Fractelle.

I am in awe of your ability to encapsulate in a paragraph something that takes me an entire post to get across.

Have a great day.

Pericles

Thank you

I am honoured.

GW,

I didn't relate to the way you framed your original question more particularly lumping atheist and skeptic. I consider myself very much a skeptic but definitely not an atheist.

Until the two most recent posts I believed Pericles has given the best response. However his most recent post seems to indicate I misinterpreted them. A long time ago a man told a story within a Jewish religious framework. The part I most like was the suggestion by a character in the story that someone could come back from the dead and speak to people and they still won't necessarily believe.

For the record I am a former atheist who just finds it easier to believe in God as it takes less faith. As a Christian I am informed that correctly placed faith is a virtue but I have not yet managed to develop that virtue particularly well.

Finally even if it is possible to answer the question validly it probably won't happen here. With comments like "Religion requires ... to determine that - against all physical and mental evidence - God exists." and "A two year old can see that a complex world could not happen by chance." not even to mention usual suspects contributions, I suspect this thread will soon be solely fundamentalists proseltysing for both opposing faiths.

Interesting Question GW.

I don't think people can be 'persuaded' into belief, because if that's so, they could also be persuaded out of it.

The Biblical position is this: from Romans 10

14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?

And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?

And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"

17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

COMMENT Often, the evidence of God at work in a human heart is 'vehement opposition' to the Gospel.
One sows...another reaps. So...today some of us are critical, mocking, sneering, cynical.. tomorrow..they may be at the foot of the cross saying

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;

or

Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Sometimes people need to reach the end of themselves before their ears are open to the voice of our Lord.

I think on this post there is a confusion of religious belief in general with the particular religious belief called Christianity.

We live in a predominantly Christian society so an atheist without a predilection for any particular religion would probably turn to Christianity in Australia if he or she felt a religious need. I presume that the atheist would probably turn to Judaism if living in Israel or Islam if living in Malaya. All three religions contain a belief in God.

Apparently many individuals feel a need for religious belief and a belief in God in particular.

For those who feel the need of religion but not a need for belief in a deity there is Buddhism which satisfies the first but does not postulate a soul or a deity.

Porkycrap

gw specifically asked that we refrain from quoting the bible or texts like Dawkins, a sensible request that everyone else has managed to go along with, except your good and arrogant self. Not only do you feed us bible quotes, but hymn verses as well. Give us a break.

If there's one single compelling argument on OLO in favour of atheism, it's you.

mjpb

"I suspect this thread will soon be solely fundamentalists proseltysing for both opposing faiths."

I assume you're referring to Christianity and Islam. I hope you're not referring to atheism as a 'faith' or to atheists as 'fundamentalists'. I'm sure you wouldn't be, but considering the topic of the thread, it is a reasonable inference to draw from your comments.

Thanks for responses everyone!

I'd like to pick up on one point here. Polycarp said "I don't think people can be 'persuaded' into belief, because if that's so, they could also be persuaded out of it"

Is that true? Surely preaching is a form of persausion? You yourself have documented your adventures in preaching to the uncoverted - were you not trying to persaude them into beliving the same thing that you do?

The question here is not what makes other people believe, it is what it would take for you personally to believe something diametrically different from what you believe now.

When I have discussed this with friends they have normally stated Pericles' position - that nothing could concievably happen to make them believe, becuase if someone did raise the dead etc, they would assume they experiancingg a hallucination or other mental defect.

But doesn't that mean that you in turn are being just as dogmatic as the most religious fanatic - you must be right and nothing could convince you otherwise? Maybe we as humans are not capable of understanding an idea such as God?

Just to finish some of my favorite quotes on the subject;

"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God" Cicero

"After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth"
Arthur Conan Doyle

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Arthur C Clarke

Bronwyn,

Perhaps neither the religious nor the atheists I refer to are fundamentalist in a strict sense. Just like someone labeled “homophobic” doesn’t have to fulfil the most appropriate definition of “fearing sameness”. However I would be surprised if you didn’t know what I mean and it is a normal usage of the term.

Indeed in a dogmatic sense atheists more often seem to maintain their position on faith that it is silly to believe in God and may even require a test such as writing on the moon as evidence rather than being open to a more considered opinion. Those particular atheists seem rather closed to considering the issue. In cultures or subcultures where the power brokers are atheists Christians are bathed in social norms and popular beliefs that will steer them away from Christianity. In such circumstances Christians need to believe that they have an abundance of hard data supporting their position and thus it is unlikely that new data will contradict it to believe at all. In that situation (as Australia seems to increasingly be becoming) atheists can more easily be fundamentalists than Christians. By contrast in a culture seeped in Christianity like some parts of America it is easier to be a Christian fundamentalist.

Arguably fundamentalist atheists are not fundamentalist because their beliefs are not fundamental to atheism. Equally fundamentalist Christians are not fundamentalists because their beliefs are not fundamental to Christianity. Naturally in both cases some of the beliefs are fundamental eg. belief in no God in the former group and belief in God in the latter group. But the point is that that doesn’t define them. Not all their beliefs are fundamental. Indeed some of the most outer fringe Christian groups are considered to be fundamentalist in the normally used sense.

You seem open to the idea of fundamentalist Christians in here but not fundamentalist atheists. Does that mean that you consider that the beliefs the Christians you have in mind are fundamental to being a Christian or would you accept that people who hold different views can also be Christian?

If the triangles made a god, they would give him three sides.
-Baron de Montesquieu

Certainly to take any position requires some sort of faith, but the difference between an atheists faith and a believers faith is that an atheists faith is contingent on the evidence, for a believer it must be absolute (ie non-contingent). I know many believers do not understand the difference between them and conflate the two ideas all the time.

My faith is contingent on the evidence, if 'miracles' did occur, I would certainly be interested in searching more as to the causes of such a phenomenon, but the immediate reaction would not be one of sudden conversion.

Dogmatic? Moi?

>>But doesn't that mean that you in turn are being just as dogmatic as the most religious fanatic - you must be right and nothing could convince you otherwise?<<

Food for thought, of course, but I don't think it does.

If I recollect correctly my stance was not that "nothing would persuade me otherwise".

I specifically allowed for the situation where there is "the permanent, unquestioned existence amongst us, of that supreme being."

What it would do, which I also pointed out, is remove all need for religion, which relies on ignorance.

Not in the sense "you're an ignorant so-and-so", of course, but in the sense of "an absence of knowledge". With that knowledge, the need to bridge the gap with belief - hence, religion - ceases to exist.

Which again leads us to the point where the question becomes meaningless.

Bronwyn, have you considered which posters alias is an anogram of Crap Ploy? An excellent fit if everthere was (almost as good as "Big Rally Ham").

I think that there are non-believers who are just as dogmatic as some of our fundies, the terms might be messy by the concept makes some sense. The fun bit is that most religious believers are athiests for everybody elses god (except maybe for panthiests).

Everybody
Just thinking in terms of athiesism and christainity is to narrow, what evidence would it take to turn a christain to belief in another faith (or visa versa) is just as relevant as belief or non belief in a particular view of the christian god. Even amongst our resident christains there are a wide variety of beliefs about the nature of their god.

Some worship a god I could almost like, for others their god is deeply disturbed. What would it take to turn a fundy to belief in a genuinely loving god?

R0bert

Steel Mann: “in general Christians are the happiest people… So I suppose, if I was to become an Athiest, I will need to see athiests enjoying life a lot more than I do. Athiesm would have to offer hope, and I would have to hear testimonies from Atheists about life changing experiences.”

Oh my sainted aunt! Aside from the fact that “a happy life” is a rather shallow basis for choosing a belief system, are you really arguing that runner, Poly and Gibo are happier than average atheist? Lordy be!

Atheism is full of hope. More so than religion, because it is not a fatalistic way of looking at the world, but one that insists the world is what we make of it. What a honourable, beautiful, difficult challenge. Atheism (or perhaps I should say humanism) is a way of seeing ourselves both in relation to the universe, and in the small sphere of our influence, and, in our own small way, trying to reconcile these two images. It is hungry for truth and it is deeply invested in promoting goodness in order to coexist with others around us.

In my experience, including on this forum, some Christians are morally corrupt. (Just as some atheists are.) They have a store-bought philosophy that they twist in order to justify their own prejudices. The majority of Christians on this forum are openly hateful of homosexuals and Muslims.

Your statement is simplistic, patronising and false. If you haven’t heard atheists talking about life-changing experiences, then that is because you haven’t opened your ears to the

GW: “When I have discussed this with friends they have normally stated Pericles' position...”

Firstly, that’s not Pericles’ position. Secondly, if someone raised the dead, I would assume that they had found a way to do so. There are wonders in the universe we cannot yet explain, many feats we are yet to achieve. This does not prove there’s a god, simply that our centuries of intelligence gathering haven’t finished yet

GW

Like Perciles, I don't think your question is logical. Religious people already believe despite there being absolutely no evidence that god exists and pretty good evidence he doesn't. On the other hand, if God was demonstrably a part of the universe, then there’d be no atheists to change their position.

But, to enter your fictional universe for a minute, one thing that would make me believe was if there was some consistency among religions. I'm no more convinced by Islam than Christianity, but I'm even less convinced by religion because we have both of then. Our species' numerous religions and the variations between them support the case for separate sects springing up for various psychological, historical and political reason. If there had only ever been ONE religion, I'd be more convinced.

I'd also be more convinced if religion *worked*, in the sense that religious people were truly demonstrably better at being human than non-believers. The infighting, out-fighting, suspicion between sects (Christianity and Islam being the great example) are just too clearly human.

Miracles wouldn't work for me — they're the show-ponies of religion. The Christian saints all performed miracles apparently, and as Fractelle pointed out there's a miracle on every second street corner in India, and Islam is partial to a bit of miracle-making too.

Finally, if god were a nicer, I might be more likely to buy it. But he's not. Whether he's Islamic, Christian or Jewish, he's consistently vengeful, insecure, capricious and bigotted. I simply don't want to be in his team.

When Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door I sometimes ask them about themselves. Most of them I have talked to have tried a number of fundamentalist Protestant sects although I have talked to one raised as a Catholic and another from a non-observant Jewish background.

It didn't sound as though they wanted evidence but explanations they could accept.

mjpb

"You seem open to the idea of fundamentalist Christians in here but not fundamentalist atheists."

You're right, I'm not open to the concept of 'fundamentalist atheists'. Fundamentalism refers to the literal or traditional interpretation of a belief system. Atheism has no belief system. It's all about NOT believing. If there is no atheist belief, there can be no 'fundamentalist' interpretation of that belief. A 'fundamentalist atheist' is akin to an oxymoron in my book.

RObert

"Bronwyn, have you considered which posters alias is an anogram of Crap Ploy? An excellent fit if everthere was (almost as good as "Big Rally Ham")."

Yes, it was so considerate of him, wasn't it? The new moniker has given rein to much more inventiveness than the old BOAZ_David ever could!

Veronika

"Atheism is full of hope. More so than religion, because it is not a fatalistic way of looking at the world, but one that insists the world is what we make of it. What a honourable, beautiful, difficult challenge. Atheism (or perhaps I should say humanism) is a way of seeing ourselves both in relation to the universe, and in the small sphere of our influence, and, in our own small way, trying to reconcile these two images. It is hungry for truth and it is deeply invested in promoting goodness in order to coexist with others around us."

Beautifully put, and worth repeating I thought!

A burning bush! The first thing that comes to mind is to throw a bucket of water on it! Primitive man as seen a lot of science and how the pages of history are full of ghost stories.

Still not one piece of evidents!

EVO

I have to disagree with this statement:

"Atheism is full of hope. More so than religion"

Au contraire.. atheism is BEREFT of 'hope'.. this is especially so for a young man on the verge of suicide.

The last thing he needed at that point ..and which would have been completely ineffective would be "Oh..life is so full of interesting things.. so rich.. so much potential" That would have gone over like a lead balloon.

Atheism offers just one thing. Despair of any meaning "of" life.. not 'in' life.. we can create our own meaning for our own lives.. this is quite true..but the big picture of 'life itself' remains a sad mystery considering the general trend of human behavior.

Fractelle makes a very important point.. about if something was verifiable (and repeatable) it would no longer be a Miracle.

So.. we need to examine such events as the Lord Jesus

-walking on water
-turning water into wine
-giving sight to the blind
-raising the dead (after 3 days in the tomb)
-feeding 5000 then 4000 people with just a few fish and loaves
-healing lepers
-releasing demon posessed people.
-healing paralyzed people.

and in particular the report of His death and resurrection...NOT in a 'scientific' light which excludes the possibility at the outset, but in a 'LEGAL' sense.. based on the evidence of eye witnesses.

Paul himself is the most credible, as his own hand (or his emmanuensus) speaks of those who witnessed the risen Lord along with his own experience on the road to Damascus.

He reports this in his first letter to the Corinthians. A letter which is LEAST disputed by event he most radical critics who take 'evidence' into consideration.

Even in a courtroom.. a jury must make a decision based on such reports. The judge has to sift through 'admissible' evidence and inadmissible.
Using just the 'balance of probabilities' argument. Pauls seems quite sound.

gw,
>> What evidence would you need to completely change your religious / non-religious beliefs?<<
I think by now you have guessed from the answers (if you disregard the silly ones) that nobody can envisage beforehand with certainty what would have to happen for him/her to change thus drastically his/her world-view. Such changes, i.e. genuine conversions, do happen, and people can explain them to you (and to themselves) but only retrospectively. Something like you can understand and explain the factors that lead to this or that historical event, but only post factum. Even the best understanding of history does not make you a clayrvoyant.

The same with the history of your mental - if you do not like the term spiritual - development: you can analyse and evaluate a conversion - yours or somebody else’s - but only after it happened. You cannot predict nor list the factors that would necessarily lead to a conversion.

Observations like “apparently many individuals feel a need for religious belief and a belief in God in particular”, are equivalent to “apparently many individuals do not feel the need for a belief in God or religious belief in general” and, of course, do not answer your question. Neither do apologetic comments aimed at justifying the writer’s convictions (I respect that some people do not like to call faith their existential dedication to what they believe, or do not believe, in) telling you about their “religious experience“ (or lack of it), how happy they are with their convictions, how evidence (or lack of it: a rather subjective matter) convinced them one way or another, how they “lost their faith” (most often because the intellectual level of their RE was not adjusted to the level of other education they received), etc.

Thus conversions are rather rare, and they mean not just “changing your mind” about this or that, but a radical transformation of your total outlook and life experience. Thus by their very nature they are beyond description and comprehension until you enter- if at all - the process of conversion one way or the other.

It is unfortunate that this thread has degenerated into exactly the kind of "yes it is, no it isn't" argument that gw originally asked us to avoid.

But I guess it was inevitable.

Boaz, as usual, kicks us off with a clumsy straw man...

