God of the gaps
6 February 2008 by Stardust
I don’t normally make a habit of commenting on fundie blogs, but like I said in a comment thread at an earlier post, beaj (The Atheist Jew) lured me over to Apparently So (which should have been this month’s Lion Feed.) Here is Craig H’s Seven Arguments for Intelligent Design. Craig and his fundie friends provide an excellent example of how to use the god of the gaps. When they don’t know something, or can’t explain something, they simply say “God did it”.
I am posting this here because Craig doesn’t allow open comments and you must have a Blogger account to comment over there. So, I will leave this here for you to pick over.
Craig writes:
1. The Big Bang has been proven by astronomers. The five proofs spell the word SURGE: S – The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves energy had to have a beginning because there is not an infinite supply. U – The universe is expanding. If so, it had to begin somewhere (and at some point in time). R – Radiation from the Big Bang itself can be observed. This was discovered in 1965. G – Great galaxy seeds. Think of ripples on a pond, radiating out from a stone’s splash. Scientists can measure this in our universe. E – Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. Einstein proved that time, space and matter are co-relative. In other words, you can’t have one without the others. From this, the mathematical equation shows a beginning point. The Big Bang proves God exists because the universe had to have a cause. God is that cause. God, on the other hand, is uncaused. (He is outside the time, matter and space of the universe.) That is difficult to grasp, but it means God is eternal. Our choices are either an uncaused universe (which is impossible), or an uncaused creator outside of it. (Which is difficult to understand, but not an impossibility.) God spoke the cosmos into existence and we call that the Big Bang.
2. There are fossils that demonstrate transitional features, but there is not one undisputed fossil in the record that proves macro-evolution. There should be thousands if Darwinian Evolution is true and Darwin himself said so.
3. A mouse trap will not work if you take any of its parts away. Cells function the same way. Someone took a mouse trap and modified it to work without one of its parts to prove this wrong, but it only worked because of intelligent intervention, which is exactly what I believe in the first place. The point here is that lesser parts could not have joined together to form cells. Therefore, cells were designed.
4. Darwin knew nothing of the DNA code when he wrote his theory. We now know that every one of the trillion cells in our bodies has a DNA strand containing a code more complex than an encyclopedia. Never has a complex computer code ever written itself. Only intelligence can write complex code. To me, this is an open and shut case for an intelligent designer.
5. Darwinian Evolutionists basically believe lightning struck the mud and made life. Scientist tried to duplicate this empirically in a lab, but they had to manipulate the atmosphere to the point that life could have never begun to get any results. You don’t hear much about this anymore. Now, some actually say aliens must have brought life here, because they simply have no natural explanation for how life began.
6. Life is so incredibly diverse and complex, the only logical explanation is a remarkable creator. The fine-tuning of the cosmos, the symbiotic relationship of all living things – it boggles the mind to think it is all a freak of nature, or even that natural selection caused it all.
7. Only humans can write songs, books, blogs, stories, and fairy tales. Some monkeys and elephants can express themselves in art, but it pales next to my ability to write this column. Only humans can express their questions about the meaning of life. Only humans can invent complex machinery and technology. Our self-awareness cannot be explained by natural selection or any other natural cause. Clearly, we were created and designed to seek our maker.
So, which designer? Because of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus, the God of the Bible is the clear choice. We can have a faith that is supported by the evidence, not only of the scripture, but also the world around us.
6 February 2008, on 11:53 am
I was going to do a point-by-point fisking, but really, what’s the point?
6 February 2008, on 11:59 am
As beaj pointed out, it’s not our aim to deconvert craig, but to get lurkers who might be on the fence to THINK. Once we get this thread going, I will go over there and point him to this. Maybe he won’t come here and read, but others might.
The thing is that we need to counter this ID bullcrap any way we can. They want to plant creationism side-by-side with evolution in our public schools. That battle is far from over. We can see with the popularity of Huckabee, there are just too fucking many fundie creationists in the world who need to be “enlightened”. Craig, I should point out, has two children he is teaching this crap to.
6 February 2008, on 12:12 pm
Craig said:
“Some monkeys and elephants can express themselves in art, but it pales next to my ability to write this column.”
No it doesn’t, lol! I’d rather look at monkey art than read this crap.
6 February 2008, on 12:16 pm
Craig said: Some monkeys and elephants can express themselves in art, but it pales next to my ability to write this column.
6 February 2008, on 12:25 pm
Because of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus
I keep asking Craig for these evidences WITHOUT using his Babble, and he told me to go someplace else. Once gawd tells him how to close comments, I am sure he will. LOL
6 February 2008, on 12:37 pm
There’s more intelligence in an orangutan wanking that there is in that fundy post.
6 February 2008, on 12:41 pm
The fine-tuning of the cosmos, the symbiotic relationship of all living things – it boggles the mind to think it is all a freak of nature, or even that natural selection caused it all.
Maybe your mind, Craig, but please don’t lump the rest of us into that group. Science sure seems pretty inexplicable to those who don’t understand it.
Besides, where does he get the notion that the cosmos fine-tuned? Seems a rather chaotic and violent place.
6 February 2008, on 12:43 pm
What a riot. I love his second point. “Darwin said so” with no source. And I’m sure he’s laboriously combed through the fossil record to conclude that not one is “undisputed”. Or he at least surely read that somewhere and can produce a source if needed, right?
The best of all, though, is his argument there should be “thousands” of transitional fossils. He puts it out there as if almost all fossils have been found and few, if any, remain. Good gawd, you have to be just dumb to think we have come close to recovering all the fossils on the earth. There are literally thousands upon thousands of square miles of land that will never undergo a serious excavation for fossils. On top of that, only about one bone in a billion ever becomes fossilized (Bryson, Short History of Nearly Everything, p. 322). It is hard to become a fossil. You have to die in the right place and get buried in the right sediment. Then you have to stay buried for millions of years, and then most importantly, get found. The fossil record we have provides only the slightest hint of past life on Earth.
6 February 2008, on 1:05 pm
I have alerted craig that we are discussing his post here, and invited him to come defend his 7 arguments for ID. My bet is that he won’t show.
6 February 2008, on 1:09 pm
“God, on the other hand, is uncaused. That is difficult to grasp, but it means God is eternal.”
Ah yes. Let’s dismiss years of work created by the smartest people ever to walk the earth, on the basis of a single vacuous statement with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Clod.
6 February 2008, on 1:11 pm
Oh, and another thing.
“Only humans can write songs, books, blogs, stories, and fairy tales”
If the Bible is the supreme word of god, why is it that Shakespeare can produce better and more coherent writings than the being that created the universe and sunsets?
Also, if god’s so great, why do we have an appendix?
6 February 2008, on 1:20 pm
Also, if god’s so great, why do we have an appendix?
And, what about conjoined twins, babies born with no brains or their spinal cords outside of their bodies?
I recently had my gallbladder removed and am functioning just fine without it.
6 February 2008, on 1:21 pm
And as one comedian pointed out, (was it Carlin?) how intelligent is it to put our breathing hole and eating hole in the same place??? Thousands of people choke to death each year from food going down the wrong pipe.
6 February 2008, on 1:35 pm
Some monkeys and elephants can express themselves in art, but it pales next to my ability to write this column.
Oh man, some jokes just write themselves, don’t they?
it boggles the mind to think it is all a freak of nature, or even that natural selection caused it all
Well, that’s all the proof I need to be convinced. If it boggles his mind then it must be true because this guy is the smartest guy I have ever read on the Internets.
6 February 2008, on 1:37 pm
You’re mistaken if you think you’ll ever convince this no-brow that he’s wrong. No matter how ably – and easily – you disprove his lame assertions, it’s his painfully obvious NEED to believe in a god that keeps him mired in this nonsense. Facts are irrelevant to him.
6 February 2008, on 2:13 pm
Seriously, I can’t believe I ever used to believe this crap! You never really know just how stupid some beliefs are until you hear people try to defend them (for some very funny examples, go watch The Atheist Experience. The eps are on Google Video).
6 February 2008, on 2:21 pm
AUM… the callers on those videos are hilarious! The Hindu was very funny in the following link
. The Atheist Experience Episode 5
“what about da Buddha?” haha!
6 February 2008, on 2:29 pm
Tina here is a perfect example of dumbass fundie…I would never have enough patience to be a science teacher.
Episode #7 – Atheist Experience – Tina on Evolution
“Do ya’ll think that we can evolve into lika a hippopotamus?” Too funny, but sadly pathetic at the same time.
6 February 2008, on 2:48 pm
Here is craig’s “intelligent” response at his blog. (And this dude was supposedly a journalist before he turned into a dumbass pastor).
6 February 2008, on 2:59 pm
Name calling! Wow! I haven’t been this impressed since junior high. At least CTLR actually wrote a legitimate rebuttal. Good point that it is hard to make a fossil. Well taken. Are you saying you have FAITH that one day, we’ll begin to find the transitional fossils needed to support macro-evolution? It’s only been 160 years, but hey, keep the faith! (I admit the Tiktaalik rosae may have had transitional features, but so does a salamander. Every missing link fossil I have ever seen demonstrates micro-evolution, which I do not argue against.)
And “God of the Gaps?” Come on! I gave you specific arguments that support intelligent design. Keep writing; so far you are strengthening my faith and position.
6 February 2008, on 3:08 pm
Craig, you showed up! Yes, we do like to have a little fun around here at the fundie’s expense…because you are so damn funny.
You are indeed creating a god of the gaps. For everything you don’t have an answer for, or do not understand, you assume that a god must then be responsible.
* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* The gap is filled with acts of a god (and therefore also proves, or helps to prove, the existence of said god).
One example of such an argument might be as follows: “Because science can’t figure out exactly how apples fall, it must be God who causes it to happen.”
The lack of scientific knowledge about an unexplained phenomenon does not mean that it is an act of God, but rather that scientific research has not yet found an answer.
6 February 2008, on 3:11 pm
That’s just silly. God does not have to be the cause of the big bang. God of the gaps argument.
There is also a theory that life came from ice. Discover Magazine, Feb, 2008. Science will one day close the door on the question of how life began, and your little black book can finally be thrown in the trash.
And if those same monkeys were to fling poo at your column in criticism, it would be rightly deserved.
6 February 2008, on 3:29 pm
As maggie, a seemingly more educated and open-minded christian at craig’s site wrote:
“I will say that I think intelligent design is philosophy masquerading as science”
ID is a belief, a theological philosophy not a science.
6 February 2008, on 3:57 pm
Stardust…
RE #12 & 13…Remember that Neil Tyson video link? I think that’s what you might be referring to; he addresses all the “Stupid Design” stuff that’s totally overlooked by the Creationist crowd. For convenience; here’s that “Beyond Belief 2006″ segment link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI
And to ramble on a bit…
My totally (as lib.) personal argument against the existence of their so-called “Perfect, All Knowing, Infinitely loving…blah, blah, blah…Creator” is along those same lines.
In fact…pardon my momentary arrogance(?)…If I were such a being; why would I, in my perfect magnificence create such a terribly flawed life form for my “Made in MY image”, favorite creation.
How ’bout, for example, a more bionically superior (no disease, trouble making organs, tooth decay prone, etc.) life form…even, perhaps, a shape-shifter type…with the totally “free will” choice to CHANGE anything, anytime, if something like boredom sets in.
[RE our Pres. election; it might entail: a "Change loving Super-Shapeshifter for President?"]
And of course; all that assumes existing in a totally NON-predatory world without the existence of all the carnage and death which is inherent in THIS amazingly viscous reality.
As the British “seem” to have been describing it: “The bloody this, and the bloody that!”(?)
And let’s NOT call my idea “Heaven” (is that derived, perhaps, from “Heave in”; as in Barf in?)…
PLEASE!