>>atheism is BEREFT of 'hope'.. this is especially so for a young man on the verge of suicide. The last thing he needed at that point ..and which would have been completely ineffective would be "Oh..life is so full of interesting things.. so rich.. so much potential" That would have gone over like a lead balloon.<<

No alternative strategy is offered, nor is any evaluation of why a reaffirmation of life's rich tapestry is somehow less effective than "God loves you, and wants you alive"

And miserable, presumably.

And for blind cheek, how about this.

>>So.. we need to examine such events as the Lord Jesus... and in particular the report of His death and resurrection...NOT in a 'scientific' light which excludes the possibility at the outset, but in a 'LEGAL' sense.. based on the evidence of eye witnesses.<<

But Boaz, the whole point is that there were no reports from eye-witnesses.

>>Paul himself is the most credible, as his own hand (or his emmanuensus) speaks of those who witnessed the risen Lord along with his own experience on the road to Damascus.<<

Since it was you who raised the legal angle - and in capital letters, too, so it must have been important - you need to understand that hearsay evidence has no standing in court.

>>Using just the 'balance of probabilities' argument. Pauls seems quite sound.<<

Only, I'm afraid, to someone accustomed to ignoring the need for actual, as opposed to imagined, evidence.

The balance of probabilities here is being strongly influenced by a strong dose of wishful thinking.

But it does encapsulate exactly how difficult it is for believers to change their mind, when they find it this easy to classify the bible's reports as evidence. Given the complete lack of corroboration in the form of contemporary reports.

The church of England is apologising to Charlie....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html

I cant agree with this. The theory of Evolution is rubbish. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.

Boazy,

What do you think of the Spaghedeity's eight 'I'd really rather you didn'ts'?

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.

2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, Okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.

4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is go f yourself, unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.

5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after them.

6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrin es to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable. I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

But I don't see the Pastafarians apologising to ol' Chuck, so I don't think it will affect you, US.

The point on whether or not religious faith makes you more happy or not is moot when it comes to seeking the truth. In any case, there are documented stronger causes of happiness such as personal relationships and job satisfaction. There are millions of very happy atheists around the world, as well as a plentiful supply of unhappy theists. If you hold a religion belief simply because that makes you more happy, then perhaps you could equally worship a lifetime's supply of opiates.

Me: "Atheism is full of hope. More so than religion."

Poly: "Au contraire.. atheism is BEREFT of 'hope'.. this is especially so for a young man on the verge of suicide..."

If you are talking about a particular man, you may be right. Suicide is by definition an absence of hope.

But your larger point simply doesn't stand up. Believe it or not, Poly, atheists, like Christians, like Buddhists, like Muslims, like Pastafarians, experience the full range of human emotions. I derive enormous hope, wonder and meaning from my cosmology, from my firmly atheistic and scientific view of the universe's origin and contents. I hope for the heart of mankind and the well-being of the whole cosmos. I'm honoured and grateful to be a part of it.

Like Steel Mann, if you cannot see this, it's not because it doesn't exist. You pass living proof of the co-existence of atheism and meaningfullness many times a day. It's because you don't have ears to hear. Are you so insecure about your religion that you must deny the lived experience of others?

The scales need to fall from your eyes.

I like R0bert's questions. There's a huge gap in belief systems between atheists and religious believers, but just a small gap between Poly and the average Sheik.

Poly (and the other Christians), what would it take to turn you into a Muslim?

What would it take for you to believe in a god that looked kindly on homosexuality?

Usual Suspect: Priceless

The equation of religious belief with truth is mischievous. If a concept can be established as true there is no need for belief. Belief is in order when one holds a position which evidence does not support.

Veronika you ask

'Poly (and the other Christians), what would it take to turn you into a Muslim?'

Having a person to follow who never sinned, turned water into wine, hated sin but loved the sinner, rose from the dead as opposed to a founder who was a war monger, immoral and offers no forgiveness.

What would it take for you to believe in a god that looked kindly on homosexuality?

Have an honest doctor show that sodomy is natural and healthy. You would also need to feel comfortable about robbing children of a loving mother or father which research shows they clearly need to live a healthy life.

cont...

7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?

8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

Ahh. Again, runner, with the "honest doctor" bit. I like the way that, when every available piece of evidence proves you wrong, you simply state that the people who provide and rely on that evidence for a living are dishonest.

Maybe an honest theologian would tell you that Christ himself didn't mind a bit of sodomy after all that booze he liked to hand out.

I always find it amusing to see someone disparage a practice as "not natural" while using a computer and the Internet to do so.

Sancho

'Maybe an honest theologian would tell you that Christ himself didn't mind a bit of sodomy after all that booze he liked to hand out.'

Simply shows just how sick your heart and mind is.

Oh, don't be so upset. You said yourself that an honest doctor would contradict every bit of health data available, so why aren't theologians just as likely to be telling porkies about JC? After all, he was a tall white guy in a society of small brown people (if the Christian decorations are accurate). I'm sure he was quite a hit with the boys.

GW

VERY interesting question.

If you will permit I'd like to break the question in two:

QUESTION 1:

--How can we know whether there exists a being who created the universe through a conscious act of will?

QUESTION 2: (For believers only)

--How can you know that your brand of religion is the correct one?

If you're a Christian how can you be sure the koran is not the true uncorrupted word of God?

If you're how Muslim how can you be certain it isn't the Hindus who have it right?

Question 1 is the really hard one. My own position is this:

I don’t know whether a creator of the universe exists. What's more I suspect we'll NEVER know for certain. There may be no way of deciding this question.

So I guess you could mark me down as a sceptical agnostic.

Question 2 is much easier. I have some familiarity with three religious traditions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Judging by their holy books ALL are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. I am at a loss to know how any truly sane person can believe that the bible or the koran are communications from the creator of the universe. Not unless you suppose the creator has a wicked sense of humour.

I am not so much an A-THEIST as an A-BIBLE-IST and an A-KORAN-IST.

Another question for the believers.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HUMANITY IS THE MAIN ACT?

Maybe humanity is, at most, an off-Broadway production.

If a creator exists he / she / it / they may be like "GOD THE UTTERLY INDIFFERENT" depicted in the sci fi novel "The Sirens of Titan."

The tenets of the CHURCH OF GOD THE UTTERLY INDIFFERENT include giving thanks to God for his utter lack of interest in humanity, and the freedom that he gives his creation.

See: http://www.ualberta.ca/~atheists/indifferent.html

Dear Veronika... you derive all that from your cosmology..but I put to you that if all that was dear to you was suddenly lost.. totally, and you saw no conceivable hope for ever getting it back.... then Pericles 'rich tapestry' would not mean squat.

He rightly criticizes me for not offering an alternative.. but when I do I get bucketed right left and centre.. so maybe it's best for me to wait for his que :) and it came.. now I can.

THE ALTERNATIVE.
-"God works all things together for good, to those who love Him"

Is probably a good example of how scripture sees things. That was Romans 8:28

But when the suicide is accompanied by the sense of utter guilt.. for wrong doing... then more than just 'big picture hope' is needed.. there is a need for a sense of 'putting it right'... for forgiveness.
If the person you have hurt will not forgive?....then the hopelessness is dire. Arriving at the moment the person was about to administer the fistful of drugs to end his life.. was not a moment I ever want to repeat in this life.

But one thing I do know... such a person needs more than 'life is a rich tapestry' to get them out of such a condition. I've now seen it.. faced it.. worked through it -and he is alive and mending.

Pericles says 'No eye witness reports'.. and I'm gobsmacked.. PAUL is an eyewitness.. road to Damascus.. remember?x100. Ok..let's say he hallucinated, that leaves Luke who records a 'witness statement'.

Luke was a Doctor,and such prominent respected people are often JPs are able to take 'Statutory declarations'...I see no substantive difference between Lukes account in Acts (and his Gospel) and such a document.

Specially for StevenLmeyer.

1/ "How can you be sure your brand is the correct one"

Steve...for me it comes back to the overwhelming flood of evidence for the resurrection of Christ. You may begin by looking at today's date.
aa/aa/2008 ....i.e. 2008 yrs from a moment when one man who only graced the world with his official ministry for 3 short years.. taught..healed... liberated....restored... and then..for our sakes died..and was in harmony with his own prediction.. raised to life.

Confirmed by the conversion of one Saul of Tarsus, not by any human intervention or persuasion..but the the direct hand of God.

"If you're a Christian how can you be sure the koran is not the true uncorrupted word of God?"

I've covered this ground many times, but seeing as the question was raised.. I'll briefly re-visit. For me probably the most compelling evidence that is was simply 'made up' for Mohammad's convenience is the way surah 33:50 and 51 came about.

50 is where he declares Allah allows him 'special sexual privilege'..

"This is only for you oh Prophet, not for the believers" What did this refer to? aah..that he may marry 'a believing woman' who offers herself to him. (for a night.. a week.. who knows.. temporary marraige was practiced at that time)

always a giveway for cult leaders like Koresh and company.

When he then begins to take advantage of this, and a procession of women DO start to "offer themselves" his wife gets jealous and complains.. but then.. shock horror.. I did nottttt see this coming ... "Revelation" suddenly comes to say "You may defer who you like and bring near who you like" and thus we now have ayah 51.

Code for "You (and you alone) can do what you like, but the believers have to follow your rules".

Kinda reminds me of the Welsh priest just arrested for uncountable child pornography images in his 'study'.

Okay folks,

“The equation of religious belief with truth is mischievous. If a concept can be established as true there is no need for belief. Belief is in order when one holds a position which evidence does not support.”

One reasonable definition of belief is: “Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something” Basically I don’t get it. Why does truth preclude the need to mentally accept it? Surely people believe all manner of things that are demonstrably true and all manner of things that are demonstrably false? A belief is no guarantee of truth but it doesn't preclude it.

“If there is no atheist belief, there can be no 'fundamentalist' interpretation of that belief. A 'fundamentalist atheist' is akin to an oxymoron in my book.”

This I have seen a number of times and I don’t get it either. Sorry if I’m being slow but surely belief that there is no God is a belief. If someone hadn’t formed a firm belief on the issue wouldn’t they be agnostic?

I also should support Boazy (not for quoting scriptures to debate with atheists which is no more appropriate than talking about spaghetti monsters) but to point out that, contrary to an accusation, he wasn’t the first to depart from GW’s request to avoid religious texts or Mr Dawkins and friends comments. There had already been a comment about the number of Gods and one commenting on the spaghetti deity. Both of them were from people arguing against religion.

Finally what do people hope to achieve by saying that atheism has no hope or that there is absolutely no evidence that god exists and pretty good evidence he doesn't? Aren’t such absolute assertions obviously problematic? If belief is so darn obviously one sided why are we having this discussion?

Please don't feign surprise, Boaz, we've been over this any number of times.

>>Pericles says 'No eye witness reports'.. and I'm gobsmacked.. PAUL is an eyewitness.. road to Damascus.. remember?<<

The issue at hand, Boaz, is not about hallucinations, but of eye-witness accounts, remember? You claimed:

>>we need to examine such events as the Lord Jesus... and in particular the report of His death and resurrection...NOT in a 'scientific' light which excludes the possibility at the outset, but in a 'LEGAL' sense.. based on the evidence of eye witnesses<<

Paul was not an eye-witness. You know as well as I do, Paul never met Jesus.

Ever.

Nor, for that matter, did Luke.

>>Ok..let's say he hallucinated, that leaves Luke who records a 'witness statement'<<

Once again, Boaz, there were no eye-witnesses. The gospels were assembled as advertising material to support the creation and development of a cult, many years after the events they purported to describe.

No court - except one that was preconditioned to regard the Bible as authoritative - would accept such stories in evidence. Especially, I might point out, as its component books are inconsistent, and occasionally contradictory.

I am aware that you would really prefer that everyone believes - as you clearly do - that Luke and Acts were written by a doctor, and companion to Paul. This was all part of the sales spiel in the early days of Christianity, after all.

But you will also be fully aware that there is a substantial body of opinion that places the writings between 70 and 100, to allow for the fact that the author depended in part on Mark.

You know all this, but you choose to ignore it.

Which is absolutely fine by me, I have no issue with what information you select to support your belief.

But it does not constitute the "evidence of eye-witnesses" that you claim.

You can stop pretending to be gobsmacked now.

Boaz's observations about the Koran being invented for the convenience of Mohammed apply equally to the bible. The entire history of Christian theology is a tortuous campaign to rationalise the absence of god in the affairs of man without conceding the obvious conclusion that there simply isn't a god at all.

Again, we can come back to the Spaghetti Monster. If my ego depends entirely upon a belief in his noodly goodness, I will unconsciously filter out any evidence against his existence while giving spurious and circumstantial information more credence than it deserves.

'Again, we can come back to the Spaghetti Monster. '

And forever more. Ramen.

Have you been touched by His noodly appendage? I know I have!

MJPB: "Sorry if I’m being slow but surely belief that there is no God is a belief. If someone hadn’t formed a firm belief on the issue wouldn’t they be agnostic?"

I'll take your logic further: I don't believe in god or gods

and I don't believe in elves, santa claus, easter bunny, hobbits either.

Therefore, MJPB, you must mean that I am agnostic about all of the above.

ERIH

Fractelle, I've seen this: cache.virtualtourist.com/1/896835-Hobbit_village-Hinuera.jpg

And I've seen this: www.smh.com.au/news/science/survival-of-the-biggest--hobbits-wiped-out-by-man/2007/01/28/1169919213365.html

But I ain't never seen one of these: graspingthecross.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/jesus-throne.jpg

There is more evidence of hobbits than of Jesus.

I don't know about Hobbits but I have definitely seen Orcs in various localities: you almost always see a few in shopping malls for example. Plus I'm a doctor (of physics) so this must count as a stat dec :-)

Interesting posts, everyone!

To answer the question:
As an atheist, I'm happy to wait for the evidence patiently.
IF there is any evidence that could make me believe in a God, I suppose that it will be revealed to me when I'm brain dead.

Patience is a virtue, which should get you into heaven- if there is one.

But there is a book about a Hobbit Fractelle. :)

The religious do not seek evidence to believe why would they seek it to be swayed the other way. There is already no evidence for the existence of God - the belief in God relies on faith alone.

One day we will be dead and it will be what it will be.

To answer gw's question, I guess if a God, a Genie or an elf appeared to me and threw in a couple of miracles I might rethink my position on a few things. Or check that I hadn't eaten a couple of stray mushrooms or a funny looking cookie at the local market.

Due to the erudite and convincing nature of the above posts, I declare that I am agnostic about hobbits and am quite ready to believe in them when I see one.

Many thanks

;-)

Evolution is hobbit forming.