Oh…and by the way…there’s absolutely no hell anywhere else in this…or any parallel Universe! Never was; and never will be…PERIOD!
Oh yeah…If you don’t believe in me, or particularly “Love” me…FINE!
There’s absolutely…NO WORSHIPPING ALLOWED!
And I certainly don’t want to hear any of that insane, whining…erm…’prayer’(?) type bullshit.
My 1st (and only) Commandment?…Thou shalt GO AWAY…and SHUT THE FUCK UP!
[To my personal assistant..."Michael, the Arch-Asswipe"]:
“Turn that fucking mankind monitor switch OFF…permanently; just in case one of those “made in my image” shapeshifters malfunctions, and turns into a raving Fundamentalist fuckhead!”
“Now leave me alone…I want to wank off a bit thinking about my favorite Almighty Godesss!”
Yeah…”Dream On”!!!
6 February 2008, on 3:58 pm
“as lib.” = ad lib.
Sorry!
6 February 2008, on 5:24 pm
Are you saying you have FAITH that one day, we’ll begin to find the transitional fossils needed to support macro-evolution? It’s only been 160 years, but hey, keep the faith! (I admit the Tiktaalik rosae may have had transitional features, but so does a salamander. Every missing link fossil I have ever seen demonstrates micro-evolution, which I do not argue against.)
First, you misrepresented what both the theory of Evolution and Darwin claimed by stating they both claimed “thousands of transitional fossils” in the record. No, they don’t. They only predict intermediate forms having existed, with no claim to how many one might find. With that in mind, however, the evidence collected over time repeatedly demonstrates new fossils that ARE intermediate forms (whether you are “undisputedly” convinced of macroevolution or not…we scientist are. (Oh, and Tidtaalik is NOT a salamander. Not that we scientists are waiting with bated breath for you and those like you to weigh in on the taxonomic classification of…well, anything.)
Second, you have no credibility regarding biology if you can make statements like this:
A mouse trap will not work if you take any of its parts away. Cells function the same way.
Beside the fact that those are not analogous in any way, yes you can take parts out of cells and they still work fine. Mammal red blood cells lose their nucleus at maturity. It’s not essential to have it (as we see in mammals) or to remove it (as we see in reptiles, birds and amphibians). Animal cells have centrioles which help in cells division, but plants cells don’t have them and yet still divide. Giardia lamblia doesn’t even have mitochondria.
So when it comes to biology, maybe you should sign up for one at your local college before you start running your mouth about it.
Or, as I predict, coming from a fundamentalist, creationist background myself, you’ll do nothing other than posit mischaracterizations, misinformation, misleading information and quote mine.
(BTW, it was the prevalence of dishonesty and misrepresentations in the creation “science” I was taught in high school and college that started me on my deconversion. You people, truly, have no shame).
Spirula,
Ex-Christian
(Note to all, I’m a lousy self-editor. I want that damn preview button!)
Zoologist.
6 February 2008, on 5:27 pm
Tiktaalik
(see what I mean?)
6 February 2008, on 5:49 pm
Only humans can… fairy tales.
Very true, Craig. I’m glad we agree on the source of the Bible.
Now take Spirula’s advice and sign up for a science course. (Didn’t you have to take a few distribution courses when you were studying to be a “journalist”?)
6 February 2008, on 6:12 pm
Craig Harris, how can you expect us to take you seriously when you talk about “Darwinian Evolutionists?” Scientists, real ones, do not talk or refer to themselves or their fields and colleagues that way. Phrases like that are dead giveaways that all you’re trying to do is desperately shore up your weak religious belief by undermining, discrediting, and misrepresenting the field of science in general.
If every time a scientist admits that he doesn’t know something yet you want to jump in and stop education, intellectual pursuit, and actual investigation by yelling “Goddiddit! No need to look any further!” then you are deliberately hurting humanity and yourself. What would have happened to scientific inquiry and progress if when the apple dropped on his head, Newton had simply fallen to his knees and said, “Sorry, God; whatever it was I was doing that made you angry I won’t do anymore!” instead of asking himself why did it drop?
Your assertions about the Big Bang and SURGE and the Second Law of Thermodynamics have been addressed by career scientists like Spirula above, and much better than I myself could do it, so I’ll limit myself to pointing out what you already know and are scrambling to cover up: “intelligent design” is not science. It is religion pretending to be science in order to shut science down completely. It has no place in the science classroom.
If intelligent design should be allowed to be taught in public science classes (if you want to homeschool your kids and deny them a true scientific education with this anti-scientific crap, unfortunately you’re allowed), then so should paleocontact. There is far more “evidence” for aliens creating the universe, earth, and humans then there is for your particular concept of god doing it. Even your very own babble contains descriptions of your god and his personal phenomena that sound eerily like extraterrestrial visitations. If Jesus were an advanced android or bioengineered being, for example, it would explain his “resurrection” quite handily.
If you want the so-called ID controversy to be taught in public school science classrooms, you’ll have to be willing to allow all controversies to be taught, or simply admit that you don’t want science taught at all.
6 February 2008, on 6:49 pm
Craig:
1. “The Big Bang proves God exists because the universe had to have a cause.”
Why does the universe have to have a cause? How can you prove the necessity of a cause? What does “a cause” mean, anyway? Could there be multiple causes? How is this evidence of your God, and not Odin, Ra or Jupiter?
2. “There should be thousands [of transitional fossils] if Darwinian Evolution is true and Darwin himself said so.” Cite? Also, as said regarding fossils already, we haven’t found them all and not everything gets fossilised. We’d be up to our ears in stone bones…
3. “The point here is that lesser parts could not have joined together to form cells. Therefore, cells were designed.” — argument from personal incredularity. Your lack of knowledge on how a cell could be formed “from lesser parts” does not imply design.
4. “Darwin knew nothing of the DNA code when he wrote his theory.”
This is why Evolution is not called “Darwinian Evolution”. Because it takes into account DNA and genetics now, which weren’t known then.
” We now know that every one of the trillion cells in our bodies has a DNA strand containing a code more complex than an encyclopedia.”
Really? A code of FOUR letters is more complex than an encyclopedia?
“Never has a complex computer code ever written itself.” I thought this was DNA you were talking about. Now its complex computer codes…
“Only intelligence can write complex code.”
Define for me “intelligence” and “complex”.
“To me, this is an open and shut case for an intelligent designer.”
Argument from personal incredularity? YOU think this is an argument? There have been many many examples of how dna replicates, and how changes in the replication (mutations) can be passed on. Come to think of it, you say you agree with “micro-evolution”.
5. Evolution is not about where life came from.
6. “it boggles the mind to think it is all a freak of nature” can we have an argument that doesn’t require you to state “I don’t know how this happened, therefore it is God”. Occam’s Razor, anyone?
7. “Only humans can invent complex machinery and technology” using Science. Isn’t Science great? Its amazing how well our evolved brains have worked and adapted.
And the end statement… You can’t have it both ways. Darwin didn’t mention DNA? Well, neither did Jesus. Should be fossils? Where are they mentioned in the Bible? Life is incredibly diverse, so much so that Bats are apparently Birds (according to the bible, anyway).
The sheer inaccuracy of the text makes it laughable that you see it as proof of anything at all, let alone that there is no evidence EXCEPT the bible for Jesus. Wait, thats no “undisputed” evidence.
6 February 2008, on 6:55 pm
“Life is so incredibly diverse and complex, the only logical explanation is a remarkable creator.”
That’s the kind of thinking that brought us the Dark Ages. No curiosity at all. Just attribute complex subjects to God and get back to scripture and tithing. Wow.
Hey, we all know how complex life is. No argument there. But to attribute it to a never-before-seen eternal God who will send people to suffer in hell after they die because they don’t believe in him and his zombie son? C’mon. Sounds less like an intelligent designer and more like a spoiled 4-year-old child.
6 February 2008, on 9:49 pm
Why must the universe have a creator? Energy and mass can change form, but neither can be created or destroyed. Matter can’t be created. Get it, Craig?
7 February 2008, on 1:36 am
Time to get the feet wet.
Dude, micro- & macroevolution are pretty much the same thing: it’s a difference in approach. Best to consult a dictionary.
If by FAITH you mean confidence, then sure. They’re being found on a regular basis. 150 million & counting.
160 years of the same hoary old chestnuts being tossed around. The tune you’re dancing to is just so…anachronistic.
You do realize that evolution is the backbone of modern biology? That it plays a pivotal role in everything from agriculture to medicine (can’t pray out a burst appendix now, can we?).
You & I are transitional steps.
Are you unaware that the evolution of whales from land to sea mammals is well documented? Horses? A bundle of other animals as well?
Here, let me illustrate the ‘difference’ as it were:
“Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process.”
Comparing the creation of the universe to evolution is about as salient as comparing apples to oranges.
I might add, it was Aristotle who came up w/the concept of abiogenesis – a Greek philosopher upon whom the Christians relied.
So we both agree there was some form of ’spontaneous generation’ – I, however, say there was no supernatural source.
While on the topic of the universe & its creation, I might ask this: why is it run w/2 diametrically opposed sets of rules? Quantum mechanics vs. relativity. Or perchance, you could grace us w/the reason our universe is 1 giant black hole factory? Here be the challenge: NO BIBLE. I’d rather hear the reasonable explanation than the parroted party line.
7 February 2008, on 2:13 am
“There are fossils that demonstrate transitional features, but there is not one undisputed fossil in the record that proves macro-evolution. There should be thousands if Darwinian Evolution is true and Darwin himself said so.”
Craig, have you never heard of archaeopteryx (just for starters)? The animal that is not really a bird and not really a dinosaur. Found only two years after Darwin first proposed his theory. Nine other fossil of this species have been found since then. But I suppose none of these are “undisputed,” huh?
Which is the biggest bunch or bunk, as everything is ALWAYS DISPUTED in science. That’s it’s strength. That’s what makes it…well…not religious dogma.
The theory of evolution, as it exists today was not just picked out of the air (like your bronze age mythology;) it came to be as a result, partly of the fossil record that, according to you, does not exist.
Craig, do you have any idea how a scientific theory comes to be a theory?
I’m sorry, I just don’t have the patience or energy to address any of the other “proofs.” Besides, several others here (an reputable scientists everywhere) have done a better job than I can.
Craig, if these 7 “arguments” (gawd, you guys really like the number “7″) help you believe, that’s fine, but you have to realize your arguments are neither logically nor scientifically sound. I mean, really, it pains me to think otherwise…
7 February 2008, on 9:38 am
O/T There is a troll in the Benny post.
On topic… Captain Howdy made a visit to Craig’s site and made highly intelligent responses to a couple of craig’s dumbass posts. Captain Howdy changed maggie’s quote a bit. Maggie said, “I will say that I think intelligent design is philosophy masquerading as science”
Captain Howdy said, “What Intelligent Design is, IMHO, is religious apologetics masquerading as science”
7 February 2008, on 12:41 pm
Interesting that the case they lay out for this “intelligence” behind the universe, biology, etc. leads somehow directly to Jesus.
I’d say, fine you can make an argument for an intelligence behind the universe, but I think you got one huge ass Gap there between some vague, undefined intelligent force that created the universe and your personal Jesus pal from 2,000 years ago. I see no correlation between the Big Bang and your particular anthropomorphic recently written book there…
7 February 2008, on 1:29 pm
Eve, Kevin H has a response to what you wrote:
Eve wrote: “Which is exactly what the writers, editors, and redactors of the gospels were and did, except that many of them weren’t even historians. They were very prejudiced as to what they would include in their chronicles – indeed, which chronicles they would include in the babble, period (Irenaeus condemning the Wrong Gospels ™ comes to mind). They are known for not only leaving out events but changing them due to their personal biases and religio-political agendas. The historian must often sift through their biases to get at the truth.