There will come a day, when the pages of the bible will be found in comedy sections in any poor quality book shop, but the book of evolution will explain how man developed this fear of a big spooky in the sky, because basically, early man was a dumb sh$t! and not much has changed:)

Do you know what is my favourite bible story is! none of them! but i liked the one about the ark! That one is a ripper!lol.

I would say with confidence, that evolution is the new bible for the modern man and the other religions will become nothing more than a novelty to scar little children into submission.

from the simpsons dialogue, when homer spoke to god, gods face appeared in the clouds.

I think that would do it!

But fat chance of that happening!

EVO

Hi Sancho... you said:

"observations about the Koran being invented for the convenience of Mohammed apply equally to the bible"

Well.. I'm happy for you to provide a similar example from JESUS life which shows how he used 'revelation' to bolster a hunger for a procession of women :) after all...that was my allegation about the Koran... *waits*...tap tap tap....

Pericles.

Lukes reliance on Mark is not important. He also relied on either his own observations or another source.
You miss that Peter was an eye-witness and he declares so in his own "statutory declaration"

<<16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. (II Peter 1:16ff)>>

John, another of Jesus inner circle and an eyewitness says:

<<1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched>> (1John1:1)

Paul absolutely met Jesus (the risen Christ) but you will need to read all his letters to see the numerous references to that fact as he describes them. He received a large number of revelations from the risen Lord.

Sorry Pericles.. :) you lose.. "fact" wins.

pelican: "I guess if a God, a Genie or an elf appeared to me and threw in a couple of miracles I might rethink my position on a few things"

Now I would still be tending to fall back to advanced aliens before resorting to deities, with the acknowledgement that advanced technology beyond ours would appear miraculous, in the same way that our TVs would to people not that long ago. With the currently exponential growth of tech advancement, they might only need to be a few decades ahead.

mjpb,
>> If belief is so darn obviously one sided why are we having this discussion?<<

That is a good question. Some - I would like to hope that most - people participate in these discussions because they want to broaden their perspective, enrich their world-view by trying to understand the other side‘s arguments and motivations.

Nobody expects to be converted or to convert other participants (well, almost nobody: I know there are a couple of zealots on both sides of the argument who think they can convince/convert others).

And, I suspect, some of our atheist friends just need to re-convince themselves of the exclusive rationality (some call it even logic) of their position, even if it means essentially just preaching to the converted on this forum. Those of us who profess some religion can satisfy such needs - if we happen to have them - within our own religious communities.

Two pieces of evidence that would tip the scales for me:
1.If godliness bestowed primacy
Our daily experience is that -all other things being equal- a godly person is no more likely to prevail in any enterprise than an ungodly, and no less likely to succumb to disease or accident.

Granted, some studies show that people of religious persuasion live marginally longer healthier lives, but that is likely to be true of any belief system – not specifically God based :a baby monkey which has a rag doll mum to cling to is less traumatised than one left to its own devices!

2.If God was responsive
When barbarians are battering the gates and the godly beseech divine interventions I’d expect the barbarians to be vanquished or at least dispersed , but how many times does God answer the call 1/100, 2/100 !

I’m inclined to think the only superior intelligence we’ll encounter is likely to be one of Big Blues descendants

Boaz, it is not at all important to me that you have convinced yourself that the Bible stories are true.

And it is abundantly clear that your position on this is unlikely to be shaken by me, let alone the hundreds of learned historians who happen to share my opinion.

My only objective here is to point out the inconsistencies that you persist in, when using your own religious texts as a weapon against other religious texts, by pointing out the flimsy base upon which they stand.

If you were to be content to hold your own faith, which no-one begrudges you in the slightest, in quiet and personal contemplation, then there would be absolutely no need for anyone to indicate that the Bible is itself an article of faith, and not an eye-witness account of historical events.

Instead, you continue to wave it around, making the most questionable claims for its ineffable goodness, quoting its contents as if they were ineluctable truths.

There is really no benefit in discussing on this thread the holes in your argument, as you will, as you always do, simply pretend they do not exist, and ignore them.

But I do not question your belief, or your need to believe, nor do I think you would necessarily be a better person if you did not believe.

If only you allowed your religious enemies the same right.

I believe, hallelujah, I believe!

The evidence is irrefutable.

Polly exists, therefore trolls exist.

Still waiting for the hobbits.

Fraccy.. thanx for pointing out indirectly that Perilous is want to play with words in a way that says "I know more words than you do..ner"

He used "ineluctable" (how many people knew the meaning at first glance?) but you used the more common and appropriate term "irrefutable". You get a tick for that :)

Now.. back to the man in peril.

P, your opinions about the veracity or reliability of the Witness statements are yours..and ur welcome to them. Of course there are those who share your view.. and many who do not. I repeat my assertion that the issue which divides the 2 camps is not the value or reliability of the evidence but a self chosen attitude in the case of those who reject it.

If....you noticed I invited Sancho to spill the beans on how Jesus is in any way like Mohammad on the issue I mentioned. I totally allow..no..I boisterously invite... any opponent of Christianity to find anything of a questionable sexual nature about Jesus behavior or his teaching.

There is not the slightest hint..not even a whisper of sexual misconduct or self serving in his life or word....

Perhaps that's why those who claim to follow him at Westminster Cathedral were humble and gentle while the 'other' mob were calling for blood?

I think EVIDENCE which should persuade people is the dramatic contrast between the word and work of Jesus of Nazareth and any other alleged religious identity either before or since.

Porkycrap: << There is not the slightest hint..not even a whisper of sexual misconduct or self serving in his life or word.... "

Well actually, as Porky well knows, there is the business about the nature of Jesus' relationship with his "Beloved" John:

"Since the 16th century, some have interpreted the relationship between Jesus and John the Apostle, the Disciple whom Jesus loved as an erotic, homosexual romance"

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

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but I think Porky and the other fundies would regard the posssibility of Jesus having had an "erotic, homosexual romance" with John as constituting a "hint..[or] a whisper of sexual misconduct".

As far as Porky's atrocious English is concerned, as in other areas of intellectual endeavour he seeks to make a virtue of his ignorance - which is rather strange for someone who spends an inordinate of time trying to express himself by writing in the language..

Now I'm just trying to be helpful - it is a lovely sunny day and I extend my goodwill to all.

Polly,

"ineluctable" means inescapable.

"irrefutable" means cannot be disproved.

You can decipher the fine distinction between these two words, can't you? They are not necessarily interchangeable. If this distinction is lost upon you (and trolls are not noted for their intellect), then I politely suggest that your entire interpretation of the Old and New Testaments may be entirely erroneous.

Indeed your raison d'etre is at the very least based not only upon misinterpretation but upon a fallacy.

Capiche?

mjpb: "Finally what do people hope to achieve by saying that atheism has no hope or that there is absolutely no evidence that god exists and pretty good evidence he doesn't? Aren't such absolute assertions obviously problematic? If belief is so darn obviously one sided why are we having this discussion?"

I said the latter, but I defend it as relevant. The discussion is partly about what evidence a religious person would need to lose their belief. My argument is that religious people already believe without evidence, and that makes the question problematic. (And consequently, does make the discussion pretty silly.) I'm NOT arguing about the existence of any god(s) here, simply pointing out that religion is already belief without evidence.

mjpb: "Sorry if I'm being slow but surely belief that there is no God is a belief. If someone hadn't formed a firm belief on the issue wouldn't they be agnostic?"

No, it's an absence of belief. God isn't a presupposition. I am an atheist about the judeo-christian god for the same reason I'm an atheist about the gods of classical Rome or Shiva, or follow ancestor worship. I don't firmly believe they don't exist, I simply have no belief in them. If I had considered religion and wasn't sure if I believed or not, I'd be agnostic. As an atheist, I am simply absent of belief.

If it was somehow revealed to the entire world tomorrow that Muhammad really was the prophet, and the god of Islam was really the true god (can't quite imagine how this would be revealed, but just supposing), then we would all be Muslims whether we liked it or not. I would not like that god, just as I don't like the god of Christianity or Judaism, but I would believe in it.

So again, the other part of GW's question doesn't really work. If it could be demonstrated that god exist, then we would all believe.

For an atheist, a lack of belief in god is quite neutral. Evidence could challenge it at any time

cont...

My personal dislike of religion — all of them, not just Christianity — is entirely different. People like Polycarp and runner solidify it. On one hand, religion itself is irrelevant to the question. But on the other, our conceptions of god are mostly so rooted in religion that it's hard to separate them. One reason why I don't believe in god is because of the picture religion paints of him/she/it/them/whatever.

Polycarp's ramblings, for example, prove that Christianity, in particular, isn't evidential. (Which is fine, it doesn't have to be, it's religion.) It's not difficult to see that it's historically speculative, and that other religions would have holy book evidence for their god, and that Poly sees evidence because of his faith, not the other way round.

Speaking about Jesus,s promiscuous behavior, one could say he was a very happy man indeed. Some may say a little too happy, so in saying that, all homosexuals must be direct descendants from the man him self! and i think i read some where, "that god made man in the image of him self"

There you go! another great mystery solved.:)

Its true that Jesus had alot of love him and its funny that this seems to correlate with the heart feelings of gay people.

That would explain alot. smile

EVO

My my, Boaz, you are having a bitchy day, aren't you.

Personal attacks on one thread, snide remarks about my use of the English language on this one. Anyone who doesn't know you better might think you were bereft of cogent argument.

Oh, sorry.

Bereft: adj. (usu. bereft of) deprived of, without, minus, lacking in, devoid of, cut off from, parted from, sans (archaic) robbed of, empty of, denuded of.

Cogent: adj. Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing

Come to think of it, the arguments are rather thin, aren't they?

>>I repeat my assertion that the issue which divides the 2 camps is not the value or reliability of the evidence but a self chosen attitude in the case of those who reject it.<<

Why "those who reject?" Boaz. Surely, the point about evidence is that it intended to prove something. Those who accept the paucity of evidence available for the existence of "eye-witness accounts" of Jesus and his miracles are more likely to have a "self-chosen attitude"?

Sorry again.

Paucity: n. scarcity, dearth, a small and inadequate amount

>>I think EVIDENCE which should persuade people is the dramatic contrast between the word and work of Jesus of Nazareth and any other alleged religious identity either before or since.<<

Boaz, try to keep at least within a country mile of accepted logical constructs. That sentence is a nonsense in anybody's language.

veronika,
>> I don't firmly believe they don't exist, I simply have no belief in them. ... As an atheist, I am simply absent of belief. <<

I am not going to criticize your position because, frankly speaking I do not understand what you mean. For me the statement “I do not believe in Easter Bunnies“ is equivalent to “I believe Easter Bunnies do not exist”. What mjpb meat by the distinction was probably something that an agnostic philosopher expressed thus:

“(The agnostic) does not deny the possibility and occurrence of mystical experiences, and may even believe himself to be acquainted with such experiences. But he is incapable of believing unconditionally what he cannot organize conceptually. He does not reject as mere verbiage the mixture of factual statements, paradoxes and absurdities, by which religious doctrines point to an alleged supernatural reality which he does not apprehend. He does not deny that what cannot be perceived, imagined or brought under concepts may nevertheless exist. Nor is he necessarily stranger to the mood in which birth and dead, good and evil, and even the existence of whatever exists, appear a dark mystery. But ... he sees no reason for pretending that the religious doctrine of his neighbour or some other doctrine illuminates this darkness for him. He may be helped by metaphysical speculations of the great philosophers, undertake his own speculative journey ... but he will expect to bring back, at best, no more than a thought possibility and never an unconditionally acceptable truth.

The agnostic is not an atheist who unconditionally, uncritically and by an act of faith accepts the doctrine that reality is identical with what is accessible to ‘ordinary’ experience and theorizing. ... [Stephen Körner, Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, Penguin Books 1969; note that the philosopher does not use the ambiguous and rather subjective word evidence].

With these descriptions I can understand both an agnostic and an atheist, and I can see their points, but I cannot see yours. I can share neither the agnostic nor the atheist positions, although they help me to better understand my own world-view.

George: << For me the statement “I do not believe in Easter Bunnies“ is equivalent to “I believe Easter Bunnies do not exist”. >>

Sorry George, but this is classic sophistry. As you well know, the non-acceptance of a positive affirmation does not imply an acceptance of the negative. I thought you knew better.

I think that Veronika, like me and most other atheists, would be quite happy to "believe" in Easter Bunnies if sufficient empirical evidence was produce to warrant such a belief.

The same goes for Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, the Rainbow Serpent or whatever. Atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of belief.

CJ Morgan,
First of all, sophistry in my dictionary means "use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving". That is an accusation I would not use against Veronika, you or anybody else here.

Now to the point of your post. The question is not about acceptance or not of an affirmation: I have to accept if somebody says he/she thinks this or that, e.g. believes this or that affirmation (statement to be true), because it is by its very nature something only he/she can know. The problem is with the meaning of the phrase "believe in".

In case of the Easter Bunnies, you did not suggest what else would the statement "I don't believe in" mean: those who do not believe in them are not unsure about their existence, but are pretty sure they don‘t exist, without adding silly or imaginary events that might change their mind.

[In case when "believe in" stands for an expression of faith, like in the Nicene Creed the "I believe in God" does not simply mean a belief in His existence but faith; similarly when a politician says that he believes in Kevin Rudd, it is not just a belief in his existence].

I thought Veronika had the first meaning of "believe in" in mind, but then again I wasn‘t sure. Classically, the dispute was about the STATEMENT - not somebody‘s personal acceptance or lack of personal beliefs - “God exists”. Such a statement you can either AGREE with, i.e believe it to be true (for whatever reasons), DISAGREE with i.e. believe it not to be true (for whatever reasons) or say you DO NOT KNOW. No other possibility.

It used to be implicitly assumed what was meant by “God“ (the Christian model) and more or less what “exists” meant. Today, if somebody is not clear about what these terms mean in the context of a dispute - as I am often on this forum - one should be more careful in choosing the words to defend one’s own position. Otherwise one has to accept the simple logic of agree-disagree-don‘t know.

George, it's not nearly as complicated as your mental gymnastics make it. As an atheist, I remain willing to be convinced that "God" exists if empirical evidence can be presented that logically leads to that conclusion. I don't say there is no God, rather that such evidence as is usually cited for the existence of one is insufficient to convince me.

Exactly the same argument applies for Easter Bunnies. I would happily believe in their existence if I happened to catch one in the act of delivering Easter eggs to my kids. Until then, I'll have to continue to purchase them from the shop.

I meant no personal offence by describing your argument as sophistry - but that's what it is, in a particular form that is widely deployed by religionists who attempt to reduce atheism to a belief system equivalent to theirs. It's a dishonest argument, and I'm surprised that you would stoop to it.

And false gods proceed to cause division even after 2000 years of bloodshed and war against all our brothers and the evidence never stops. On this site is a perfect example of what religion causes and is nothing more than a time waster and these energies could of been put to a more productive use.(IMO)
This endless pursuit to obtain the knowledge of these false gods will consume mankind forever so I have come to the conclusion that I will not teach my children in any way shape or form, nor will I guide them in any direction regarding religion or any other type of misadventure.
(the natural world, a better learning)
Being uncontaminated is a freedom one may not understand and one could never obtain without the luck of birthright. The weight that religious people carry on their shoulders, no atheist ever has to bear that load, and the crystal clarity of an untarnished sole shines brighter and hovers free of chains and is spiritually free to wander the universe. (if this takes place)

What ever you believe in is really no-one else's business but your own and always remember, when you ask yourself a question, who are you asking? And this is just another little piece of evidence concerning voices in the head from primitive man and left to this frightening world to make sense of it all, and isn't it funny how we all act differently but think the same. I believe everything in the universe must be balanced, and anything causing chaos must be adjusted.
(population increases)
In my opinion, atheists have the right to exercise their views and opinions just like any other religions including Christianity. I see no reason why debates like these should be banned, I believe it's a very healthy thing for the mind, but should continue in a orderly fashion. Religion needs to be discussed for reasons that are beyond me, but once again, when religion becomes politicized the wheels of the world start falling off.

Emotions will always run high as the human-race discovers itself.
Sad but true story.

EVO

This is another stupid thread which has no real significance or meaning.

Anyones religous beliefs should be a matter of "faith".

To have "faith" requires no "proof".

In fact those who seek proof (like the evidence of "miracles" which the Church of Rome hankers after) demean their faith with any such attachment or expectation of "proof".

George,

Well, perhaps I'm something else then, because neither your quote from an agnostic nor Korner's description of an atheist apply to me.

In terms the universe, I think everything that happens is potentially explicable in scientific terms, although humans may never be sufficiently advanced to explain it. No act of faith is required to hold this position — the entire history of observable science leads us to believe this is true. It further fails to fit the definition of faith because it is always open to further discovery and debunking. It is highly conditional. Scrutiny and scepticism line the path to the truths about the universe.

In terms of god, I have no belief.

I don't know how to explain this more effectively — my fault, I know, but there it is. I appreciate that you don't see the distinction but it is perfectly clear to me.

A lot of effort is being expended by religious believers into trying to lecture atheists that not believing in the Easter Bunny is (apparently) not the same as not believing in god(s).

I bet the Easter Bunny is really pissed off...

The issue of evidence vs belief is an interesting one.

My experience is that many followers do think that there is evidence for important sections of their faiths teachings. There has been substantial work done around the "evidence" for the resurection of Jesus. Aspects of the faith can't be proven but the general idea is that if some bit's can be proven and are not suitably explained by other means then it makes the rest seem more likely.

The "evidence" is unlikely to convince someone who is not already wanting to believe but it does help settle qualms about believing without proof.

The story of doubting Thomas add's to this. I think that assumption that religious belief is without evidence misunderstands the position of many believers. The issue has to more to do with the credibility of the evidence and what is extrapolated from it.

I'm not trying to address the semantics of the word belief but rather my understanding of how the mix of evidence and belief works for some believers.

R0bert

CJ Morgan,
>> it's not nearly as complicated as your mental gymnastics make it <<
Don’t worry, “mental-gymnastics” is a standard reaction I get from those who cannot follow my arguments (e.g. when I use the insights from mathematics in philosophy of science debates). Nevertheless, let me continue hoping that some people reading this can follow:

I cannot put it simpler than I did with Easter Bunnies: “absence of belief in any deity“ must mean the same as “belief in the non-existence of any deity“. If you “don't say there is no God“, neither that there is one, that is a (respectable) agnostic position.

If we want to communicate across the religious/non-religious divide, we have to use the commonly accepted meanings of basic terms. For instance,

Merriam Webster:
atheist=one who believes that there is no deity; atheism=(a) disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity (b) the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity; agnostic=a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Oxford Companion to Philosophy:
“Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God ... much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist. Agnosticism may be strictly personal ‘I have no firm belief about God’...” etc.

You might believe that Party A will win the next elections, and change it into a knowledge after the election, because of the falsifiability of you original belief. However, saying that you will believe in the existence of a reality (deity, God, etc.) that is beyond the reach of your senses (instruments, scientific theories) when it becomes accessible by your senses (or science) is like saying that you will understand Chinese when it will use English words and grammar: that language won’t be Chinese any more, and whatever you see (directly or through instruments) won’t be a “deity“ any more.

In case of languages you can use an interpreter, in case of the “deity“ you have various religions, but that is a different story.

Veronika,
Your second paragraph is a clear description of a position I can also share, and so should any educated person. It is compatible with (i) an additional belief in Something that science cannot tackle, or with (ii) an additional disbelief in such extra Something, or with (iii) no commitment to such a belief or disbelief. These would be the theist, atheist and agnostic positions respectively (please see the dictionary quotes in my previous post).

I read your “in terms of god, I have no belief” as a an absence of commitment one way or another, i.e. as an agnostic position. Körner’s description is that of a philosopher who wants to show that he is uncommitted, while knowing what he is talking about (as he should, being a philosopher). Maybe you do not think his description applies to you because you are not that philosophically sophisticated, I don’t know. There are things I am agnostic, uncommitted about, because I am not sufficiently informed, and others where I just do not care about the alternatives. Both are legitimate agnostic positions, but not for a professional philosopher when talking about philosophies, where he should understand what he is agnostic about.

I do not see any ambiguity here, only in terminology used by some. There are theists who are tolerant of other positions (religious or not) and also those who are not, who attack other world-views. And there are atheists who are tolerant of other positions, and those who are not, who attack religious world-views. This is regrettably so.

The confusion arises when somebody claiming not to have any beliefs (in deities, God) attacks those who are committed one way or another. If I am uncommitted about something I cannot attack those who are committed one way or another because that would contradict my being uncommitted. It is a different matter if I object to the FORM (quoting to unbelievers from sacred texts, hijacking the terms proof, evidence, righteousness, meaningful life etc. ) in which somebody proclaims his/her commitment.

My my, George, what a patronizing son-of-a-gun you are!

First you pat CJ on the head...

>>Don’t worry, “mental-gymnastics” is a standard reaction I get from those who cannot follow my arguments<<

after which you congratulate Veronika for

>>a clear description of a position I can also share, and so should any educated person<<

But you have made it crystal clear for me why you need to convince atheists that they are in fact not atheists at all, merely agnostics.

>>If I am uncommitted about something I cannot attack those who are committed one way or another because that would contradict my being uncommitted.<<

In short, you are saying "agnostics have no right to join the discussion".

Which is a little presumptuous, don't you think?

The decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the adoption of a belief, but the rejection of one single concept, that "there has to be a God".

To argue that the act of rejecting a preposterous and patently self-serving concept constitutes the creation of a belief system, is to subvert the terminology.

The sleight-of-hand that you, and many others, adopt, is to play around the borders of belief, and belief system.

Belief, of course, can be used in the straightforward "I do not believe in a God". But that does not in any sense qualify it to become a belief system, together with a unified set of rules, guidelines and penalties for non-conformance.

The atheists of my acquaintance share a diversity of views on the human condition that could never, ever be packaged into a "belief system".

But we can certainly agree on one point.

>>It is a different matter if I object to the FORM (quoting to unbelievers from sacred texts, hijacking the terms proof, evidence, righteousness, meaningful life etc.) in which somebody proclaims his/her commitment.<<

Amen, brother.

George: << Don’t worry, “mental-gymnastics” is a standard reaction I get from those who cannot follow my arguments >>

Oh, I follow your arguments all right - I just don't swallow them. I defined explicitly for you the nature of my atheism, which is very similar to that described by Pericles.

If you can't follow that, then we're just talking past each other.

Pericles, in quoting selections of George's ridiculous condescension, you forgot:

"Maybe you do not think his description applies to you because you are not that philosophically sophisticated, I don't know."

Actually I'm an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University.

Well I'm not really. But I could be if I wanted to.

George,

What Pericles said. Get your head around it.

Pericles,

"My my, George, what a patronizing son-of-a-gun you are!"

He seems to be in congenial company.

"But you have made it crystal clear for me why you need to convince atheists that they are in fact not atheists at all, merely agnostics."

Can you please reassure me that your comment isn't disingenous? George appears to have only got there by clarifying the comments of other people after quizzing their claim that belief is not belief. Helping people to articulate what they mean doesn't equate to trying to convince people they are what they aren't. An agnostic is not an atheist.

"The decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the adoption of a belief, but the rejection of one single concept, that "there has to be a God"."

Can you explain further?

"To argue that the act of rejecting a preposterous and patently self-serving concept constitutes the creation of a belief system, is to subvert the terminology."

Has it got that far? Either you have substituted "belief system" for "belief" or I have missed something. There may or may not be a belief system involved but your post is the first time I have noticed it discussed.

"The sleight-of-hand that you, and many others, adopt, is to play around the borders of belief, and belief system.

Belief, of course, can be used in the straightforward "I do not believe in a God". But that does not in any sense qualify it to become a belief system, together with a unified set of rules, guidelines and penalties for non-conformance.

The atheists of my acquaintance share a diversity of views on the human condition that could never, ever be packaged into a "belief system"."

So are you saying that anyone who claims to believe in God must share a uniformity of views and abide by a unified set of rules, and guidelines and accept penalties for non-conformance? I await your clarification but you seem to be unsuccessfully attempting to argue that a spade isn't a spade.

CONT.

Poly adduced the issue of witness testimony. You claimed there was none. He raised the issue of Paul. You dismissed that as "imagined evidence" and when pressed claimed that we all know Paul only halucinated and didn't meet Jesus. I'm sorry but I don't buy the innuendo that Paul's evidence can be dismissed so easily. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Paul writing about 35AD claims that Jesus appeared to him after he appeared to more than 500 people many of whom were still alive and after appearing to all the other Apostles. However you want to consider Paul's experience on the road to Damascus the credibility of his claim goes beyond it. He virtually says "If you don't believe me or the other apostles there are about 500 other people who you can ask".

On the specific issue of whether his experience was meeting Jesus or imagined, Paul admits in Galatians 1:16-20 that he reflected upon his experience for some time then sought out Apostles to compare notes. Only after doing so satisfactorily he committed his life to Jesus. His response seems quite lucid and credible and he compared notes with Apostles before acting on what could have been a hallucination. Is it normal for someone hallucinating to compare notes with people in a position to compare notes and discover they had the same experience?

mjbp, thanks for joining the cheer squad.

>>Can you please reassure me that your comment isn't disingenous?<<

I can assure you that it is not.

>>There may or may not be a belief system involved but your post is the first time I have noticed it discussed.<<

That was precisely my point, as I explained in the next sentence. Which you quoted, so you must have noticed.

"The sleight-of-hand that you, and many others, adopt, is to play around the borders of belief, and belief system.

>>So are you saying that anyone who claims to believe in God must share a uniformity of views and abide by a unified set of rules, and guidelines and accept penalties for non-conformance?<<

Yes. Although, as we know, there are as many sets of rules as there are religions. But they all perforce have their own codes and rituals, which stem wholly and solely from the fact that they believe in a deity.

And my point about Paul was that he was not an eye-witness, as had been stated by Boaz. Given that his claim was "in a 'LEGAL' sense.. based on the evidence of eye witnesses", I was merely pointing out that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in a courtroom.

The Bible is compromised as a historical source because it's a document of faith. Of course the Bible says that Jesus really performed miracles! Have you got a source from a secular scholar? Sorry to answer that question myself by quoting Wikipedia, but I am: "There are also secular references to the life of Jesus, although they are few and quite late. Almost all historical critics agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans possibly for insurrection."

I certainly accept that. That the Bible constitutes evidence that a. God exists and b. Christ was his son I do not accept. Not because it's not in my "belief system" or whatever you would have us call it, but because it is simply doesn't constitute proof.

On George: "Helping people to articulate what they mean doesn't equate to trying to convince people they are what they aren't."
If you're referring to me, George is not helping me to "articulate what I believe". He didn't understand what I believe, and he attempted to reframe it in such a way as seems to suit him. If, as he claims, he is more philosophically sophisticated and intelligent than other posters, then why can't he understand my position? I may not have explained it well, but Pericles did, and I wouldn't have thought it was hugely difficult to understand.

Pericles: "The decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the adoption of a belief, but the rejection of one single concept, that "there has to be a God"."

mjpb: "Can you explain further?"

I think the onus is now on you to articulate what you don't understand. It is already plainly put

cont...

mjpb: "Either you have substituted "belief system" for "belief" or I have missed something. There may or may not be a belief system involved but your post is the first time I have noticed it discussed."

The origin of this particular debate was your query about Fractelle's view that there could be no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist". A fundamentalist of whatever stripe does indeed have a belief system with "a unified set of rules, guidelines and penalties for non-conformance".

Much earlier in this discussion, George said, "Some - I would like to hope that most - people participate in these discussions because they want to broaden their perspective, enrich their world-view by trying to understand the other side's arguments and motivations."

Neither you nor George appear to be trying to understand the other side's argument. It seems to me your assembling semantic road blocks, rather than looking to the heart of what "a lack of belief" might mean. It is not a difficult concept, it's a simple one.

I have to disagree with the idea:

"RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BELIEVE WITHOUT EVIDENCE"

No no no...hardly.

The issue is:

What "kind" of evidence. (Legal or scientific)
and
How strong is it? (balance of probabilities)

If I could not trace the traditions of many new testament documents right back to the original author's..I'd have some fairly serious misgivings about their genuineness.

The existence of 'critical debate' about various letters, Gospels and works like Acts does nothing to diminish their value or truth, but it might sway a gullible or shallow minded person who is unable to identify the presuppositions at work in the minds of the critics.

There is amazing "evidence" just from the internal contents of the New and Old testaments themselves. Mainly found in the cross linking and comparison of important parts.

The ORDER of events though, is not usually

1/ Here is the evidence for the reliability of Scripture.. now
2/ Would you like to hear the Gospel?

Nope..its the reverse. Christ came and died to save sinners and rose to show his words were true...that's the "Gospel"..and it will take root in every heart prepared by God at the right time.

This could (but may not) include Pericles, Fractelle,Veronika, CJ, Bugsy, Stg and even my mate COL :) *SMILE*

FAITH..comes through hearing.. and hearing by the Word of God.

And that pretty much sums up the Boaz theological method: the evidence doesn't support my beliefs but I'm really attached to them, so the evidence must be unreliable

Robert,

Although I have a different opinion to that of your conclusions on the topic I agree that:

“I think that assumption that religious belief is without evidence misunderstands the position of many believers. The issue has to more to do with the credibility of the evidence and what is extrapolated from it.”

It almost seems that religious who dismiss atheists opinions out of hand and atheists who make assertions like that lack some type of confidence.