There! And if he wants you to prove it, make him prove his point first, since he made it first. Once you’ve got a specific example, if he gives you one, you’ll be able to research it and come back with solid detail. One thing biblical scholars agree upon is that the gospel of John, for example, was most probably written and added later than the others in order to emphasize the belief held by the most influential sect in early xianity that jesus was both completely human and completely divine at the same time. None of the other (older) three gospels comes close to making the assertions John does.”
What is your response to Kevin?
7 February 2008, on 2:56 pm
“We continue to investigate, ask questions and search for solid, verifiable evidence and answers.”
Maggie at Apparently So writes:
sigh…:roll:
7 February 2008, on 4:21 pm
DUMBASS ALERT!! (Nothing in this comment below was tampered with. All spelling and grammatical errors were left as they were submitted. ~Mod)
Ok first of all ….im not a christion…but im not an evolutionist either…u want to know why? BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION ALSO!!! There is no proof…so u need to believe that the theory is true. From what i have researched creationism has more proof the darwin and stupid evolution theory!
7 February 2008, on 4:40 pm
sucks,
How old are you anyway? Eight?
7 February 2008, on 5:01 pm
KH says: What brings you to that conclusion? What tests do historians use to sift the possible bias?
This is what you claimed first about historians in general and the ancient Romans in particular, therefore you’re the one who has to answer your own question.
KH: All of our best information on the Holocaust were from Jewish survivors! How biased were they?
Unlike the writers of the gospels, they were contemporaries to the events they were describing. They lived them. The New Testament and even the gospels are not; the oldest surviving texts were written almost a century after what they talk about.
And again, the accusation of bias in historians and historical reports was initiated by you. The burden for supporting your point is yours; I simply applied your assertion to another example.
KH: Irenaeus spoke out against gnostic gospels and those not having apostolic control and authority (i.e. those who were closest to the events).
Precisely what I said: he was biased against what he and those who agreed with him considered the Wrong Gospels (TM). He also didn’t have much to work with, poor guy; as I mention above, even the oldest surviving texts of the canonical gospels are later than the events they describe. You also seem to be ignoring what established biblical scholarship has pretty much agreed upon: that the four gospels were not actually written by the people they claim to have been written by.
On the other hand, the Roman historians of the period were contemporary to their time.
KH: Biased people can write accurate history. What are the acknowleged tests that they were accurate?
Exactly! But that’s not what you said originally. You claimed that historians, especially the Romans, were biased and that therefore we couldn’t and shouldn’t take their work seriously. My point in this little exercise was to show that what you said applies just as accurately to the writers of the gospels; they were also biased and according to your own viewpoint, should therefore not be taken seriously. You provide the tests that conclusively prove one account over the other but as someone who a few months ago researched the First Crusade, I warn you: contemporary accounts weigh more than stuff written afterward by non-contemporaries.
But overall, like so many believers, you’re oversimplifying the whole field of study into Jesus’ historicity. So far all the acknowledged experts in the field can kinda sorta agree with is that some person upon whom the New Testament character may have been based might have actually existed. Your attempt to discredit professional, scholarly work that doesn’t align with your personal bias, much like Craig does with established science re: creationism, doesn’t speak well of your own objectivity and seriousness in approaching the subject.
True scholars take everything they can into account, including problematic sources. Star and I aren’t telling you anything that reputable, respected, renowned academics in the field have not studied in far greater detail than, quite frankly, you have. If you have some far-reaching, jaw-dropping, incontrovertible, indisputable contribution to make to the question of Jesus’ historicity that will make every scholar out there working on the subject to drop everything and just say, “Kevin’s right. No use studying any further. The gospels are 100% accurate and no one can say otherwise anymore,” then please go ahead and do it. Silence the debate forever more.
7 February 2008, on 5:03 pm
Sorry for double-commenting, but:
Maggie: Given that we have plenty of evidence that there is more to reality than this material world, we simply do not need to settle for your “half a loaf”.
OK, what is this evidence that there is more to reality than the material world? Scientists all throughout history and all over the globe are holding their breath for the answer right now…
7 February 2008, on 5:18 pm
Eve, another question from maggie:
Where is your evidence for materialism?
7 February 2008, on 6:32 pm
^ Ah – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA–
*choke-choke-gasp-deep breath*
–HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*hiccups before gaining control*
Wow, these fundies are so dishonest! maggie, you made a claim, so it’s up to you to prove it.
Not that you’ll even try, of course; sleaziness, thy name is xianity…Look, I’ll even answer your question: every time you sit on the pot, you’re proving the existence of the material world.
Every time I think it’s impossible for me to be surprised by theists any more…
7 February 2008, on 7:17 pm
Eve, I posted your response to kevin h at Apparently Stupid. I wonder what kind of crap he is going to pull out of his ass in response.
7 February 2008, on 7:28 pm
Eve…Maggie’s reply to your response to Kevin h (#41)
snotty little bitch, isn’t she?
7 February 2008, on 7:51 pm
Star, Eve
Since maggie has mentioned Paul again, I have looked up this reference to Paul’s lying in order to win converts. So how is one to believe anything he writes is true?
http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html
7 February 2008, on 8:04 pm
karen, I hope you don’t mind that I posted your above comment over at Apparently So’s site so Miss Maggie can read it. I also posted a link to our discussion here at GifS and invited her to come continue the discussion here with us so I don’t have to keep going back and forth. Maybe Maggie will find out that it is she who has a lot more to learn than she thinks she does.
7 February 2008, on 8:17 pm
maggie’s latest response
7 February 2008, on 9:07 pm
Well, maggie’s right about the prioritizing of things, anyway. Getting your hair cut is way more important than arguing over whether your invisible friend exists.
Star, sure, it’s fine that you posted my comment. Not that I think it’ll impress them at all. After all, it came from a Jewish site, and I doubt the magster or craig or what’s-his-face consider the opinions of jews any more relevant than atheists ones, on the subject of christ’s historicity. And if they do answer it-and I end up countering-you’ll still have to do the posting over there for me, so I don’t know that it saves you any effort in the long run.
KA should jump in here; he’s got mountains of info on this subject.
7 February 2008, on 9:15 pm
Thanks karen. I am going to email KA and ask him to jump in on this one. He has a blogger acct so can go directly over there. He will kick some fundie butt!
7 February 2008, on 9:22 pm
Another response from maggie concerning Karen’s comment #47:
Seems that she is too cowardly to come over here and discuss things.
7 February 2008, on 9:33 pm
karen, I hope you don’t mind that I posted your above comment over at Apparently So’s site so Miss Maggie can read it. I also posted a link to our discussion here at GifS and invited her to come continue the discussion here with us so I don’t have to keep going back and forth. Maybe Maggie will find out that it is she who has a lot more to learn than she thinks she does.
Color me skeptical! But it is always possible.
Wow, these fundies are so dishonest! maggie, you made a claim, so it’s up to you to prove it.
Not that you’ll even try, of course; sleaziness, thy name is xianity…Look, I’ll even answer your question: every time you sit on the pot, you’re proving the existence of the material world.
I assure you that on one needs to prove to me that the material world exists. That was not the point of my message. What I asked Stardust to do was try to understand that materialism is a paradigm, a world view, if you like. You cannot prove that only the material world exists. You may use reason, to infer from the evidence at hand that that is all there is but that is a position that is, ultimately, a philosophical one. You cannot test it. You cannot falsify it, you assume it.
Does that clarify my position?
7 February 2008, on 9:35 pm
maggie: Eve should have stayed in bed this morning. That “rebuttal” is so faulty that I hardly know where to start. Well, let’s tackle the most egregious error first.
If you have some far-reaching, jaw-dropping, incontrovertible, indisputable contribution to make to the question of Jesus’ historicity that will make every scholar out there working on the subject to drop everything and just say, “Kevin’s right. No use studying any further.
The question of the historicity of Jesus is not disputed by anyone anymore. Well, ok. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of trained historians who do still try to dispute it. But they are so far outside the scholarly consensus that they cannot get published in the scholarly journal literature. Really, absent some startling new evidence (manuscript or archaeological), the subject is closed. The overwhelming majority of the deniers are not scholars at all and the few who are, are rarely historians.
Interesting that you chose to address my response to kevin as opposed to my response to you about evidence for a non-material world…Actually, your assertion supports what I said about what most scholars generally agree upon, that a figure probably existed who possibly provided the basis of the character in the gospels. However, debate continues among reputable scholars as to the actual historical facts of such a figure and whether every single word, action, event, and theological significance (e.g., that he was/is completely human and completely divine at the same time) attributed to Jesus in the gospels is actual, verifiable fact.
maggie: Then you mixed the orange below with the apple above:
The gospels are 100% accurate and no one can say otherwise anymore,” then please go ahead and do it. Silence the debate forever more.
Do what? The scholarly literature on the historicity and the accuracy (those are not exactly the same thing) of the Gospels would fill 3 or 4 football fields. Where can one even start???
Now you’re being disingenuous. The conversation was about whether what is stated as indisputable fact about Jesus in the gospels is 100% accurate, which is what kevin is unsuccessfully trying to maintain (or maybe he’s not; does he believe, for example, that the Sermon on the Mount really took place but that the water-into-wine miracle did not? That’s not the impression he gave from his comments to Star). I actually agree with you: there’s no way to silence debate on the historicity and accuracy of the gospels in scholarly literature – but that is what he’s arguing, that we should no longer even pay attention to the subject but simply accept that the gospels are 100% accurate in everything they claim about Jesus.
maggie: We have an amazing amount of information on the transmission of the manuscripts; we have more than 5000 surviving texts from most parts of the ancient world, some half dozen (if I remember the number correctly) full manuscripts have survived.
I never brought this up, either to support or dispute it (which I don’t).
maggie: The Gospels were not written a century after the events they describe.
I didn’t say they were.
maggie: While there is some disagreement about their exact dates, the overwhelming majority of scholars hold, for instance, that Mark was written between 60 and 80 A.D. This is to say that it was written 30-50 years after the crucifixion.
Then I concede the point that “almost a century” was inaccurate on my part; “half a century” would have been a more accurate choice of words for me to use.
maggie: This is well within the living memory of the apostles’ contemporaries.
Except that you have to consider factors like age, mental health, and as kevin pointed out, bias. We also don’t know how many of those contemporaries were living at the time, given the upheavals and the standard life expectancy of your average xian in those days, but I admit that it’s possible.
maggie: We know for a certainty….how to live out their faith.
I didn’t mention Paul’s letters, at least one of which is older than even Mark, I think (Galatians? Memory fails me), but even more so than the gospels, they raise the question of bias again, perhaps even more strongly as Paul had a very definite agenda in spreading the faith as he saw it. Karen has a reference to his lying.
maggie: As far as accuracy is concerned, the Gospels all tell the same story. It is a problem, if two say Christ didn’t rise from the dead and two say he did. It isn’t a problem if some of the details (how many angels were at the tomb, eg.) are wrong.
It is if you claim the bible is infallible / the inerrant word of god / to be taken as 100% accurate word for word, but perhaps you’re not a literalist. At any rate, I didn’t bring up the topic of inter-gospel accuracy either, but I was correct in John’s being a later, and markedly different contribution.
maggie: Moreover, the Gospels are not biographies. They were written and shaped to address different audiences. The internal evidence is very strong that Mark was aimed at a gentile (probably Roman)audience, for example.
Which is exactly my point about bias shaping their writing in the first place. And if they’re not biographies, then why is kevin claiming they are? Or perhaps he isn’t, and I’ve misread his deliberate attempts to discredit Roman historians. Does he also take the gospels with a grain of salt?
maggie: These gospel stories….you have been taught.