Pericles,

>>So are you saying that anyone who claims to believe in God must share a uniformity of views and abide by a unified set of rules, and guidelines and accept penalties for non-conformance?<<

”Yes. Although, as we know, there are as many sets of rules as there are religions. But they all perforce have their own codes and rituals, which stem wholly and solely from the fact that they believe in a deity.”

My experience has been completely different. At the other end of the theist range there are also theists who reject all formal religion. I don’t suppose you would take my word for it?

”And my point about Paul was that he was not an eye-witness, as had been stated by Boaz. Given that his claim was "in a 'LEGAL' sense.. based on the evidence of eye witnesses", I was merely pointing out that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in a courtroom.”

And my point is that he claimed to be a witness, there is good reason to think he believed that he was a witness (going on the line about 500 odd witnesses not long after Jesus’ death), and there are some anomalies associated with the suggestion he wasn’t (that he confirmed the details of a hallucination by querying apostles who also claimed to have seen risen Jesus). He says he spoke with Jesus. Certainly his experience had a supernatural appearance which you assume to be a hallucination if you are unwilling to accept the possibility of supernatural but he was a witness to someone returning from the dead not a traffic accident.

Veronika,

“The Bible is compromised as a historical source because it's a document of faith.”

Why? I’m sure many recorders of history had biases.

“ Have you got a source from a secular scholar?”

I have heard of some forming that conclusion but naturally they convert.

On George: "Helping people to articulate what they mean doesn't equate to trying to convince people they are what they aren't."
”If you're referring to me, George is not helping me to "articulate what I believe".”

Okay perhaps trying to help you articulate it might have worked better. I was responding to Pericles suggestion that George needs to convince atheists they were agnostic when he plainly had a different reason for joining the relevant discussion.

Pericles: "The decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the adoption of a belief, but the rejection of one single concept, that "there has to be a God"."

mjpb: "Can you explain further?"

”I think the onus is now on you to articulate what you don't understand. It is already plainly put”

Okay surely to be an atheist you must believe that there is no God. This involves rejecting a concept but I can’t understand how that fact explains why they have no belief on the subject.

I don't understand:

The NT has a woman impregnated by a ghost (like the Leda or other mortals impregnated by Zeus in one form or another) The protagonist of this epic walked on water, turns water into wine, gives sight to the blind, raises the dead (after 3 days in the tomb), feeds 5000 then 4000 people with just a few fish and loaves, heals lepers, releases demon posessed people (currently they would be classed as insane) and heals paralyzed people. He then dies and is resurrected (like Mithra and other pagan Gods).

Why should anybody believe such fairy tales? The Bible is no more credible than the supermarket scandal sheets. This nonsense is presided over by a supposedly loving God who subjects his son to great torment.

In the Jewish Bible he wipes out almost all life on earth by a great flood. You want to believe in such a sadistic nogoodnik?

1/ The path too enlightenment is not seen through the eyes of a god. IMO. David.f. its a little harsh with the word insane. I would put it as, the best they had at the time. A stepping stone, the beginning, a starting place, lolly words, awakenings, order from chaos, the first law and order, a grounding tool and so on. Through-out evolution, this belief system comes from the oldest part of the brain and to understand how that part works you must look in, not up.

2/ You must be at peace with all living things. I'll stop there! I was going to give you three pages, but one day at a time will do it.
The universe only goes at one speed, find that pace, and you will find you.
There are no words to describe or define.

EVO

One of the fun aspects of arguments like this one is the longer it goes on, the greater the Alice factor - that is, the closer the narrative gets to approximate "Alice Through the Looking Glass."

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

Boaz, you can go first if you like.

>>There is amazing "evidence" just from the internal contents of the New and Old testaments themselves. Mainly found in the cross linking and comparison of important parts.<<

I appreciate that you use parentheses for the word "evidence". It could just as easily support my position, that the documents concerned were simply advertising material for a new religion... "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (W.S. Gilbert)

And mjbp.

>>My experience has been completely different. At the other end of the theist range there are also theists who reject all formal religion. I don’t suppose you would take my word for it?<<

In short, nope.

What does "a theist who rejects all formal religion" believe that his God wants of him? There would on the face of it seem little point in actually taking the trouble to believe in a God unless a set of rules came along with it. Surely?

>>And my point is that he claimed to be a witness... He says he spoke with Jesus<<

But the fact is, there is no corroborating evidence that he did anything of the sort. So if he lied about that, what else did he invent?

>>there is good reason to think he believed that he was a witness<<

That wouldn't stand up in court either, would it?

"I'm an eye-witness, yer honour"

"Were you there?"

"Er, not exactly. But it was a pretty realistic dream. You know, the one where you think you're falling, and you wake up..."

I think not.

The "balance of probabilities" that Boaz loves to claim starts to resemble Geelong's third quarter: heaps of activity, no action.

Me: "The Bible is compromised as a historical source because it's a document of faith."

mjpb: "Why? I'm sure many recorders of history had biases."

I'm sure they did, but the Bible is more than biased. It's a book of faith, a book that's intended to convert and persuade. I understand that you don't agree and respect your position, but surely you realise that I'm not the only one who rejects it as a credible historical document in terms of proving Christ was really the son of god?

mjpb,

I fear we're just deadlocked.

You ask: "Okay surely to be an atheist you must believe that there is no God. This involves rejecting a concept but I can't understand how that fact explains why they have no belief on the subject."

I can only explain in the way I already have, which you have already pointed out several times you don't accept. It doesn't involve rejecting a concept because I didn't presuppose the concept in the first place. It's a subtle but I think simple point. I genuinely apologise for not being able to articulate it well enough for you to understand. For what it's worth, I have had the same conversation with people who have religious faith and they have understood.

This conversation has been profoundly depressing. I hope you won't give up trying to understand what we're trying to say.

Back to Tweedledee.

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

mjbp asks.

>>Okay surely to be an atheist you must believe that there is no God. This involves rejecting a concept but I can’t understand how that fact explains why they have no belief on the subject.<<

Let's take this back to first principles, it may help.

You and I meet. Neither of us has ever heard of God, or religion. We drink beer, we talk of the footy. How come Mooney missed that sitter right on half time, talk about lose it...

Next day, we meet again. You tell me this fantastic story about what happened two thousand years ago, and how it proves there is a God, and it has all changed your life and you won't barrack for Collingwood any more, it's that important...

I say, "mjbp old chap, I don't believe you".

And no matter how many people come up to me and tell me the same stuff, with absolutely no evidence to support their theory, I do not see any reason to shift my position.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe any of the stories that I am told.

I have rejected the concept.

But - guess what? I haven't changed anything, I haven't changed my mind, I haven't adopted a new philosophy, I haven't taken on board any new beliefs.

I haven't become a serial killer, I haven't joined NAMBLA (that's Boaz's favourite, by the way), I haven't become any less tolerant of fools, I haven't become more prone to vice or disease, I do not feel any different, or think any differently, from before you let me in on your little secret.

Does that make it any clearer?

Just a nice, clean uncomplicated non-belief in what you tell me.

I must be really have a thorough understanding of this ‘atheist fundamentalist’ thing because I don’t get it.

I don’t get the idea that ‘atheism is a belief’ and the more I think about it the more confusing it becomes.

Are George et al using the same logic as saying that someone who does not have a hobby -such as collecting stamps- really DOES have a hobby- which is, in fact, having no hobby?
Non-hobbyists collect nothing, and since nothing is something, they are collectors, too.

If you believe in non-hobbysits clap your hands. Clap your hands if you believe in non-hobbyists!

Hey, perhaps all the non-hobbyists could join a no-hobby club and be non-fanatic about it, which is the same as being fanatic about nothing.
Woohooo, we are all fundamental believers and/or fanatic about our non-collections!

Pericles,
I would never open a post to you with a “my my, Pericles, what a patronizing son-of-a-gun you are!“ because I try to be polite to everybody, especially those I do not know personally. Maybe I am too old.

For the same reasons I do not call “mental gymnastics“ attempts to explain something to me that I did not like or could not follow, though as mentioned, I know CJ Morgan is not the only one who does.

Also, I do not think I should have to apologise to anybody for finding Veronika’s exposition of her views clear and acceptable, although now I see that I should apologise to her for my “ridiculous condescension”, as unintentional as it was, when referring to her “philosophical sophistication“.

So, Veronika,
please accept my apologies. I did not “attempt to reframe (your position)... to suit me“. I just tried to understand why you could not share Körner‘s non-confrontational piece of philosophy.

>>looking to the heart of what "a lack of belief" might mean.<<
I think I finally got what caused these misunderstandings. I did not keep in mind that “belief” can mean not only (i) “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists”, but also (ii) a religious conviction (faith). Your “lack of belief“ apparently refers to the second meaning, and obviously an areligious person cannot have religious convictions, so there is no ambiguity. Note however, that the standard definitions of atheist and agnostic do not refer to FAITH but to (i), i.e. the acceptance or rejection of a STATEMENT (that “God exists” or something similar). One can accept this statement - or any statement for that matter- as true, or reject it (i.e. accept its logical opposite as true) or remain undecided, uncommitted for whatever reasons (e.g. for those mentioned by Körner; because one doesn’t care; because the concepts involved weren’t clearly defined, etc.).

Pericles,
I certainly never wanted “to convince atheists that they are ... merely agnostics“. Only you can decide whether you are an atheist or an agnostic or what, except that if you want to be understood by an outsider you should keep to the meaning of these words as defined in standard dictionaries (I quoted Merriam Webster, but please read my post to Veronika about the two meanings of belief.).

>>In short, you are saying "agnostics have no right to join the discussion"<<
No, to attack those of different opinions is not the same as join the discussion, but I agree that the term attack is here ambiguous and I should not have used it at all. It is just that mostly not agnostics but atheists (as well as some theists, of course) in defining (and defending) their position sometimes ridicule, denigrate, patronise etc. alternative positions and world-views associated with them.

Most of what I wanted to say was already said by mjpb or in my last reply to Veronika. So just let me assure you that nobody I know ever claimed that atheism was a belief SYSTEM. It is a rejection of one simple belief; a disbelief which is compatible with many different world-views.

For the rest of your post, if you strip your sentences of the emotional “embellishments“, and rephrase them keeping in mind the standard definitions - please accept that I did not invent them myself - of atheism, atheist, you will find that we both understand the same thing under these terms.

Sancho says "Why should anybody believe such fairy tales?"

and..I rather understand that position.

But Sancho...the reason people believe is due to a work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, minds and wills, not the apparent credibility of the story it is based on.

Your position is echo'd in the following example from Acts. I hope you take the trouble to read it.

Acts 17:16-34

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=17&version=31

Here we have the presentation of the Gospel and various responses to it.

1/ The Mocking Philosopher

18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?"

2/ The Enquiring Mind:

"May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean."

3/ The Interested Heart:

32When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, said "We want to hear you again on this subject."

4/ The Convinced Believer:

34A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

A FITTING CONCLUSION to this post would be a reminder of the core of Pauls preaching:

31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

So... we must each ask our own hearts if we are ready for that day.
Paul was living proof of the transforming power of the resurrected Jesus, but not all believed him...will you?

Polycarp wrote:

"But Sancho...the reason people believe is due to a work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, minds and wills, not the apparent credibility of the story it is based on."

I think the above says it. One does not believe because the matter is credible. One believes because one wants to believe. The Holy Spirit can work with equal effect in the hearts of a proponents of any of the non-Christian religions. They can also say they believe because it is in their heart to believe.

Usually the heart of a religious believer is in the body of one whose parents wee also religious believers in the same religion. I doubt that Polycarp grew up in Saudi Arabia born of Muslim parents.

I was in Morocco talking with a local taxi driver. He told me that he was lucky to be born a Muslim so he was not going to hell like those who did not believe in Islam.

This thread is just hilarious, the resolutely religious telling atheists what atheism is.... on other threads there are an equally resolute bunch of males telling feminists what feminism is.

Pericles why don't you just tell George et al what being religious is; you know, for a little balance.

In levels of sophistry however, the religious are far more adept than the angry men's club on the gender war threads. So kudos religious people.

Human beings are so funny.

I do think I have found a picture of god:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/12/18/Joker460.jpg

Pericles,

“What does "a theist who rejects all formal religion" believe that his God wants of him? There would on the face of it seem little point in actually taking the trouble to believe in a God unless a set of rules came along with it. Surely?”

You should argue it with them. At risk of not doing them justice I believe that they would say that they believe that there must be a God but can’t imagine that he would be so petty as to worry about a bunch of rules that you tend to get with formal religion.

>>And my point is that he claimed to be a witness... He says he spoke with Jesus<<

”But the fact is, there is no corroborating evidence that he did anything of the sort. So if he lied about that, what else did he invent?”

The lack of corroborating evidence doesn’t result in an inescapable conclusion that the witness is lying. As I have pointed out he appeared to be quite candid.

“>>there is good reason to think he believed that he was a witness<<

That wouldn't stand up in court either, would it?”

It is hard to imagine it being in court.

But if it was I don’t know. It seems to make sense that a witness experiencing a supernatural experience might be acceptable for a decision on a supernatural matter.

“"Er, not exactly. But it was a pretty realistic dream. You know, the one where you think you're falling, and you wake up..."”

He didn’t claim it was a dream. Some dream! Surely dreams don’t normally blind you afterward.

”Let's take this back to first principles, it may help.”

So you have been on the planet Mars and you don’t believe my story. If you never give it another thought that would be it and you may never hear the word “atheist” and may never decide to have the “atheist” belief. However if you aren’t on Mars and do claim to be an atheist surely you believe there is no God.

CONT (possibly after delay due to post numbers)

(possibly not)

”I haven't become a serial killer, I haven't joined NAMBLA (that's Boaz's favourite, by the way), I haven't become any less tolerant of fools, I haven't become more prone to vice or disease, I do not feel any different, or think any differently, from before you let me in on your little secret.”

You must know that most atheists would share those characteristics and not all religious (including some many would label fundies) are wonderful people, avoiding all sin, being intolerant, or having God cure them from vice or disease.

Veronika,

“I'm sure they did, but the Bible is more than biased. It's a book of faith, a book that's intended to convert and persuade.”

Actually it is a collection of early Christian writings. Some of them were books on the life of Christ. Others were letters sent to fellow Christians. Personally I’d consider them intended to teach rather than convert because parts at least were aimed at people who had already converted.

“I understand that you don't agree and respect your position, but surely you realise that I'm not the only one who rejects it as a credible historical document in terms of proving Christ was really the son of god?”

Ditto and yes.

Celivia,

I like your hobby illustration and it is a nice change from hobbits. It illustrates the difference between Pericles martian experience and atheists. Naturally a club isn’t necessary to have a belief just a belief.

So guys, if there was no need to avoid the term “atheist fundamentalist”, over a few drinks together would you admit that atheism is a belief that there is no God?

mjbp, I tried hard, I really did.

Unfortunately, I didn't understand a single point that you were trying to make in that last pair of posts of yours.

But please, don't worry.

It is not your fault, it is just me.

(That's the famous "I'm breaking up with you" line, in case you didn't recognize it.)

George: So, Veronika, please accept my apologies."

No problem. Thank you for extending them. I hope you can see *why* you came across as condescending. I usually find the very act of feeling superior to someone else is confirmation that I am in fact the very opposite.

George: "I think I finally got what caused these misunderstandings. I did not keep in mind that "belief" can mean not only (i) "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists", but also (ii) a religious conviction (faith). Your "lack of belief" apparently refers to the second meaning..."

No. No no no no no no. It refers to the first meaning.

As with mjpb, I think we're in a deadlock. I can't express it any better and I can't say the same thing over and over again. I urge you to reflect on it rather than continue to try to reframe it. As CJ said earlier, it's not as complicated as you're making it out to be.

Mjpb: "So guys, if there was no need to avoid the term "atheist fundamentalist", over a few drinks together would you admit that atheism is a belief that there is no God?"

You make it sound like this is a semantic game that's going to end in some "okay, you got me!" bonhomie. It's not, as least not on my behalf — I was genuinely trying to explain what atheism means, because I find it genuinely distressing that you cannot understand. I have spend decades being interested in faith, and I know I understand it, whereas you guys (and I know this is going to sound bad, so apologies in advance) seem to have constructed an intellectual roadblock in front of a fairly simple piece of reasoning.

If you interest is genuine, then perhaps reflect on it, read more, and talk to others more articulate than I.

George and mjpb,

I was just looking in the sceptics dictionary (for work, not OLO reasons), and looked up their definition of atheist. It may help you to understand: http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html

You won't agree with it, of course, but it's written plainly and may help you comprehend what we've been on about.

Veronika,
>>No. No no no no no no. It refers to the first meaning.<<
Good! This is what I wanted to hear from you, because we are now back on the rational level of the argument (it is hard to keep to this level with somebody who vehemently defends or attacks “religious convictions”). We started with a simple statement “God exists” considered in the dictionaries that can give only one-sentence definitions of terms we were discussing.

If I was asked in a public-opinion poll to tick (a) I believe in God; (b) I do not; (c) none of the above, I would tick (a) - you probably (c) or would not answer - because I know that the evaluator would count the number of (a) and (b) ticks to conclude what percentage of theist and atheist respectively there are in the population (and might speculate about what (c) ticks could mean). ON THIS LEVEL we two would disagree and I would agree with e.g. Polycarp.

However, I thought discussions here are on a more sophisticated level, although if one goes too far in the direction towards “sophistication” one runs into the danger of being accused of condescension (see my unfortunate remark I apologised to you for, or the last two paragraphs about mjbp in your post containing the “no no no no no”).

Thank you for the reference to Skeptic’s Dictionary, explaining the meaning of atheism, though without a simple definition. It takes many more than one sentence, which was my point when referring to standard dictionaries that are bound to give brief definitions. This is more or less what I understand under atheism, though I do not remember whether I read this piece before. I could try to describe my own “theist” position on the same level, but certainly not in 350 words. (ctd)

(ctd) I have read only the first few pages, but I intend to read the lot. At least where they explain what atheism is, they do not mix it with an emotionally loaded (and often offensive to others) defense as some contributors to OLO do, though, of course, the article is not only a description of, but also an argument for, atheism, which is their good right.

Because of all the ramifications explained also in the article, I chose Oxford Companion to Philosophy‘s definition that starts with: “Atheism is OSTENSIBLY the doctrine that there is no God“ (c.f. my earlier post to CJ Morgan). For the same reasons I stated - in one of my posts to you - the alternatives as “an additional belief or disbelief in Something that science cannot tackle”, i.e. is outside the reach of our senses, instruments and scientific theories. This is how I interpreted e.g. Carl Sagan’s much quoted belief (or disbelief): "The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be." I can certainly better understand philosophising scientists (even those I disagree with) than philosophers (notably post-modernists) making remarks about what science is about.

So if you also subscribe to this long description of atheism then we have different positions in the theist-atheist debate, but are on the same level or wavelength, and should understand each other.

And that is the point of this exercise. I have always voted for the same political party in Australia, and have always wished they would win. However, I would not like the other party to fade into oblivion giving Australia a de facto one party system: both parties are needed for a healthy (democratic) society. I believe that something similar is true about the theist-atheist debate for the (intellectual at least) health of our society. See also Jürgen Habermas on a “post-secular society” that I quoted before (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html).

George: "However, I thought discussions here are on a more sophisticated level, although if one goes too far in the direction towards "sophistication" one runs into the danger of being accused of condescension."

Not at all. One runs into the danger of being accused of condescension if one is condescending.

I'm can't quite determine if your latest posts serve to continue the discussion or finalise it. Either way, I'm done, but thank you very much for an interesting conversation.

Fascinating. I've been to the coast for a few days and return to find this pointless discussion still going around in circles - or rather, down the gurgler, as the religious sophists use a lot of words to say "la la la, I can't hear you" to those of us who don't believe in God/s.

Incidentally, George - I stated quite clearly that I understand your convoluted arguments, but that I'm not persuaded by them. I don't believe in God or Easter Bunnies, but that's not the same as actively believing that neither God nor Easter Bunnies exist. In fact, I never think about either unless I read silly but amusing OLO discussions.

And where would a display of Christian sophistry on OLO be without the contribution of mjpb, who is as prolifically obtuse as ever. Pericles was wise to end it quickly...

As for Porky: << the reason people believe is due to a work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, minds and wills, not the apparent credibility of the story it is based on >>

I agree that this is a classic exposition of the fundamentalist epistemology. Forget the evidence - believe in fantasies and hallucinations instead. George, mjpb et al would do well to emulate the clarity and simplicity of Porky's distillation of what is, ultimately, their own position with respect to the Christian God.

Nice one, Veronika. I think I'm technically a "polyatheist", although I think I'd rather not be called a polyanything.

Veronika,

>> One runs into the danger of being accused of condescension if one is condescending. <<

Like “I have spend decades being interested in faith, and I know I understand it, whereas you guys (and I know this is going to sound bad, so apologies in advance) seem to have constructed an intellectual roadblock in front of a fairly simple piece of reasoning. “ ?

Condescension or not - mine was about philosophy, yours about faith, but never mind - we have agreed more or less on what atheism means, and I certainly do not want to start another argument about what condescension and sophisticated discussion mean.

Nevertheless, I would also like to thank you very much for an interesting conversation that among other things helped me to formulate my own ideas more carefully.

CJ Morgan,
I do not remember offering you any arguments, convoluted or not, in favour of this or that belief, disbelief, world-view or philosophy: I was just trying to clarify the meaning of “believe in”, and related terms, as they are defined in standard dictionaries, and as used e.g. in the article referred to by Veronika. The fact that you still do not seem to see the difference is indeed a strong argument against continuing this debate. I just hope there are others here who understand that difference.

"CJ Morgan,
I do not remember offering you any arguments, convoluted or not, in favour of this or that belief, disbelief, world-view or philosophy: I was just trying to clarify the meaning of “believe in”, and related terms, as they are defined in standard dictionaries, and as used e.g. in the article referred to by Veronika..."

George,

CJ just likes to throw around things like that when he can't argue his point. Don't take it to heart. To him, if an atheist argument struggles it is because Christians are just too clever, use too convuluted expression or stoop to sophistry so there is no point evaluating the Christian comments on their merits. You get used to it. When you consider that not everyone who reads the thread contributes and not all who read but don't contribute fall for his tactic your typing isn't wasted.

Veronika,

The discussion probably might as well dry up on that but how about the key point of the thread and the issue of the evidence of scriptures that was raised by Poly. At risk of Pericles thinking I'm trying an new angle to come back after he dumped me I'd like to pursue that further.

From one possible doctrinal approach the Bible is dismissed because it is accused of being written to convert people. However IMHO I invite people who are open to it to consider the value of the Bible as historical in a more thorough manner. The issue arose in the context of Jesus so I'm currently considering the New Testament.

I take on board the potential bias but note it is in the context of a religion which values honesty. Other considerations are the genuineness, veracity, integrity, and confirmation by research. My contention is that the New Testament stacks up well if fairly considered.

<< To him...there is no point evaluating the Christian comments on their merits. >>

Before you talk about merit, keep in mind that your entire argument relies on the premise that a patchwork of middle-eastern stories written over hundreds of years is a reliable account of the actions of God himself, who did a whole bunch of damning and destroying, blessing peoples, giving commandments, raising his own avatar from the dead, and then removed Himself from the scene entirely, apparently happy to allow billions of people to conclude that He doesn't exist.

No matter how considered or exquisite your statements, you simply can't philosophise your way out of the fact that your religion is literally incredible, which makes it impossible to mount a persuasive argument.

Sancho,

I agree that it is incredible to the extent that it is amazing or astonishing but not to the extent it is implausible.

Changes in the gravitational force or electromagnetic force by one part in 10 to the 40th power reputedly would preclude the existence of our sun thus making life impossible. A decrease or increase in the speed of the expansion of the universe by one part in a million million when the universe was 10 to the 19th power degrees would have resulted in the universe collapsing or prevented galaxies from condensing.

That the universe could have ended up so fine tuned for life is quite incredible but there is abundant evidence to believe that life exists. I believe we need to consider things objectively not just go with a subjective first impression.

" I believe we need to consider things objectively not just go with a subjective first impression."

This made me LOL.

<< it is incredible to the extent that it is amazing or astonishing but not to the extent it is implausible.>>

But that's simply an argument in favour of anything unlikely, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Last Thursdayism. But you're not arguing in favour of an undefined "something"; you're arguing in favour of belief in the Christian bible, which is very specific and, yes, implausible.

<< That the universe could have ended up so fine tuned for life.. >>

The late Douglas Adams wrote about that sort of reasoning: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, `This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

Humans are products of the universe we evolved in; the universe was not created to suit humans.

mjpb,

Thanks for your support. We are both Christians and our world-views are apparently not that much apart. However, that was not the point here. If we want to communicate with “unbelievers” we need to find a common ground, which includes a common understanding of the terms used. That is what my entry into this discussion was all about, not “evidence” or lack of it for this or that. As I pointed out before, one should not hijack evidence to support one’s starting point.

I can assure you, there is plenty of evidence for the statement “The k-th homotopy group and the k-th homology group of any (n-1)-connected topological space are isomorphic for all k&#8804;n.“ (Hurewicz Theorem); all those who did some postgraduate maths will agree, others will not understand. The difference to statements somehow related to religion is that in mathematics incomprehension does not lead to emotional reactions. But also a hapless student of math could react emotionally, if you force maths on him, if you want him to “see” what he cannot “see”.

There is no point in talking to a blind man about the difference between red and green, except that you teach him some physics and explain the difference in the wavelengths. But even then, you will never be able to make him grasp the beauty of a sunset or a painting. So you have to keep to the common ground, in this case electromagnetism.

Therefore we should be very careful with pointing to evidence that is acceptable only to the “initiated”. There is something called “scientific evidence” for some fact or statement, which all scientists can accept or reject (or be in the process of accepting or rejecting), philosophers analyse the concept, and many, perhaps most, people have a very naive understanding of it.

Something similar about “biblical evidence“: it has a different meaning for the initiated and a different for the uninitiated, so again it cannot serve as the common meeting ground.

If you are interested in atheism/agnosticism as atheists see themselves, I think even better than Veronika’s reference is http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/.

Sancho,

And Douglas Adams has an argument that is better made with a puddle but is nevertheless compatible with the fact that it is incredible. The fine tuned interaction of numerous factors it is quite incredible. Rather than the shape of a puddle forming it has been compared to having a lottery with a billion, billion, billion black balls and one white ball which you must pull out while blind folded to be alive. That doesn’t mean that Douglas Adams can’t use the argument. It is one of two obvious choices of arguments.

I’m simply saying that the life situation is incredible but verifiably real. Admittedly I did get sidetracked. You have a point. Nothing about the objectively historical appearance of the Bible will be important to anyone committed to disbelief in miracles. Indeed some atheists won’t bother reading further as they don’t have time for trivia.
Nevertheless I invite you to consider a discussion of the historicity of the New Testament anyway even if that factor is an insurmountable barrier to you. Hopefully it will be interesting.

George,

I hear you. However I think that there is value in airing the issue as some atheists adopt the Da Vinci Code or similar books as an article of faith. That is about where I am aiming to pitch in spite of the creationist sidetracking that I got myself into with Sancho. I consider what I am trying to achieve as being like bringing a discussion of electromagnetism to the blind recognizing of course the limitations of the analogy in that atheists aren’t necessarily disabled. The discussion probably won’t convert them but it might shave away some annoying bs.

Poly has fortunately increasingly cited scripture as historical evidence rather than something that is automatically authoritative to atheists. That gets dismissed out of hand. Someone I believe should take that ball. Heck otherwise he might retreat to just quoting scripture to the unconverted as an argument. Surely noone wants that.

mjpb wrote:

"Poly has fortunately increasingly cited scripture as historical evidence rather than something that is automatically authoritative to atheists. That gets dismissed out of hand."

Why should the Bible be made a historic or a scientific document? Why can't it be seen as a book incorporating wisdom?

Unfortunately there is no evidence that religious belief has increased human caring, peace, concern for the environment or other attitudes promoting a better world. If there was such evidence and it was connected with a particular religion I would consider believing in that religion.

The New Testament was assembled from 27 writings written by 9 different writers over a 20-50 year period.

Is the New Testament the same collection of books that were verifiably widely known and revered by early Christians?

External evidence

The earliest manuscript of John located is a portion dated between AD117-138. Fragments believed by some to be from Mark, Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter and James believed to be from AD 50-70 have been located. We have 5,700 hand written Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and 9,000 manuscripts in other languages. Further early Christians from the second and third centuries quoted the New Testament 36, 289 times omitting only 11 verses in the New Testament. Clement in the first century quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James and 1 Peter.

Internal evidence

The writers were either Jews or in close touch with contemporaries of the events they record. The Gospels were written in the colloquial Greek of the period with some Hebrew idiom. Jews of the time eg.Philo (d. 50AD) used the same literary medium. Their numerous references to topography and political, social, and religious conditions of Palestine at the time of Christ are accurate.

The basic theme appears historically accurate. There are slightly more (10) early non Christian writers who mention Jesus than those who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time (9). Non Christian writers collectively reveal that Jesus lived in the time of Tiberius Caesar, lived a virtuous life, was reputed to be a wonder worker, was considered by some to be the Messiah, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover, darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died, his disciples believed he rose from the dead, His disciples were willing to die for their belief in Him, Christianity spread quickly as far as Rome.