So which is it: the same stories were very well known among the first generation, presumably all in the same form, or there were so many of them, presumably contradictory, that “Luke” wanted to make sure Theophilus knew the Right Ones ™?
maggie: Moreover, we know that by the 1st century there was overwhelming agreement on the canonical books of the Bible. There was no dispute over the books that were accepted in to the Bible we have today. There were disagreements over books and letters that were popular and taught accurate doctrine (the Didache is a good example of that) but that could not pass the tests applied to the canonical books (they had to have been associated with an apostle, they had to have been used in the liturgy, etc. You can look that up in the Britannica, if you like.)
Again, unlike kevin, I restricted myself to a specific example, the gospels. I didn’t bring up the rest of the babble because I don’t disagree with what you mention. Seems to me you’re going off on a tangent because you’re upset that I called the gospel writers biased – and yet you yourself have demonstrated that you understand that truth, that there is no way for any human writer to be completely objective – not even the gospel writers, who have a great need, as much as any Roman historian disparaged so cavalierly by kevin, to convey their version of the “truth.”
maggie: Don’t have the time to tackle the rest. But this should be enough to convince you and Eve that you have a bit more to learn.
About what? You haven’t told me anything I didn’t know; in fact, we seem to agree with each other on much of the scholarly pieces, and unlike most believers I encounter, I at least admit when I’m inaccurate. You also acknowledge, albeit not directly, the subject of bias.
I guess it all comes down to your choosing this particular holy writ with a particular system of worship to believe in and follow as actual, hard-and-fast fact as opposed to my not seeing the need to do the same.
In fact, I see other dimensions to the Jesus story as written, particularly mythical ones; like other archetypal heroes, he has an unusual conception; a powerful male figure tries to murder him at birth; he goes on a quest, answers riddles/questions, and in a way, even wins the princess; dies on a hilltop but leaves no body/burial place; and has sites, shrines, and temples attributed to him.
You’re right, though; I don’t have the time either to tackle everything associated with this topic.
7 February 2008, on 9:54 pm
Thanks for taking the time to respond to maggie, Eve. I have posted this over at Apparently So. It would be great if they would open their damn comments to outside comments or if she would be brave enough to come over here to discuss this.
7 February 2008, on 10:16 pm
You know me, Star; I’m not interested in increasing traffic to those sites, so perhaps she feels the same about ours.
I actually get the impression that she doesn’t take scripture literally, which is of course a huge improvement over literalist interpretation, but doesn’t address how to prove the existence of her particular version of god. Non-literalist interpretation also leans away from the idea that the entire bible is the inerrant word of god, but to be fair, she doesn’t claim that either. Frankly, we don’t really know what, exactly, she believes.
7 February 2008, on 10:32 pm
Eve and all…maggie had a comment in the queue…see comment #53 above.
Hello maggie. Thank you for coming by. All that copying and pasting was getting a bit tedious. Even though we may not agree on god beliefs, it’s always refreshing to come across a thinking Christian and one who doesn’t tell us we are going to burn in hell and start quoting scripture at us.
7 February 2008, on 11:32 pm
Telling people that they are going to burn in hell is repulsive and presumptuous. I don’t recall the place in the Bible where we are told that we can pronounce anyone’s fate. We should be seeing to our own.
However, given the strange take on Paul that I read, I may have to quote scripture in order to rebut those fantastic (fantasy, sheer fantasy) assertions. But if we stick to history, we should be alright.
I am far too tired to address any substantive matters tonight. Instead, I will tell you the following about myself:
1. I am a Catholic, so I am free to recognize the Old Testament as the repository of the sacred history, literature and laws of the Jewish nation. I am free to recognize that it contains mythology, saga, legend, poetry, stories, court narratives, laws etc. I understand that it, too, was inspired by God. However, as a Christian, I believe, of course, that the New Testament is his full revelation.
2. I believe that the New Testament accurately describes the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. With the exception of Revelation (which is familiar as an example of “apocalyptic” literature), the New Testament is meant to be taken as factual and I do. While I certainly believe that all scripture is inspired, it is still mediated through the languages and cultures of humankind and approaching it without regard to its genres, imagery, metaphors, rhetorical devices, etc. is madness. In my lexicon, inspiration does not mean dictation.
3. I have the greatest respect for the Jews. They are still God’s chosen people– he has not revoked his covenant with them, which is quite impossible. He said he would never do so and that is the end of it.
I tell you this so that Karen may rest assured that I have the greatest respect for Jewish scholarship and take it very seriously. However that diatribe over at that site Truth about the Messiah (?) or some such thing was preposterous and was, emphatically, not the work of scholars.
Almost everything I know about the Old Testament I have learned from Jewish scholars. The two most important translations/commentaries of the five books of Moses that I own were written by Jews (Robert Alter and Everett Fox). I have taken courses (thanks to the Teaching Company) from Gary Rendsberg and Amy-Jill Levine both of whom are major scholars. Rendsberg is at Rutgers and Levine is at Vanderbilt. Dr. Rendsberg has a very interesting website and has made a number of his articles available. For those interested in OT studies, it is a great source of information.
That is all I can manage tonight. Since I am not sure exactly what we are supposed to be discussing, could who ever is interested and willing, please propose the topic or ask the question(s)?
7 February 2008, on 11:56 pm
That is all I can manage tonight. Since I am not sure exactly what we are supposed to be discussing, could who ever is interested and willing, please propose the topic or ask the question(s)?
Back to what I was originally getting at at Craig’s blog,
Maggie says: I believe that the New Testament accurately describes the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. With the exception of Revelation (which is familiar as an example of “apocalyptic” literature), the New Testament is meant to be taken as factual and I do.
maggie, how can you be absolutely certain of the existence of supernatural places and beings? Putting the debate about the historicity of Jesus aside for a moment, how can you believe that a man was conceived miraculously via a god impregnating a virgin for the sole purpose of being horrifically tortured and killed…then comes back to life and floats up into the sky so that everyone can be forgiven for how bad this god made us? All based on one ancient book? If you say the OT contains mythology, etc., how can you say the far-fetched stories of the NT are real? Let’s start over with that.
I had said that first you must provide evidence for the existence of a god to begin with, and you then told me that was not possible to prove the existence of god. I had said that you believe because you choose to believe despite lack of evidence. And you say there is “plenty of evidence”.
(Then you can also get back to your discussion with Eve and Karen so there is lots to talk about.)
8 February 2008, on 2:00 am
Maggie:
I feel the wind stir my hair: I can taste sweet nectar, the wafting scent of flowers in my nose, & see a bird take flight.
You tell me there is more. An invisible world insusceptible to my 5 senses. There is no proof, you say, other than stilted poetry written by men long gone, the whispers of ghosts that never were.
You say: prove there isn’t.
But I say, prove there is. Can you bring the supernatural to the table, have it sit & eat w/us, teach us of worlds intangible? Can it come, not at call, but at all?
Does it feed the poor? Does it save the innocent? Does it heal the sick, or stop the slaughter?
Where indeed, was this loving deity, when the swords drank blood? Where was the outrage, when millions perished at the hands of madmen? Did the skies split open, & strike down the unjust? When the tongues of water & ice tore people from their homes & their lives away, where was the hand of this being, you so idolize?
The answers are thus:
You cannot call upon your faith alone, for it is not enough. You cannot claim simple belief is strength enough, because history echoes the failure of such. You can only appeal to the wilder imaginations, to the fear of demise, to the fear.
Hope is a heady mixture. But hope founded of fables is a feeble one.
My world is replete w/wonders: I have but to walk outside to revel in it. Poorly as it is designed, it still awes me to no end.
There are marvels yet to unravel. There are indeed unseen forces that ride the undercurrents of the world.
But they have no faces, no words, no hands nor fingers. No interest, for there is no guiding mind behind them.
You may call that bleak: I call it wondrous.
For I make my own purpose. I shall not be some puppet to a puppeteer who is not there.
8 February 2008, on 8:16 am
I’ll just post my favorite:
The universe has to have a cause.
That cause is god.
God doesn’t have to have a cause.
Wait, what?
So, let’s see if I can follow the logic on this one. If it exists, it must have been brought into existence in some manner (caused). The universe exists, so it must have a cause.
Well, so far so good. I’ll agree that something had to cause the big bang.
So, since the big bang has a cause, it must have been almighty gawd.
See, now we’ve hit a snag. No evidence is given for this, largely because none exists. However, for the sake of argument, we’ll continue.
Having caused the big bang, gawd exists. However, gawd does not have to have a cause.
That would seem to contradict the original premise, wouldn’t it? Argument destroyed, QED, etc.
Mr. Harris, you fail at logic.
8 February 2008, on 9:24 am
maggie, how can you be absolutely certain of the existence of supernatural places and beings? Putting the debate about the historicity of Jesus aside for a moment, how can you believe that a man was conceived miraculously via a god impregnating a virgin for the sole purpose of being horrifically tortured and killed…then comes back to life and floats up into the sky so that everyone can be forgiven for how bad this god made us? All based on one ancient book? If you say the OT contains mythology, etc., how can you say the far-fetched stories of the NT are real? Let’s start over with that.
I can’t be absolutely certain of the supernatural, anymore than you can be absolutely certain that there is nothing beyond the material world. Neither paradigm can be tested, falsified, etc. We look at the evidence that we have, weigh it and make a decision to the best of our ability.
As far as the NT is concerned, we are dealing with claims that what is being written is factually true. What the authors are writing is not legend or saga about people and events in the distant past but rather, about what they, or people they knew had actually experienced and seen. We know where these events took place, we know for a fact that Herod, Pilate, and all the rest were real people, etc.
So, really, while the virgin birth, walking on water and all the rest do need to be dealt with, the first matter to be settled is whether or not the history recounted in the New Testament is true or not. Did the events it relates take place or not? Was the executed man Jesus really raised from the dead, or not? Settling this question is the key to dealing with all the other issues you have raised.
Now, we Christians think the historical evidence comes down on the side of the truth of the NT’s claims. But all non-empirical arguments are probablistic and accepting them is a matter of deciding how strong one thinks the evidence is.
You can probably see that once one accepts the resurrection, the other miracle claims pale in comparison…
8 February 2008, on 9:41 am
maggie says: I can’t be absolutely certain of the supernatural, anymore than you can be absolutely certain that there is nothing beyond the material world. Neither paradigm can be tested, falsified, etc. We look at the evidence that we have, weigh it and make a decision to the best of our ability.
If you can’t be absolutely certain, then why do you believe the supernatural events of the Bible actually happened but reject Hindu gods, for example? They have just as much “evidence” for their gods and faith in theirs as you have for yours.
For now, until evidence shows otherwise, Atheists have no reason to believe a god exists. If there is nothing to test, there is nothing to weigh except what is in the imaginations of human beings. It makes as much sense to believe in an unseen, unproven, god as it does to believe in invisible flying pink unicorns. Prove that there are no invisible flying pink unicorns. You cannot and if a person still chooses to believe it, he/she would be put in the funny farm. But because what you believe is religion, it is ok to be delusional.
For now, since there is total lack of verifiable evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, you are saying you just choose to believe because you want to? I for one, do not understand how anyone can want to worship a god even if he did exist, who is so violently sadistic that he has to be appeased with even more violence…brutal torture and death of his own supposed son, sending non-believers to hell, etc. If you studied world mythologies, you will know that the world is full of similar mythologies that were once religions.
8 February 2008, on 10:02 am
Stardust, how can you read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that there is just as much evidence for the Hindu gods as for Christ? When and where were any of them born? Who are the writers who claimed to have known one or more of them and witnessed their doings? Hindus have no evidence for their religion of the kind Christians have for theirs. None.
I don’t see how you can read what I wrote and deduce that I “chose” to believe because I wanted to. Moreover, I told you in some detail on the other blog that I didn’t want to believe, at all, and why.