Now, why would I suspect that mjbp?

>>how about the key point of the thread and the issue of the evidence of scriptures that was raised by Poly. At risk of Pericles thinking I'm trying an new angle to come back after he dumped me I'd like to pursue that further.<<

Take the risk, mjbp, take the risk, for whatever reason and with whatever excuse you like. I'm always happy to learn more about the Christian's perception of the Bible's position as a historical document.

You point out that...

>>There are slightly more (10) early non Christian writers who mention Jesus than those who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time (9)<<

But Jesus went around raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, healing lepers, raising up the halt and lame and such, while Tiberius was merely a rather nasty Roman Emperor.

Wouldn't you have expected rather more than ten non-aligned folk to have made the odd passing remark about it at the time?

As it is, we do have a contemporary account from Velleius on Tiberius, which is at least one more than we have for Jesus, is it not? We also have variously coins bearing Tiberius' image, busts of his... er, bust, and so on.

As an afterthought, who are the ten non-Christian writers again? I can only recall three - Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus - who even vaguely (and ambiguously) mentioned Jesus.

On balance, if I were arguing in a court of law for the confirmed actions of either, I would feel far more comfortable with eye-witness accounts of evil deeds, than after-the-event recounting of tales of miraculous derring-do.

What interests me is that it seems to be a prerequisite for a Christian to believe that all those deeds, unwitnessed and unrecorded at the time, did actually occur.

Is it not possible just to think that Jesus was this really cool, thirty-year-old virgin who went around telling people to be nice to each other?

I have been to many Seders in my time, but I have never seen a Seder like the Last Supper. Every Seder I have been to had a lot of women around. What happened in the Last Supper? Did women make the meal and were then denied a place at the table. Did Jesus and the boys make up the meal themselves? All the pictures of the Last Supper show 13 guys sitting around a table. It isn’t right.

Then there’s the question of Mary. One would somehow get the idea that motherhood is good, and sex is bad from the New Testament account of a virgin who is a mother. However, she has no real power to do another but act as a woman of breeding.

Many Christian denominations do not allow women to be clergy.

Unlike Moses, Buddha and Mohammed, Jesus doesn’t appear to be involved with anybody sexually – male or female. That’s abnormal.

The Jewish Bible is also male dominated, but women are dominated not obliterated. There are matriarchs to go along with the patriarchs. There is even a female prophet in the person of Deborah. The current Jewish state has its second female prime minister. Australia has not had one.

Yet women are really the mainstay of Christianity. I can’t figure why.

DavidF: "Yet women are really the mainstay of Christianity. I can’t figure why."

You got me, I'm a woman and can never understand it. Especially those more extreme sects like the Exclusive Brethren, why any woman with a gram of self respect would join pretty much any religion has me puzzled. I can understand when it is a result of culture (to some extent), like growing up in Iran, but here in Australia?

Davidf, you have just delineated one of the many reasons I do not and never will, believe.

Pericles,

You are back.

”But Jesus went around raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, healing lepers, raising up the halt and lame and such, while Tiberius was merely a rather nasty Roman Emperor.”

Emperors were pretty influential in those days.

”Wouldn't you have expected rather more than ten non-aligned folk to have made the odd passing remark about it at the time?”

In writing? That is just what has survived the last 2000 years. I don’t know how literate the relevant populations were and how much was written that didn’t last. The original documents written by Roman officials from first century Judea apparently didn’t fare too well probably due to the climate. People who took the miracles seriously would probably have tended to become Christians.

”As it is, we do have a contemporary account from Velleius on Tiberius, which is at least one more than we have for Jesus, is it not?”

I’m not suggesting he didn’t exist. The comparison was just to show that Jesus seemed to generate a bit of interest and it enables confirmation of the general theme of the Christian writings.

“We also have variously coins bearing Tiberius' image, busts of his... er, bust, and so on.”

He was the emperor.

”As an afterthought, who are the ten ...”

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the author of the Jewish Talmud.

”On balance, if I were arguing in a court of law for the confirmed actions of either, I would feel far more comfortable with eye-witness accounts of evil deeds, than after-the-event recounting of tales of miraculous derring-do.”

I haven’t got that far and don’t expect to here. There is a lot that can be said about the New Testament without getting into the nitty gritty of miracles. I'm happy for you to judge that however you like for present purposes.

”Is it not possible just to think that Jesus was this really cool, thirty-year-old virgin who went around telling people to be nice to each other?”

Yes isn’t that the normal non-Christian view?

Pretty slim pickin', mjbp.

>>Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the author of the Jewish Talmud<<

Before we go any further, I'd just like to confirm that these are the ten "early non Christian writers who mention Jesus"?

I'm not mistaken in that?

OK, what have we got.

Josephus: "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James". Check. And "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man" Check. (We can leave the arguments over what comes after this, for another time)

Tacitus: "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate" We have a Christus. But no mention of Jesus.

Pliny: "they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god". Likewise.

I'll give you points for both these though, on the assumption that Christus might be our man.

Phlegon: Nope. Not a single mention.

Thallus: Nothing.

Suetonius: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" Is this the right guy? Possibly. But getting wobblier.

Lucian: "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world" But who? Who? Tantalizing.

Celsus: This is a tough one, since it is all in the form of Origen's refutation. More hearsay that anything else. And not a particularly flattering view of Jesus either, come to think of it.

Mara Bar-Serapion: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?" Jesus? Not a mention, just a reference. Could have been a judgement on hearsay.

Talmud: no mention, just a fleeting glimpse of a possibility of someone fitting the description.

In all that, only one Jesus.

Listen, it matters not at all to me that you believe that Jesus did all the stuff the gospels tell. But when you suggest there is evidence that does not need a leap of faith to swallow, I have to protest.

>>The comparison was just to show that Jesus seemed to generate a bit of interest<<

But in fact, it shows the exact opposite.

mjpb,
I agree, my analogy should not go so far as to regard atheism a disability. Those who admit lacking something (as we have seen, some atheists call this something just “belief”) cannot be expected to see that something in a positive light, although those of us who do not lack it can and should. Apparently, by “shaving away some annoying bs“ you meant what I called clarifying the language and/or broadening the perspective (on both sides of the dispute).

As to “scripture as historical evidence”, I think one should differentiate: You can discuss historical evidence related to the life and actions of a man called Yeshua or Jesus, scrutinising all sorts of texts, including the scripture, but that can be properly done only by professional historians. I am certainly not one, so am grateful to Pericles for the explicit quotes. Anyhow, whatever conclusions and agreements one can arrive at, they could not be used as evidence supporting either the theist or atheist, Christian or non-Christian, positions. They can enrich one’s understanding of history, and - if one is a Christian - enhance the rational component of one’s faith. As with the findings of science.

Another thing is the New Testament as (an a priori) evidence. This does not make much sense to an atheist, actually any non-Christian, and also for Christians there are lots of ambiguities. Exegesis deals with them. Even the Pope - whose academic specialty is biblical exegesis - accompanied his last book (Jesus of Nazareth, Doubleday 2007) with the very explicit instruction that it is just a contribution to the discussion, not a “teaching of the Church”. Of course, exegesis can function only on the background of historical scholarship.

david f,
>>Yet women are really the mainstay of Christianity. I can’t figure why.<<
Neither can I, except that there is not only a biological, but also a psychological complementarity, not mutual replaceability, between the genders (Yin-Yang), and Christianity (like other religions) caters to both. For instance, my grandmother taught me what I understand now to be the Yin of Christianity, my father the Yang of it.

Dear George,

Have you done the thought experiment of having non-Christian ancestry? How much of your Christian belief do you think is a function of your ancestry?

Dear david f.

>> Have you done the thought experiment of having non-Christian ancestry?<<
Yes, and I came to the conclusion that if I had e.g. Chinese ancestry I would be Chinese.

>> How much of your Christian belief do you think is a function of your ancestry?<<
About the same as my ability to speak more languages, understand some mathematics, be open-minded towards other beliefs and world-views, etc. are to a great deal a function of those (parents, teachers, authors of books) who have influenced me throughout my life, but especially during my formative years.

George wrote:

>> Have you done the thought experiment of having non-Christian ancestry?<<
Yes, and I came to the conclusion that if I had e.g. Chinese ancestry I would be Chinese.

Dear George,

You really haven't done the experiment. One can be both Chinese and Christian. A person can be born Chinese. A baby has no religion.

Dear david f,

Of course, I had the Chinese cultural background in mind, and not the race, since that is what you were hinting at. And, of course, a baby is born without any culture: it comes with genes but not with memes.

Pericles,

“I'm not mistaken in that?”

Without checking I assume you copied and pasted so yes that was my understanding.

”Josephus: …”

You wish to defer any arguments about “His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion…”?

Googling indicates there is speculation that it is inauthentic as he didn’t consider Jesus to be Messiah and a pharasiac Jew wouldn’t have said nice things about someone killed for heresy. On this basis some believe it is tweaked with. Perhaps but he was working in Rome as a historian for Roman emperor Domitian so you would have to turn your mind to whether he might have actually avoided bias in spite of his history. Issue noted however. Thanks.

”Tacitus: "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate" ...”

”Pliny: "they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god". Likewise.

I'll give you points for both these though, on the assumption that Christus might be our man. “

Thanks.

”Phlegon: Nope. Not a single mention.”

Yes, more particularly, the original is lost and is cited by Julius Africanus in about 220AD to claim that Phlegon recorded that in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth. He considered it to refer to the same event that Thallus mentioned.

”Thallus: Nothing.”

Yes, more particularly, Julius Africanus also cited it to claim that Jesus’ death was accompanied by earthquake and darkness. Thanks for both.

””Suetonius: … Possibly. But getting wobblier.”

”Lucian: "the man who was crucified in Palestine because …" But who? …”

As he precedes with “The Christians you know worship” a reasonable inference can be made. Did I come close to a point?

Cont.

”Celsus: ….”

Hopefully Origen had better things to do then debate something that wasn’t said. I acknowledge that the original is lost and that is not favourable. (Although if originals are inconvenient some atheists argue that they must be tampered with.)

Mara Bar-Serapion: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?" Jesus? Not a mention, just a reference. Could have been a judgement on hearsay.

”Talmud: no mention, just a fleeting glimpse of a possibility of someone fitting the description.”

Someone with the same name with a mother of the same name who was betrothed to a carpenter when she conceived him. Someone who was considered by Talmudic Jews to be a heretic who led people astray with their sorcery and was crucified for being a heretic. Possibility perhaps but there is a few aspects to the description that fits.

“Listen, it matters not at all to me that you believe that Jesus did all the stuff the gospels tell. But when you suggest there is evidence that does not need a leap of faith to swallow, I have to protest.”

You are entitled to your opinion. I’d just like to stick to an objective consideration of the New Testament as a historical document whether or not you believe “all the stuff”. You are doing a great job of ironing out any rough edges in my knowledge.

>>The comparison was just to show that Jesus seemed to generate a bit of interest<<

”But in fact, it shows the exact opposite.”

You gave points on 3 and I’d suggest not all the rest were completely wiped out for relevance if not pretty safely references to Jesus. Of those that clearly didn’t mention Jesus there is good reason to consider them to refer to an unusual event associated with His life. Again we are talking about someone 2000 years ago and ignoring anyone who converted. In the context that for non-converts He was just a man who got killed like a criminal without accomplishing anything not a king, emperor or conqueror I suggest “exact opposite” a little extreme.

We have strayed a little from the straight-and-narrow here,mjpb.

This is where we started:

>>There are slightly more (10) early non Christian writers who mention Jesus than those who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time (9).<<

You apparently count as "mentioning Jesus", references to Christ, Christus, Chrestus, a "wise king" plus a couple of indications that an eclipse of the sun may or may not have been coincident with the story.

Against the well-documented, contemporary reports of the existence of a Roman emperor.

Don't you think,in retrospect, that this might be drawing a rather long bow?

Pericles,

Sorry I have had a horrendously busy week and deliberately avoided getting side tracked with discussions in here.

"This is where we started:

>>There are slightly more (10) early non Christian writers who mention Jesus than those who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time (9).<<

"You apparently count as "mentioning Jesus", references to Christ, Christus, Chrestus, a "wise king" "

I consider 5 very strong and the Talmudic Jesus appearing a little too coincidental but less strong. I agree with your comments on Suetonius and Mara Bar-Serapion. So the wise king is not on the list of finalists.

"plus a couple of indications that an eclipse of the sun may or may not have been coincident with the story.

Against the well-documented, contemporary reports of the existence of a Roman emperor.

Don't you think,in retrospect, that this might be drawing a rather long bow?"

In retrospect it has been educational. Although the point as I understood it was incorrect I found it worthwhile fine tuning my knowledge. More than a long bow the 10 external references to Jesus didn't all shape up as direct references as I understood them to be so unless I was also mistaken about the Emperor the point is not a point. The ranking is reversed.

That conceded even the documents that failed were significant. Even when a now lost document is cited in 220AD by an historian who discussed it as a reference to an unusual event associated with Jesus' life it has relevance to the historicity. The overall context for "where we started" was the historicity of the New Testament.

Pericles,

I’m happy to amend the Internal Evidence section of the original post as follows:

Internal evidence

The writers were either Jews or in close touch with contemporaries of the events they record. The Gospels were written in the colloquial Greek of the period with some Hebrew idiom. Jews of the time eg.Philo (d. 50AD) used the same literary medium. Their numerous references to topography and political, social, and religious conditions of Palestine at the time of Christ are accurate.

The basic theme appears historically accurate. In spite of being killed as a criminal there are 5 early non Christian writers who clearly refer to Jesus and some others either might refer to him or apparently refer to events surrounding his death. By comparison there are 9 early writers who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time. Non Christian writers collectively reveal that Jesus lived in the time of Tiberius Caesar, lived a virtuous life, was reputed to be a wonder worker, was considered by some to be the Messiah, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover, darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died, his disciples believed he rose from the dead, His disciples were willing to die for their belief in Him, Christianity spread quickly as far as Rome. Although some have speculated that positive comments eg. virtuous life might indicate tampering with the original document.

Pericles,

Moving right along...

Circumstantial inferences

That the books are substantially the same as written can be inferred by:

1. The great reverence of the Church for the Gospels.
2. The practice from earliest times of reading the Gospels at public meetings so that their contents were known.
3. The wide distribution of the Gospels throughout the world.
4. The substantial uniformity of all existing manuscripts including early fragments.
5. The illiteracy at the time and the need to rely upon memory. Augustine records an incident involving an African Bishop Jerome. Jerome used the word “ivy” for “gourd” in the book of Jonah. This innovation caused such dissatisfaction when read to the laity that Jerome felt compelled to stick with the original.

Were the books generally historically accurate?

This overlaps with the previous category and the comments in there apply but more can be added.

Trustworthiness of the Evangelists

Matthew and John were companions of Christ while Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with Christ’s contemporaries. It is sometimes suggested that they were converts so they were biased. However this raises the question of “Why did they convert?” They definitely seem sincere. They had nothing wordly to gain from witnessing for Christ. Power? What power did they gain? None. They got submission, servitude, persecution, torture, and death for boldly maintaining their account of events. If for some reason they were colluding to promote a fictitious story surely the penny would have dropped that sticking to their story wasn’t a good idea by the time Peter was crucified. Given that they were writing to people including those around during Jesus’ earthly ministry why would they pin everything down so much with places and famous people thus inviting denial and proof that the events never occurred? It would make sense to spin stories about recent events by making them as unverifiable as possible if they were fictitious.

In Acts:26:24-28 Luke reports an exchange between King Agrippa, Governor Festus and Paul. During the discussion Paul states:

“The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him.

CONT

I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.”

If the events (fictitious?) had been done in a corner that would be a dangerous statement that could be expected to attract contemporary rebuttals. Likewise if Paul hadn’t said that to King Agrippa and Governor Festus you would think that they would have rebutted the claim. Surely the unwavering testimony and provocative challenges is consistent with a firm belief that they were speaking the truth.

Circumstantial inferences about the date that the books were written

Much has been speculated about the dates of the biblical writings. Apart from the date of the fragments as mentioned previously there is circumstantial issues that apply.

If a first century medical doctor convert was researching and recording events of the early Church and he was doing so in enormous detail including local politicians, local slang, local weather patterns, local topography, local business practices, the correct depth of water a quarter mile off Malta and the main human subject of his book was executed by Nero wouldn’t you expect the writer to record it? What if James a prominent figure in Christianity was killed by the Sanhedrin? If they didn’t doesn’t it scream that the book was written before the events took place? That is the situation with Luke. Paul was executed by Nero who’s reign ended in 68AD while James was killed in 62AD. Jesus was crucified in 33AD. That suggests that Acts was written before 62AD and 68AD. If Acts was written before 62AD then Luke’s gospel was also written before 62AD as he refers to it in Acts. Likewise Paul who was believed to be writing between 62AD and 65AD quotes from Luke’s gospel and calls it scripture. That puts Mark’s gospel even earlier as most believe it was first. So there is an absolute upper limit of 35 years and chances are Mark was significantly earlier.

I know this leads to potential inferences about the more supernatural aspects but as I indicated earlier I don’t intend to take it that far here.

mjpb, with the greatest respect, I too can regurgitate all the arguments for and against the historicity of the Bible, simply by trawling through the various entries and references provided by a Google search.

The main difference will inevitably be that I do not have any inclination to "prove you wrong" on anything you say, with the single exception of claims that - should they go unremarked - might lead others to the view that you are stating facts. The next thing you know, they will be telling their teacher the religious equivalent of that kid's "Great Wall of China? To keep the rabbits out".

And we don't want that, do we?

You are fully and unreservedly entitled to your views, beliefs and opinions. The only time that you and I will come into a discussion is when you say something that is so patently silly and unsupportable that a disinterested layman such as myself simply has to say "hold on there, you cannot twist the facts like that and expect to get away with it".

Incidentally - although it isn't really incidental, but very germane here - I commend you to count the number of occasions you have found it necessary to use the word "if" in your last post.

mjpb,
Thanks for a very interesting reading about the historical background of the NT books. Some people might have known all these facts, and cannot react but call them "regurgitation of arguments", but I as a non-historian found them very illuminating.

If ifs and ands were pots and pans, where'd be the work for tinkers hands?

I'm afraid the bible is most often used as a drunken man uses a lampost- more for support than illumination.

aaah Bugsy.. spoken from the darkness of ignorance I note. I'll throw you a life preserver here....

Pericles makes a fundamental flaw.. that is the due consideration of the Gospels and Epistles themselves.

He seem to feel that because they are from within the Church community, they are automatically suspect.

To my knowledge there is ONE dabble by the Church into scriptural enhancement for doctrinal purposes and that's a 1 John 5:8 variant reading and any textual critic knows exactly when it turned up..and why it should (and is) be rejected.

The simple fact that there are as yet unresolved differences between some of the Gospels should SHOUT loudly that the Church respected them so much that it did not seek to impose a harmony on them.

The internal evidence of these documents is supported by the absense of contrary documents of the same time. The Gospels of Thomas and Barnabus are non canonical for very good academic reasons.

Pericles declares he is a layman.. thus, why in the world would be venture into the dangerous territory of making wild assertions on things he knows so little about?

Pericles.. why not do some real study? I recommend the Bible itself (New Testament) and you can also read DrBart Erhman the foremost contemporary critic of the Evangelical mindset.

Erhman used to be evangelical, but lost his faith at Seminary.
I have no reservation in recommending reading him, as I personally think the Holy Spirit is greater than he :)

There's more lamposts in the world than the one you're pissing on Boazy.

George,

You are welcome.

Pericles,

With the greatest respect, when Boazy suggested historicity was arguable it attracted comparisons with a spaghetti monster. Fifteen or so posts back there was no acknowledgement that there is a for argument.

"The main difference will inevitably be that I do not have any inclination to "prove you wrong" on anything you say, with the single exception ..."

And I appreciate it when you pull me up for error. If I'd said the same thing to a Christian I doubt if they would have been motivated to assist me in that way. You believe that I am trying to prove you wrong on anything you say. However rightly or wrongly I believe that I was mainly airing facts because Polycarp's assertions were not given a fair treatment.

"You are fully and unreservedly entitled to your views, beliefs and opinions."

Likewise with one reservation. I am happy to leave the issue of whether all theologically important details in the Bible are correct an open question for the purpose of this thread in spite of my personal opinion that the "against" position is a weaker argument. Nevertheless I draw the line with the unsupportable innuendo that the historicity is about as compelling as a spaghetti monster belief.

"The only time that you and I will come into a discussion is when you say something that is so patently silly and unsupportable that a disinterested layman such as myself simply has to say "hold on there, you cannot twist the facts like that and expect to get away with it"."

There we have a very different perspective. I believe that I entered the discussion to challenge the unsupportable.

"Incidentally - although it isn't really incidental, but very germane here - I commend you to count the number of occasions you have found it necessary to use the word "if" in your last post."

I'm comfortable with talking about circumstantial inferences in that way and believe their merit or lack of merit are irrelevant to that choice of word. I invite you to point out any problem more directly.

But Bugsy...the Lamppost I'm focusing on says

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness"

Let that light shine your pathway in life mate.. you will see all things more clearly then.

blessings.

Polycarp wrote:

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness"

Let that light shine your pathway in life mate.. you will see all things more clearly then."

You tell Bugsy that he will see things more clearly if he accepts your mumbo jumbo. I think if you see things more clearly there is absolutely no way one can accept that mumbo jumbo without leaving one's brains at the door.

You guys are just trying to get the high moral ground for your side by competing on diplomacy aren't you? Admit it.

Dear Foxy,

I am really sorry I posted that. I get annoyed at the missionary attitude of, "We have the truth, and if you would accept it you would also have the truth." However, I should have kept my annoyance in check as it added nothing to the discourse.

I don't think there is such a thing as religious truth. Belief, no matter how strongly held, is not truth.

davidf,

You apologized to Foxy but as a Christian I'd like to thank you for doing so. Poly may have been sensitive about the tired old emotional crutch innuendo levelled by Bugsy (even though it was a qualified comment). But if he felt so strongly he could have responded to it respectfully. I hope he follows your example.

Sorry about this but:

You said that you think (/believe?) that there is no such thing as religious belief. However you also said that a belief no matter how strongly held is not the truth. The way it reads it sounds like a belief can never be the truth and hence (if applied to the preceding sentence) there is such a thing as religious truth. I'm guessing that is not exactly what you meant...

Do you consider that no religion has associated beliefs that accord with the truth because you believe that the truth is that there is nothing supernatural?

1st sentence 3rd paragraph: sorry no such thing as religious truth

Dear mjpb,

My statement was: “I don't think there is such a thing as religious truth. Belief, no matter how strongly held, is not truth.”

That has nothing to do with a belief in a supernatural. Belief consists of faith in propositions for which there is no proof. If there is proof then it ceases to be belief and becomes truth.

You wrote: You said that you think (/believe?) that there is no such thing as religious belief.

I have never denied the existence of religious belief. I have denied the existence of religious truth. Since different religions maintain different propositions to be true we cannot establish that any of them are true. Therefore for all practical purposes there are no religious truths only religious beliefs.

And evolution wins the day as the origins of man. The facts and models that the people of this thread ( and the others ) have demonstrated quite well, in knowing where religion manifested its,self. Science will go on and uncover more myths as time go,es on, and fear will no longer be a driving force to shape humanity. Religion should be kept in the back of the minds how you want it, and not force onto know one.

The environment, religion, and population are the three in my mind, the most important things to set strait and Iam finished with this particular subject, knowing quite well where I come from. I am able to think with the most clearness, with sense of pride, knowing what the real truth is, and "I am" good with it! You cant sell godness! Its either in you or its not, and we all know the bible stories.

Each person is born with this goodness already evolved in us, since the beginning of life on this planet, and its only circumstances that make us (evil)=( survival instincts ) and with fear, and this is where the bible comes into play. A hope that tomorrow will be a better day! This is what it offers, plus an easier way to comfort death, and this was very much needed in those times, and for a longer time to come.

People seem to think humans are not evolving, well sorry to say, with each new born baby, evolution adds one more degree to the human species, and religion will evolve with it.

Hypethically, when man finds how life got here, the book will seem a bit leaky, more than it already is!

EVO

Evo,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Davidf,

Thanks. We use "belief" in different ways. You dichotomise belief and truth so that there can't be a belief in the truth and with evidence it ceases to be mere belief.

I relate to the Merriam-Webster definition. In particular the alternative:

"3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

Using words differently naturally will lead to a slight communication gap. Thanks again.

"You wrote:...I have never denied the existence of religious belief..."

See my second post. Please excuse the typo.

Regarding your point about different religions doesn't establishing truth often require evaluating competing contenders? Please explain this further.

Pericles,

I'd like to revisit the eyewitness point. We expressed our varying views about Paul who claimed to be an eyewitness. I believe Poly raised the issue of Luke. I'd like to move on to Mark.

What are your thoughts on Mark's gospel? My understanding is that Mark accompanied Peter and wrote down what Peter taught. Now clearly there are different ways in which evidence could be obtained. If it were a written statement wouldn't it normally be written by a lawyer or the police? Now in that situation the statement would be written down and organised and the person giving the statement would sign it. Here Peter didn't sign it. However it is a book and there was no reason for him to do so. Literally it is technically not an eyewitness account but isn't it a little pedantic to dismiss it completely on that basis? My thought is that it isn't technically an eyewitness statement but due to little more than the technicality that the deceased Peter didn't sign it. Indeed my understanding is that scholars consider that Matthew drew upon Mark and another source document (Q) when writing his own gospel book. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that Matthew, apparently an eyewitness of Jesus, would only assist his recollection using Mark if it was a pretty accurate account of what Peter had witnessed? Over to you.

Pericles,

You've dumped me before and come back... I'll keep going.

I'd like to expand upon Pliny because he seems so hostile toward Christianity and it leads into something else I'd like to discuss.

"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubborness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished...

They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery and adultery...

This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women...I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagent lengths."

Historically I believe this has the added interest to Christians by confirming that Christianity spread to Rome really quickly (which makes sense as Peter and Paul were believed to have gone there), the Christians under pain of execution maintained their belief and at least claimed to observe high ethical standards. But most importantly for the historical territory I'd like to cover next it shows that they regularly engaged in verbal rituals which honoured Christ as if he were "a god".

In spite of the facts adduced so far which provide at least "arguments for" "the historicity of the Bible" some people put much weight on other documents written by earlyish Christians. The fact that those books didn't make it into the Bible is taken by some as indicating that the Church Councils excluded equally meritorious books because it didn't suit them. They wanted to have people think Jesus was divine so they cherry picked and excluded equally worthy books to guide Christianity in that direction. That suits the secular notion of Jesus as just a good bloke and the keenness to think that that is what early Christians really believed. In case you think I'm renegging on my stated intention to leave the issue of the validity of supernatural in abeyance I note that I am just discussing what Christians believe nothing more.

Notable in this regard is the gospel of Thomas of which a fifth century copy was located. This is the most interesting because the original was written as early as 140AD.

I have just highlighted (hostile) external corroboration (Pliny) for the view that Christians took of Jesus. I'd now like to raise the following points in regard to the gospel of Thomas.

1. It overlaps with the gospels but some parts are totally inconsistent with earlier recognised Christian writings.
(a) eg. 1 It has a pantheistic Jesus which conflicts with the canonical gospels.
(b) eg. 2 It has Jesus saying "Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her a male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every worman who makes herself male will enter into the kindom of heaven."and "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life". This totally conflicts with Jesus in the gospels and Paul's writings which preach equality of being and respect for women.

Thus it just doesn't look like the real McCoy.

CONT

2. As Dr Bruce Metzger has neatly expressed "For somebody now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'Lets get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.'I would say, 'Thank you for nothing! We knew that before the pronouncement was made.'We know it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the canon." Generally the councils just pronounced the consensus of opinion among Christians to resolve a dispute. They didn't change anything just made it official.

As for things like the Gospels of Nicodemus, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Andrew, the Epistle of Paul to the Laodicieans, the Apocalypse of Stephen no orthodox early Christian, canon, or council considered them authoritative and early church historian Eusebius considered them "Totally absurd and impious".

All indications are that councils weren't tweaking things by excluding pieces of a puzzle. They were exercising discernment by rejecting things which conflicted with documents widely recognised as authoritative.

mjpb,

Constantine was trying to holt the slide of the failing Roman Empire. Religion is a stong unifying agent, e.g, as utilized by Moses and Mohammed. [Militarily, Constatine had recaptured lands lost by Aurelian, however, Rome's fate was written.]

The gospels were written, dispersed in time and place, after a period of perhaps eighty years of verbal lore, post Christ's death. Herein, the Gospel of Thomas is very early and worthy of consideration as historical. Its absence suggests, it was (a) not known to Nicaea or (b) was not cogent with the "selected" works. I suspect the latter.

The true issue is, if one goes back to first century, is not whether or not Jesus Chirst existed, but whether he was divine in-fact or regarded divine by direct contemporaries, or held some other role.

Under Augustus, there would have been little need to deify Christ; Rome was strong and Augustus himself was deified, after his death. Howver, when Rom grew weak, there would have been strong motives to instititionalise Jesus' teachings, transmute events, and, then, create new dogma; even where said dogma is not historically true.

One bit of evidence might make me believe having seen the posts from the God botherers. If the God botherers would start to post with correct spelling, good grammar and evidence of logical thought I could question my unbelief.