Unless this becomes a two-way conversation, real quick, I am going to bow out. I didn’t have much hope after reading your responses on the other blog and I appear to have been right.
8 February 2008, on 10:35 am
Huh? We have a defender of “paradigms” and “worldviews?” Relativism always cracks me up. “Yes, that’s right. You can’t criticize my xian view because we’re on the same level in the end. Scientific truth, biblical truth — they’re all the same in the end.”
Ugh. Relativism. Don’t waste your time with Mags, folks. She’ll believe that everyone’s right in the end. Oh, sorry, let me rephrase: “In Mags’ worldview (or paradigm), scientific truth is on the same level as biblical truth. Now that might not be true for you, but that just means that your paradigm is different from hers. It doesn’t mean that she’s wrong, or nuts. It just means that you don’t understand the existence of your paradigm.”
Jeez, why didn’t I see that before? How to get any crazy position to make sense? Oh, that’s right: Embrace relativism and reduce every other position to those that have no real standing. And, further, do this without any arguments. Just declare it and watch the tide roll in…
[*sigh*]
Ah, the joys of watching relativism collapse simply into subjectivism. Wow, belief and truth make so much more sense now, don’t they, Mags?
“Factually true?” “Real people?” Oh, come on, Mags — where’s your paradigm? Where’s your worldview? You must know that you can’t just say stuff like this, and that these words make no sense now. Jeez.
First you talk about paradigms and worldviews, and now you’re talking truth. I don’t get this at all. You can’t have both, Mags. Choose one, and let’s start the argument.
Or I can start, if that’s okay:
“Hi, my name’s Bob. ["Hi, Bob."] Ummm, I think that truth is really important for beliefs, and that the simple appeal to paradigms is stupid (as Davidson would agree). I also think that it makes no sense to say that dead people can come back to life after three days, or that virgins become pregnant, or that someone can spit on the ground, make mud, put it on someone else’s blind eyes and make them see, or that someone can curse a fig tree and make it die, or that someone can drive evil spirits into pigs and make them run into the ocean and die. I’m not saying that I’m certain of such things, but certainty was never the point in the first place.”
Now you go…
“All non-empirical arguments are probabilistic?” Huh? What does that mean? “All empirical arguments are probabilistic” — that one I’d grant. But otherwise, I’m still on the fence concerning clarity.
8 February 2008, on 11:34 am
You never took an undergraduate course in logic, did you, Bob? What a silly, meaningless waste of cyberspace your “response” to my post is! However, there is no harm done. I have wasted only a few minutes here and, while I will never get them back, these weren’t the first I have wasted and they won’t be the last.
Have fun echoing each other.
8 February 2008, on 11:35 am
I just got around to reading this part. Did you mean this company?
One doesn’t want to get too personal, Mags — but, in the future, you might want to avoid saying you’ve “taken courses” from these people while, at the same time, mentioning this company. The company sells stuff on CD and DVD — and, while those things might be entertaining, it’s not even remotely close to taking a college course. In fact, it’s not even up to the “education” from — one of my favs — this place.
8 February 2008, on 11:47 am
You never took an undergraduate course in logic, did you, Bob? What a silly, meaningless waste of cyberspace your “response” to my post is! However, there is no harm done. I have wasted only a few minutes here and, while I will never get them back, these weren’t the first I have wasted and they won’t be the last.
Have fun echoing each other.
And once again we see that Xians when backed into a corner, they make excuses blaming the other party and run away. I was expecting more from maggie. Talk about a big waste of time!
And ,maggie, no we are not the ones “echoing” each other. Just listen to the crap you recite at Mass, in one big droning voice in unison, all echoing the same repetitive words to a silent god that you can’t even prove exists.
I don’t see how you can read what I wrote and deduce that I “chose” to believe because I wanted to. Moreover, I told you in some detail on the other blog that I didn’t want to believe, at all, and why.
Oh, but maggie it IS your choice. Belief in something without evidence is a choice, a choice not based on physical evidence but on “faith”. You accept what you believe on faith and your one mythology text written by human beings with quite an imagination.
As for Hinduism, it is based on a vast body of scriptures. From Wikipedia” Divided as Śruti (revealed) and Smriti (remembered) and developed over millennia, these scriptures expound on theology, philosophy and mythology, and provide spiritual insights and guidance on the practice of dharma (religious living). In the orthodox view, among such texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads are the foremost in authority, importance and antiquity. Other major scriptures include the Tantras, the sectarian Agamas, the Purāṇas and the epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise excerpted from the Mahābhārata, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas. . . .According to Hindu tradition, the Vedas are apauruṣeya “not human compositions”[3], being supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called śruti (”what is heard”).[4][5] Vedic mantras are recited at Hindu prayers, religious functions and other auspicious occasions.”
Hindus provide the same “evidence” for their gods as you do for your god and zombie son. It’s all written in their sacred texts. Hinduism is an older religion that xianity. So it must be true?
8 February 2008, on 11:53 am
You never took an undergraduate course in logic, did you, Bob? What a silly, meaningless waste of cyberspace your “response” to my post is!
And if you are such the expert in logic, maggie, you should be able to produce a rebuttal to Bob’s comment instead of just blowing it off and simply calling it silly. I thought you were educated, maggie, yet you cannot hold your own in an argument against other educated people.
8 February 2008, on 12:06 pm
Well, I guess I sorta did, since I teach them now. And those classes, as you might guess, are just awful — I mean, all the students like you who give these obvious and incredible reasons and inferences actually don’t do well.
It’s just so unjust and unfair, my lack of knowledge at the front of the room, and yet getting paid to do all that.
But hey, all I need do is keep pulling the wool over the eyes of my employer for just a bit longer, and then I can retire from my (fake) job.
8 February 2008, on 12:47 pm
I think maggie needs a course in Research to learn how to use supporting evidence and how to cite sources to back up her claims (if there are any relevant sources). Courses in Rhetoric and critical thought would be helpful, too. But I don’t know if those are offered at online “schools”.
8 February 2008, on 2:24 pm
these weren’t the first I have wasted and they won’t be the last.
I can predict when some of them will occur. 11am to 12pm. Every Sunday.
8 February 2008, on 2:38 pm
maggie says “However, given the strange take on Paul that I read, I may have to quote scripture in order to rebut those fantastic (fantasy, sheer fantasy) assertions. But if we stick to history, we should be alright.”
OK, seeing as how what I quoted was taken from the Bible, you may as well use the bible to refute it. Should be interesting. I had rather expected a response of “Out of context!, out of context!” Instead, I get “fantasy, sheer fantasy”. Well, I’d agree, but not for the reasons maggie thinks.
From the same site, messiahtuth, which maggie thinks is a screed, and might just be, but provides many legitimate links:
In his book, Answering Christianity’s Most Puzzling Questions, Christian apologist Richard Sisson states:
“In fact, after the death of Jesus a whole flood of books that claimed to be inspired appeared…. Disputes over which ones were true were so intense that the debate continued for centuries. Finally in the fourth century a group of church leaders called a council and took a vote. The 66 books that comprised our cherished Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563.”
This shows the margin of the vote at the Council of Nicea, ordered by Constantine, without whom there would be no Bible. maggie made some comment about the bible being undisputed in the first century, then changed it to the second century, I think. Here we see it was the fourth century, and hardly undisputed by a vote only 5 votes separated on what should be contained in it. But since the Council burned the books voted out, it made it difficult for anyone to use them, except from memory.
8 February 2008, on 3:08 pm
Wow! You guys have really been heating things up; good going!
You’re right, Star; when backed into corners, even the most moderate and “reasonable” of xians storms off in a huff.
I’ll try to get back to this when I have a moment.
8 February 2008, on 4:21 pm
Let me guess (I’m Psychic?…feigns going into trance)…”O-o-o-o-o-o-hmmm!”…
“Ah…YES!…I’m sensing…
a ‘Maggie’…erm, I’m getting an ‘I’, and a ‘C’?..Something like…born in an Irish Catholic family?; raised…is it brainwashed?…from childhood…indeed, baptized from birth…to be a Catholic, using the usual Doctrinal ‘Catechism’ to…indeed, before all else…BELIEVE without any question, the dogmas of the…erm…
“ONE”…”TRUE”…Choich…? “Henya, Henya!”
“NEE!” (Snort!)
OK…seriously, I’m relating my own experience with being raised as a Catholic; taught by the habit wearing nuns (Black veiled Monsters?), Christian Brothers, Professor Priests, etc.
I’ll skip a bunch of other BS; but one obvious MAJOR item Maggie mentioned, and emphasized particularly by the RCC is the Virgin Birth fable; with Mary as Christianity’s goddess substitute, no less.
The Jews caught the error of that baloney early on, in the obvious mis-translation (in Isaiah?) of the word; which, it’s argued, is properly translated as “young girl”.
[A never ending delusional argument at that!]
Here’s some Wikipedia on various Mythological “Virgin Births”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births
And…AND…for all you Movie goers…
at YouTube; an informative video with that other, modern day, famous Virgin…erm…
Madonna(? Yikes!) doing the musical soundtrack ‘honors’?
“Such a Voigen!…Oy Vey!”
“The Virgin Births”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm7Kb18jlwU
And to avoid any more of my incessant yapping on, in this thread (and agonizing typing!)…check out, if you will, my #5 comment about the utter futility of arguing with true believers. I snuck it into today’s Uncredible Hallq post:
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2008/02/08/questionable-work-in-philosophy-of-religion/
8 February 2008, on 5:41 pm
ChuckA
maggie revealed that she had been raised in an agnostic home, but later chose religion: I was raised in an agnostic/atheist home. I did not “simply” choose to believe. It terrified me. I knew I would have to face my family’s ridicule and worse, I was sure it meant that I would have to go around pestering (aka witnessing to) my friends and neighbors. Well, I got the ridicule but I mostly resisted the pestering business
She does not explain how she chose Roman Catholicism as the flavor that suited her, but does hint at a OT=fable, NT=truth dichotomy.
8 February 2008, on 6:46 pm
I was raised in an agnostic/atheist home. I did not “simply” choose to believe. It terrified me. I knew I would have to face my family’s ridicule and worse, I was sure it meant that I would have to go around pestering (aka witnessing to) my friends and neighbors. Well, I got the ridicule but I mostly resisted the pestering business.
That is not typical atheist behavior, but it IS typical fundie behavior. Most of the atheist parents I know are very open-minded about allowing their children to find their own way. If one of my three children turned to religion we would not be so cruel as to ridicule them for it. And as for you having to go around “witnessing” why do you have to? Why can’t you god believers just believe and leave the rest of us alone? You expect everyone to jump on the Jeebus wagon to support your own faith.
It seems if this is true that maggie’s family are a bunch of asshats if they would react in that way. If she would say they are not abusive monsters as she gives the impression they were/are, then I would guess that maggie is making this crap up. It is more likely that someone in a catholic family who turns atheist would suffer such “persecution” from family members as maggie has described.
For most of us here who turned away from Xianity, we have had to face ridicule, pestering, and things like being put on church prayer lists, etc. Some, like myself have been banned from certain xian family members’ lives for simply not accepting their god beliefs, even though we do not ridicule them for those beliefs. It has been my experience that Xians are quite cold and cruel when someone doesn’t accept their god beliefs as real.
8 February 2008, on 6:57 pm
Stardust
That was just the other day. She asked if she had to change it, as she was driving my car. I told her no- that my rule was that the driver got to choose whatever station s/he wanted.
“That is not typical atheist behavior, but it IS typical fundie behavior.”
I have never given my daughter grief for having chosen to be baptized into the Methodist Church. But my folks gave me grief for being a “wicked heathen”. The only time I asked my daughter where I went wrong was when she tuned-in country music on the car radio!
8 February 2008, on 7:46 pm
Maggie: Telling people that they are going to burn in hell is repulsive and presumptuous. I don’t recall the place in the Bible where we are told that we can pronounce anyone’s fate. We should be seeing to our own.
That’s much more enlightened a view than the fundamentalist, for example, but this is a behavior you’re talking about. Surely you realize that you belong to an organization that preaches that anyone not belonging to it is going to hell, whether you ever actually tell them that or not? Or do you not agree with the RCC on this point? If not, why stay with them?
However, given the strange take on Paul that I read, I may have to quote scripture in order to rebut those fantastic (fantasy, sheer fantasy) assertions. But if we stick to history, we should be alright.
Here we go again: “their” take is wrong; “mine/ours” is right. You do realize that you belong to an organization that believes and preaches that the bible should be studied within the context and under the guidance of that organization and not on one’s own, right? Because if the only True Way to Understand the Bible ™ is by adhering to your interpretation of it, i.e., the Catholic’s, why then all other xian denominations must be doing it wrong and that’s why they’re all going to hell.
Otherwise, why is catechism so much more important than the actual bible in educating Catholics?
I am far too tired to address any substantive matters tonight. Instead, I will tell you the following about myself:
1. I am a Catholic, so I am free to recognize the Old Testament as the repository of the sacred history, literature and laws of the Jewish nation. I am free to recognize that it contains mythology, saga, legend, poetry, stories, court narratives, laws etc. I understand that it, too, was inspired by God.
Why? There’s no hard evidence for this understanding, certainly no scientific proof. The Old Testament simply says so and some people take it at its word (pun not intended).
However, as a Christian, I believe, of course, that the New Testament is his full revelation.
2. I believe that the New Testament accurately describes the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. With the exception of Revelation (which is familiar as an example of “apocalyptic” literature), the New Testament is meant to be taken as factual and I do.
Why? There is no hard evidence or scientific proof for all of it; assuming that just because some of it can be proven therefore all the rest, even the most outrageous claims, are also factual is, quite frankly, a leap of faith. Just because ruins have been discovered that are identified as probably being that of Sodom (and/or Gomorrah; can’t quite recall) doesn’t necessarily mean that the city was supernaturally destroyed and Lot’s wife turned to a pillar of salt as the rest of the tale claims. In the same way, just because there’s historical evidence for the crucifixion doesn’t automatically mean it was followed by the resurrection as the rest of that tale claims.
In fact, I would think that something as earth-shattering as a claim to a resurrection would be met with more and stronger demands for more and stronger evidence than “well, that part is true so this part must be true too, even though it’s a lot harder to believe and practically impossible to prove.”
Also, why would god simply “inspire” mythology (and you do understand that much of mythology was first believed as fact by its adherents, right?), saga, legend, etc., only to turn around and dedicate himself to “full revelation” instead (except for Revelation; oh no, that’s a type of fantasy!)?
While I certainly believe that all scripture is inspired, it is still mediated through the languages and cultures of humankind and approaching it without regard to its genres, imagery, metaphors, rhetorical devices, etc. is madness. In my lexicon, inspiration does not mean dictation.
You can’t prove inspiration, but otherwise I agree with your statement. You should be out there preaching this to your fellow xians who believe the opposite and are taking over the country as a result!
3. I have the greatest respect for the Jews….
Again, this is more a problem theologically in terms of your fundamentalist xian fellows. The Jews can’t prove their god or his inspiration either, but since I didn’t bring this subject up, I won’t get into it.
I can’t be absolutely certain of the supernatural, anymore than you can be absolutely certain that there is nothing beyond the material world. Neither paradigm can be tested, falsified, etc. We look at the evidence that we have, weigh it and make a decision to the best of our ability.
But in this case, in the absence of evidence, why believe that it is there? If there’s no way to prove it, then it doesn’t impact the material world. If it doesn’t impact the material world, it’s irrelevant to us because we live in the material world, not in any other. And at that point of speculation, every other variety of supernatural belief is just as valid as yours, including the non-xian faiths you so cavalierly dismiss later on.
As far as the NT is concerned, we are dealing with claims that what is being written is factually true. What the authors are writing is not legend or saga about people and events in the distant past but rather, about what they, or people they knew had actually experienced and seen.
Not exactly; they’re writing about what they say, or people they say they knew said they had actually experienced and seen.
We know where these events took place, we know for a fact that Herod, Pilate, and all the rest were real people, etc.
But not all of them; what about Mary Magdalene, who is mostly an amalgam of several women in several episodes who may or may not have been the same woman? Are you going to just assume that every single person mentioned by name – or just as importantly, not mentioned by name – was a real person because some others were? And for those who were real, are you also going to just assume that every single act and word attributed to them is true only because some others are?
So, really, while the virgin birth, walking on water and all the rest do need to be dealt with, the first matter to be settled is whether or not the history recounted in the New Testament is true or not.
Whoa, whoa: you’re a Catholic and you’re this cavalier about brushing aside one of your church’s most fundamental “truths,” that of the virgin birth? One of the pieces of evidence cited in “proving” Jesus’ divinity or specialness? Of course, the fact that it’s a common mythological motif must bother anyone who’s done some reading into this field and knows it’s not the earliest example of its use…
Did the events it relates take place or not?
You left out another question: Did only some of these related events take place or not? If so, which ones? If not, which ones?
Was the executed man Jesus really raised from the dead, or not? Settling this question is the key to dealing with all the other issues you have raised.
Good luck with settling that question, since you repeatedly turn aside or outright refuse our requests for definitive proof. In so many words, you’ve basically said there is no way to prove it.
Now, we Christians think the historical evidence comes down on the side of the truth of the NT’s claims.
We’re not so easy to please. Providing historical evidence of the crucifixion is one thing; providing historical and thus scientific evidence of the resurrection is a whole other ballgame, one you’ve declined to play by simply assuming that the evidence for one particular event is enough, in your opinion, to provide evidence for the other, far more difficult to believe event! People who believe Sitchin seize on the slightest indication from astronomers that there may have been celestial objects coming in to our solar system from the outside as proof that his entire claim of earth being colonized by aliens to be true. We require more to believe in that case as well.
But all non-empirical arguments are probablistic and accepting them is a matter of deciding how strong one thinks the evidence is.
I think others have addressed this statement.
You can probably see that once one accepts the resurrection, the other miracle claims pale in comparison…
Of course they do. Why bother with the little stuff when you’re already jumping to conclusions on the big stuff?
Stardust, how can you read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that there is just as much evidence for the Hindu gods as for Christ? When and where were any of them born? Who are the writers who claimed to have known one or more of them and witnessed their doings? Hindus have no evidence for their religion of the kind Christians have for theirs. None.
See, you’re an atheist too, just not as concerns one particular brand of theism. And you’re the one who’s really comparing apples to oranges.
You spoke about truly understanding the bible in the Right Way ™ by learning about the “ancient world” – except the ancient world didn’t just cover the Levant a few centuries before and around the NT events with historical bases. Religion and its development in India and Asia has not followed the same path as religion and its development in the West. Theologically, they pay far more attention and place far greater emphasis on philosophy and “spiritual” truth than actual events and facts for them (at least theoretically; like xians, hindus “in the trenches” also tend to fall on the side of taking things more literally). The transmission of belief orally without regard for the identity of the author is acceptable and understood in their culture, which, whether you like it or not, is as much a culture as ours.
No, I don’t believe their religions either and for pretty much the same reasons you gave, but for you to write off an entire sub-continent that heavily influenced an entire other continent in religious and philosophical thought, belief, and worship shows bigotry and arrogance on a massive, hugely egotistical scale, especially coming from another theist. Xianity lacks evidence for its most vital beliefs: an omni-god and the miraculous nature of his incarnation (strangely similar in some aspects to the hindu concept of an avatar; there’s one of those tricky mythological correspondences, again).
I argue that for those of us in the West, all our attitudes and approaches to Eastern thought and belief are colored from birth with very specific biases regardless of whether they are “positive” ones or not: ego / personality / individuality and the value of empirical proof / material world. Eastern identity is not shaped on the basis of the individual; they recognize that truth isn’t always literal or empirical. Symbol and metaphor play greater roles for them than for us in ways only those who submerge themselves into that culture can begin to understand. You’re demonstrating the same patronizing attitude that Catholic priests arriving in the Americas showed toward the newly conquered non-xian native peoples, that the Puritans showed toward the American “savages:” your religion isn’t the True Religion (TM).
I don’t see how you can read what I wrote and deduce that I “chose” to believe because I wanted to.
And yet in this short exchange, you’ve illustrated Western bias toward Western forms of religion quite beautifully. Had you been an agnostic / atheistic Asian, you would have been most likely to find The Truth ™ in an Eastern philosophy or faith. What does surprise me is that someone as obviously predisposed toward accuracy in research and thoroughness in scholarship should find the most pagan of xian denominations the most comfortable fit.
Unless this becomes a two-way conversation, real quick, I am going to bow out. I didn’t have much hope after reading your responses on the other blog and I appear to have been right.
Yes, close questioning about the specificity of one’s beliefs can be threatening; I used to believe in the xian god and jesus myself, and look what happened to me when I kept pushing my envelope and putting myself outside my comfort zone: I became fully atheist as opposed to just partly atheist like you (except for the Deist concept of god, on which I’m sort of agnostic but not holding my breath about any evidence either).
8 February 2008, on 9:36 pm
Sad Maggie:
1. Study up on your Roman Catholic faith.
2. Study the history of your church. As a female (I assume you are female), this is very liberating. Wanna know how St. Agatha of Sicily lost her breasts???
3. You do not need a PHD in **GASP** “theology” to recognize cognitive cowpie or as we say in Texas, “fertilizer from the shitter” and “turd blossoms”. All you need is a basic fourth grade reading level.
3. Here is a nifty site that I turn to on the off-off chance that 2,000-year-old homeless wizard should ever come a-beggin’ at my door…LOL…
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Quote:
“Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs. Following a star would lead you in circles. The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin. That idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses.
Scholars have known all this for more than 200 years but priestcraft is a highly profitable business and finances an industry of deceit to keep the show on the road. “Jesus better documented than any other ancient figure” ? Don’t believe a word of it. Unlike the mythical Jesus, a real historical figure like Julius Caesar has a mass of mutually supporting evidence.”
Now I gotta go clean the shitter…
8 February 2008, on 9:38 pm
OOPS…we do know how to count in the Bibble Belt…should be 3, 4 LOL!!! Sorry
8 February 2008, on 11:19 pm
Hmmm. I wondered if you had weighed in, Eve, since you were the one Stardust chose to try and take me on over at “Apparently So”. Since, you have written a rather interesting post, I think I will respond to you.
Re: Hell. Yes, like all Christians who hold to the historic faith as expressed in the creeds (Nicene, Apostles, etc.), I believe in the reality of hell. Those who deliberately and with full understanding reject Christ, will be excluded from his kingdom.
No, the RCC does not teach that other Christians will go to hell. The Church explicitly teaches that Protestants are fellow Christians: Catechism (Article 9, para. 3:)
818 ” … the Catholic Church accepts them (Protestants) with respect and affection as brothers …. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
Re: the fatuous “interpretation” of Paul’s words over on that “Messiah” site. You wrote:
Here we go again: “their” take is wrong; “mine/ours” is right. You do realize that you belong to an organization that believes and preaches that the bible should be studied within the context and under the guidance of that organization and not on one’s own, right? Because if the only True Way to Understand the Bible ™ is by adhering to your interpretation of it, i.e., the Catholic’s, why then all other xian denominations must be doing it wrong and that’s why they’re all going to hell.
Where do you get this stuff??? Before I get to the nitty-gritty, I will say this. Anyone who could write that stuff is an ignoramus. I suppose the author of that pauline diatribe thinks that when Jesus told his disciples to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves, he expected them to get down on their bellies and lay eggs. That “reading” of Paul’s words can only have been written by someone totally ignorant of similes, metaphor, analogy, and the whole treasury of literary and rhetorical devices available to all writers.. Such a person needs to revisit 11th grade English class and try to pay attention, this time.
On to the important stuff.
If you have read what I have written so far, you will know that the RCC neither teaches nor believes that Protestants are going to hell qua Protestants. The bigger issue you have raised here is the proper approach to scripture, which is the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. Everything else flows from that difference. A friend of mine wrote a summary which I am going to borrow because it is an excellent summary and because there is no percentage in creativity.
***
I am going to oversimplify terribly here, but it’s unavoidable lest I write a book length answer. Here are the two basic paradigms offered by Catholicism and Protestantism…..
Protestantism
*God gave us the scriptures as our source for discovering His word and truth.
*Scripture alone is to be the guide and source of doctrine regarding what a Christian is to believe.
*The believer, guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can read the bible and determine what is right belief.
*Scripture ALONE is AUTHORITATIVE in the life of the believer.
This is a belief known as Sola Scriptura.
Catholicism
*Jesus intended to establish a Church.
*Jesus selected 12 close disciples (the apostles) and explicitly gave them authority in the Church he was establishing (see Matt 16 & Matt 18)
*The apostle Peter was singled out and given a key role as the ‘head’ of the apostles. (see Matt. 16:18)
*Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would protect them from error and lead them into all truth.
*After Jesus Resurrection and ascension, the apostles began building the church and spreading the gospel.
*The apostolic ‘office’ is attested to in the NT, and as the apostles died, they appointed successors to their ‘office’. These successors were known from the beginning as Bishops.
*Each generation of bishops was succeeded by another generation of bishops, and this continues until today.
*These successor bishops, with the successor of Peter at their head, are guided by the HS (as promised by Jesus) and responsible for ensuring, and protecting the truth of the faith from generation to generation. This includes guiding the faithful in the meaning, mode, and understanding of the words of scripture.
*The Church as led by the Bishops, with the successor of Peter at the head is AUTHORITATIVE in the life of the believer
*It is in the light of BOTH scripture AND tradition that we are to understand the faith.
Observation 1: America is fundamentally a Protestant nation. The idea of just picking up the bible and being able to discover God and Christ is deeply ingrained in this culture to the point that the average American with no knowledge of Christian history, would think this is the norm.
But as far as the wider history and culture of Christianity goes, this is an approach that was….
1) Unthinkable prior to the Reformation
2) Impossible prior to widespread literacy and the advent of the printing press
3) Even today the minority view in worldwide Christendom since rougly 75% to 85% of Christendom is Catholic or Eastern Orthodox and rejects Sola Scriptura (though this last point might seem hard to fathom since most of America is Protestant and such a high percentage of that minority is concentrated here and dominates much of the discussion).
Observation 2: There are some inherent problems with Sola Scriptura that make it self-refuting. The fundamental issues are that the bible nowhere claims for itself that it is authoritative. And even if it did, the issue of the canon (what to include in the bible) destroys it as being workable.
In the early church history, there were many books claiming to be inspired (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews, etc., etc.). Unless the bible itself provides an infallible index as to what’s supposed to be in it, there is no way we can know from the pages of scripture itself which books should be included/excluded.
In fact, the canon of the bible was determined over hundred’s of years and was guided and approved by the Church (in the body of the bishops at the ecumenical councils) which deemed some books as being in keeping with what had been passed on to them from the apostles. The bible didn’t drop out of the sky after all, and even Protestants in a sense rely on the Catholic Church as having protected the canon (in particular the New Testament) as having been correct as to which books to keep and which not too.
Observation 3: The bible, by definition is not meant to be picked up and read as if it were a novel. Without adequate knowledge of the source languages, without knowledge of the history and culture of the writers, without knowledge of traditional teachings of Christianity, without expertise in ancient manuscripts, without an understanding of the literary modes of ancient cultures (and in particular the modes of any given book of the bible), and a multitude of other factors that come in to play, reading and UNDERSTANDING the whole of bible becomes nearly an impossible task.
A book such as the bible, written over such a vast period of time, in different languages, in different cultures, etc. demands an interpreter. It demands expertise to handle it. It demands a guide to walk us through it. Anybody who picks up a bible study guide admits the same (and ALL Christians would need to in order to make sense of much of scripture).
With that reality established, the question then becomes WHO it is we turn to in order to help us make sense of it all. This is such a crucial question. If you believe as I do that it’s the Church, moored and linked by the history of it’s established chain of succession from Christ to the apostles to the Bishops, and so on, and so on, then you will look to that body to guide you.
If you step outside of that historical continuity, you are basically on your own. You have to find experts, pastors, friends etc. who can *hopefully* guide you, and you may or may not be getting good advice.
************
Maggie here again. This has gotten way too long. So I am going to touch on a couple more points and that will be that.
You said: We’re not so easy to please. Providing historical evidence of the crucifixion is one thing; providing historical and thus scientific evidence of the resurrection is a whole other ballgame, one you’ve declined to play by simply assuming that the evidence for one particular event is enough, in your opinion, to provide evidence for the other, far more difficult to believe event!
No, I have not declined to play. I haven’t argued my position at all. I merely laid it out. I am particularly disinclined, though, to bother arguing it, since I have gotten a pretty good taste of your (plural) idea of discussion and honest weighing of opinions that differ from your own.
No, I don’t believe their religions either and for pretty much the same reasons you gave, but for you to write off an entire sub-continent that heavily influenced an entire other continent in religious and philosophical thought, belief, and worship shows bigotry and arrogance on a massive, hugely egotistical scale, …
This is all over the board and I can’t be bothered to unpack it. So, cutting to the bottom line, I tell you that what I have tried to express about Christianity has nothing to do wtih bigotry, arrogance, or ego. The historic evidence for Christianity is quite strong; the fact that you don’t know that is quite irrelevant.
Moreover I am always amused by atheists who trot out the “If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you’d be a Muslim!” argument and think they are telling me something I don’t know. Let me spell it out for you…
D. U. H!!
Do you not understand that most of us do not believe that all other religions are completely wrong? Since God created the universe and built his laws into it, of course all mankind apprehends those laws, at least dimly. Even you atheists do. That is why you (some of you) are able to be moral people. We (at least the more thoughtful of us) rejoice when we see the areas of agreement, whether it be justice towards the poor, love of neighbor, whatever. Naturally enough, where we differ we each think our own tradition is correct. Another big DUH! If I didn’t think Christianity was correct, why would I believe it?
Well, that is all I have the energy to write and it will have to do, forever and ever. I really object to being invited to a discussion only to be subjected to a stunning lack of ordinary civility and childish displays of verbal one upmanship. Since you are having fun, far be it from me to keep you from it. But you will understand, that I decline to participate any further.
9 February 2008, on 12:08 am
maggie, thank you for clearing up that the Catholic Church does not believe that Protestants are going to hell. I wish you could convince some Protestant denominations that Catholics are not going to hell, as we get that “Catholics are No True Xians (TM)” all the time here.
Regarding the Pauline diatribe, whoever it is is entitled to their opinion. I agree that it makes much more sense to approach scripture, indeed any written work in the way you describe. However, as long as literalist interpretation is as prevalent as it is in this country, many agnostics/atheists have chosen to confront it head on by countering with an equally literalist approach. If someone believes that the bible should be taken as absolutely correct word for word, then metaphor and simile have no meaning for them; we’ve tried to point that out to commenters, drive-bys, and trolls on this site to no avail.
Re: approach to scripture, like I said, I agree the Catholic’s is the most reasonable and true to the many factors involved in such studies. Thank you for explaining that this is why you chose this particular denomination to belong to. I suppose, since you didn’t mention any of it, that the pagan legacy of the Church does not bother you? The part about transubstantiation, the virgin birth and Marianism, the pope who declared all popes infallible when they declare things at just the right time in just the right way or something like that?
More later; this is an atheist site; you didn’t think we’d let you have the last word, now did you?
9 February 2008, on 12:38 am
Since God created the universe and built his laws into it, of course all mankind apprehends those laws, at least dimly. Even you atheists do. That is why you (some of you) are able to be moral people.
Maggie, (I know you will be back to see what we are saying
)This should be reworded to “Since I choose to believe God created the universe” because you have admitted you cannot prove this to be a true statement. You simply take it on faith.
We have discussed morals without religion a thousand times here. You believe morals are given by some imaginary friend, we do not accept that belief.
Austin Cline writes:
A popular claim among religious theists is that atheists have no basis for morality – that religion and gods are needed for moral values. Usually they mean their religion and god, but sometimes they seem willing to accept any religion and any god. The truth is that neither religions nor gods are necessary for morality, ethics, or values. They can exist in a godless, secular context just fine, as demonstrated by all the godless atheists who lead moral lives every day.
Godless Moral Values: Can Godless Atheists Have Moral Values?
Cline explains better than I can:
Moral Values Without Gods or Religion:
I can almost hear religious believers asking “What’s the basis for being moral in the first place? What reason is there to care about behaving morally at all?” Some believers imagine themselves clever for asking this, certain that it cannot be answered. It’s only the cleverness of a teenage solipsist who thinks he has stumbled on a way to refute every argument or belief by adopting extreme skepticism.
The problem with this question is that it presumes that morality is something that can be separated from human society and consciousness and independently grounded, justified, or explained. It’s like removing a person’s liver and demanding an explanation for why it — and it alone — exists while ignoring the body they’ve left bleeding out on the ground.
Morality is as integral to human society as a person’s major organs are integral to the human body: although the functions of each can be discussed independently, explanations for each can only occur in the context of the entire system. Religious believers who see morality exclusively in terms of their god and religion are as unable to recognize this as someone who imagines that humans acquire a liver through a process other than through the natural growth that lies behind every other organ.
So how do we answer the above question in the context of human society? First, there are two questions here: why behave morally in some particular set of circumstances, and why behave morally in general, even if not in every case? Second, religious morality which is ultimately based on the commands of a god cannot answer these questions because “God says so” and “You’ll go to hell otherwise” don’t work.
There is insufficient space here for a detailed discussion, but the simplest explanation for morality in human society is the fact that human social groups need predictable rules and behavior to function. As social animals, we can no more exist without morality than we can without our livers. Everything else is just details.
9 February 2008, on 1:06 am
Craig is an android. He writes at his blog…
But Craig and others believers at his blog talk about evidence and never provide any. And he is generalizing. Most of the Christian denominations do not agree with each others’ “worldview.” (shaking my head)
This is one reason there is so much war. Most religious folks have this attitude that their worldview is right while all others on this planet are wrong. Instead of being so divided about whose imaginary friends are real and whose are not why not come together as HUMAN BEINGS working together to help each other instead of being divided over crap that doesn’t really matter. You god botherers are more divided between yourselves than you are between yourselves and non-believers.
9 February 2008, on 1:42 am
Boy, I’m glad my worldview isn’t competing with Criag’s worldview, cos Craig would cry so hard when my worldview beat up his worldview. Luckily,for him, his is in the lightweight class, and isn’t eligible to fight mine. /sarcasm off
9 February 2008, on 1:45 am
If we asked Craig to describe in any depth what he means by “worldview”, my bet is that he would not be able to and would give some sort of flip answer and blow us off. He hasn’t given an intelligent response to anything at his blog. And he has quite a lot of atheists over there now trying to explain things to him. It will be pointless, however, I am sure because Craig doesn’t want to let anyone take his Jeebus away.
Nor does maggie, she clings to her morbid catholicism, believing in god who could only be appeased by creating a son for himself to allow to be tortured and die a horrible death, only to come back to life again as a walking zombie and then float into heaven to live with his sky daddy….because we are so very baaaaaaad. That’s as crazy as any story in Greek, Roman, or Egyptian, etc. mythologies.
9 February 2008, on 2:55 am
barbiebrains…
Thanks for that link. That particular Site’s title expresses EXACTLY my perspective.
Just reading through all the asshat machinations of the typical brainwashed Christian…Catholic, in this case…proves my point about the total futility of arguing with completely dyed in the wool believers.
After all, the ivory tower, career clergy, theologian types have spent 2000+ years spinning all the made-up bullshit lies into a complex web which is so intricately devised, so as to cover their tracks, and (almost) completely baffle those who would unweave it.
One basic fact about the Judeo-Christian mythological tale, is that the whole mission of “Jesus” (Yeshua Ben
Joseph?…”Yeah; shewa!”(ROIT!)] in the supposed “Saving of mankind” depends ENTIRELY on Genesis for it’s fundamental ‘Reason d’etre”.
We now know, thanks to Science…in 2008…from fact-based study of fossils, Biology, Geology, Astro-Physics etc., that the age of the Earth is in the Billions of years (over 4?). In other words, the story of Genesis…in it’s two contradictory versions…a viscious, rather childish tale, indeed…is total, LITERAL…BULLSHIT!
Mankind NEVER “fell”! The human race is the product of an EXTREMELY long, and complex, evolution!
We’re certainly NOT guilty because of what two supposed, totally ignorant, morons in some imagined, dinky garden, making small talk with a jabbering snake (some “Lucifer” dude in disguise) about an apple…ala the “Original Sin” dogma. We all know the attempts at symbolic interpretations. Apple tree = tree of knowledge (or was it just…Adam & Eve fucking the brains out of each other?)”Oh…the guilt of it all!”
Bottom-line: It’s the tale of supposed “disobedience” to a REALLY…BAD…SICKO…LAME-ASS…IMAGINARY…GOD!
Shame on such a vicious, divine archetypal TYRANT, for being so outrageously…STUPID?…to actually dream that up!
An outrageous injustice, indeed! And what a vile concept for a supposedly All-JUST god!
Of COURSE, it’s really just made up bullshit by some delusional, uneducated ancient morons!
A BLATANT LIE…like all tribal myths…to make up an explanation for their equally ignorant, dumbass followers!!!
No more from me. I’m going against my better judgment…AGAIN…that of getting back into such total nonsense of arguing this shit! It never ends! However…we’ll all be dead in say…a hundred years? Much, much closer for moi!
Of course…Who’ll give a rat’s ass?
[Someone offstage left]:
“Some future martyr rat?”
And who really gives a fuck what Maggie or any of her ilk believes.
Make sure, folks, it all stays completely out of our SECULAR, Democratic government!
“Freedom FROM Religion”, I say! “Complete separation of Church and State!”
“FACT-based; not Faith-based!” “Taxes on all religious properties!” Highest taxes on ALL fucking evangelists!”
“Save the Constitution!”…
Or is it already too late?
Ummm…”Free choice of drugs for all GifSters!”
Whoops…sorry…guess I got carried away a bit.
Seriously…
I suggest more links like the one barbiebrains posted in #80!
Happy weekend, GifSters!
9 February 2008, on 3:01 am
This little bit caught my eye, from Maggie:
Your deity did a piss-poor job of that, I assure you. Spat upon, blamed for the world’s ills, from Luther to Hitler.
6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.
It beggars the imagination.
Moreso, it begs the question – just where was your ‘god’ when all this happened? Did s/he/it descend from the heavens to intervene? Did a voice thunder from on high, bidding the Nazis to stop? Did cherubs descend to blow the horrid deed in every eye, that tears might drown the wind? (Macbeth) Were there miracles aplenty in those days? Were any of the persecuted lifted on downy wings, & spirited away from the camps?
We all know the answer to these questions:
NO
& that, dear lady, is the end of that, as you succinctly put it.
Either that, or your deity is on sabbatical, senile, wondering in a celestial rest-home: “What did I do w/my chosen people? I just can’t recall. Oh well, Bingo’s at eight. Time for prune juice.”
It’s sad, that a bright person such as yourself can ‘believe’ in children’s fables.
It’s like I always say: just because you’re smart, doesn’t mean you’re not stupid.
9 February 2008, on 10:04 am
maggie said: Unless this becomes a two-way conversation, real quick, I am going to bow out. I didn’t have much hope after reading your responses on the other blog and I appear to have been right.
maggie, There you go again thinking you are right…or wanting badly to believe you are right. You are looking at it as if it is we who are close-minded, when you will not examine the things you are saying that we have a problem with. We are bringing up difficult points in this discussion and like any other Xian we get here, you have shown that even an “educated” Xian still runs away when they realize they cannot answer the questions, when contradictions in your bible are shown, when you are asked to show the “evidence” that you keep talking about. It’s easier to make excuses and bow out than to try to create more and more fiction to support that your “beliefs” are real.
It would have been much easier to say “I have nothing to discuss because what I believe is based on faith which you do not have” than to keep making up fiction to support more fiction.
Hope we have at least left you with stuff to think about.
As for some of the responses here, some are just weary of the endless debates with we’ve had with xians about reality vs. religious “faith”.
(KA, excellent point about the Jews. If there is a god, the Jews are his most hated humans.)
9 February 2008, on 12:51 pm
As to atheists and morality – yes, atheists can and do recognize and act upon moral values.
The question is, why? What accounts for objective moral values that we universally recognize (yet often subjectively apply)?
9 February 2008, on 1:20 pm
Lachrymose Maggie:
Pick your Jesus…there were lots of ‘em wild-eyed Jesii trekking through the desert…makes you wonder if there is a correlation between severe heat stroke, tight loin cloths and Messiahship…Urine tests reveal that low blood sugar caused St. Theresa of Avila to behold the Christ…As a Catholic, you should really take advantage of all the hagiographies…they make for better entertainment than “Jerry Springer: The Opera” or HBO’s “Cathouse: The Series”…
Heck, even I could be a goddamn Prophet in west Texas or the Negev…LMAO!!!!
Quote:
‘Jesus of Nazareth’ supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity – the first century of the Christian era – yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky. All references – including the notorious insertions in Josephus – stem from partisan Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion). The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-purposed for the needs of the early Church.
It is not with a human being that the Jesus myth begins. Christ is not a deified man but a humanised god who happened to be given the name Yeshu. Those real Jesuses, those that lived and died within normal human parameters, may have left stories and legends behind, later cannibalised by Christian scribes as source material for their own hero, but it is not with any flesh and blood rebel/rabbi/wonder-worker that the story begins. Rather, its genesis is in theology itself.
From…
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
9 February 2008, on 1:28 pm
Stardust:
Please put me down as one “…just weary of the endless debates…”.
If people are so sure that Skyboss “made” us, why couldn’t he “make” evolution, too? Oh, wait, that would go against his thinking? Suffering succotash. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence knows that most KKKristian fundies hate evolution because of it’s unsympathetic explanation that allathem black, brown and yellow folks (as well as the chimps and bonobos) are blood relations, in a manner of speaking.
9 February 2008, on 1:31 pm
Stardust – I’m guessing that, like most xtians, Maggie’s ‘evidence’ is the same as most xtians. That is, ‘all of creation is testament’. Most religious don’t realize, that in order to claim ‘intelligent design’, there needs to be a criterion as to its opposite.
There are certainly ’smart’ mutations that gave rise to that diversity that Craig likes to go on about, but for each ‘brilliant’ aspect 1 can give as an example, it’s child’s play to find 100 examples of ’stupid design’.
9 February 2008, on 1:45 pm
kevin comment #91 says: The question is, why? What accounts for objective moral values that we universally recognize (yet often subjectively apply)?
kevin h ,Please READ THE COMMENT # 84 ABOVE AND LINKS provided there. I am not going to rewrite it again.
Kevin is trying to drum up traffic over at his post…”faith and reason” if anyone is interested.
I think it will just be another merry-go-round ride like with all other xians we have tried to debate with. No matter what we say, or what evidence and links to sources we provide, or difficult questions we ask, they will dismiss everything we say, declare themselves the “winner” and keep deluding themselves.
Doesn’t this dude look familiar? Didn’t we do a feature on him already?
9 February 2008, on 2:09 pm
I knew we had an encounter with Kevin Harris before!
Sean posted this in July 2006
A gauntlet is thrown down (yawn)
So, to your invitation, as for me the answer is NO Kevin. You want to discuss things, do it here on our turf.
9 February 2008, on 3:05 pm
Ah, the lame-ass values argument. Yes, this is getting old.
Should I feed the troll? Okay, I’ll just (re-)post a couple of things.
For an atheist theory of value, go here. And, if that doesn’t float your boat, the critique of God-centered theory of value can be found here.
If you think that “But God says so” gets you out of the problem, you need to reconsider the strength of your skepticism.
9 February 2008, on 3:40 pm
I think Kevin and those like him just try so hard to keep themselves brainwashed that they shut the door to any other possibilities. They want to believe they are right and are like discussing with a Magic 8 ball…ask it any question, but it has a limited number of pre-set answers.
9 February 2008, on 5:04 pm
Kevin’s blog only allows google blogger entries, so even if we were interested in feeding his blog, he’s out of luck with those of us who don’t have accounts.
I guess next he’ll be asking the meaning of life?
9 February 2008, on 5:08 pm
Hi, guys! Sorry I had to leave in such a hurry last night, but they were locking the building up on me, and much as I love y’all, I didn’t want to get stuck in there all night.
I’m at a public computer and don’t have a whole lot of time, but I note that maggie keeps beating the dead horse about correct interpretation of scripture as if we’re the ones who need to be educated about it – even though I’ve already conceded a point about accuracy and agreed with her outright about approach. Either she hasn’t bothered to return the compliment and read all that I wrote, or she’s ignoring that I’ve made the effort to find common ground with her. Instead, I get the “shouldn’t have bothered to get out of bed” and “duh” remarks, which coming from someone complaining about my lack of courtesy, is pretty ironic.
Nevertheless, I’m a big girl, and I’m not the one running away from the discussion.
maggie, I think you’re pissed that I called you out on backing up your blithe comment about there being plenty of evidence for the non-material. I think you’re pissed that instead of bowing and scraping to your wonderful words of wisdom, we engaged you directly and challenged you on specific points. I think you’re pissed that we pointed out particularly weak points in what you obviously hold nearest and dearest to your heart, that believing in the supernatural despite the lack of proof is not what reason defaults to in such a case, and that jumping to the conclusion that evidence for the more believable parts in the jesus story equals evidence for the most hard-to-believe claims, which also happen to be the most important in your view, doesn’t make sense unless you realize that your societal and cultural biases are coming into play.
We’ve further pissed you off by rightly bringing up that the RCC’s is not the only xian interpretation of scripture and that since the literalist is as widely if not more accepted here in the US, that’s the one we’re most often reduced to countering in equal measure. Add to that the fact that I caught you out in your biased, arrogant dismissal of another religion, forcing you to admit that yes, religion in general is a crock because every single one of you ultimately believes that yours is the True One (TM), which in turn can’t help but influence your attitudes, words, and behaviors as you’ve so aptly shown, and no wonder you want to back off from this discussion.
Just because you’re not Fred Phelps doesn’t mean we’re going to discreetly refrain from scrutinizing your much more moderate beliefs in order to avoid offending your delicate faith. We’ve been forced to stand silently in the corner like good little quiet freethinkers all our lives, and look where it’s gotten this country. Where were you moderate xians when the nutjobs were taking over the Republican Party? Where were you when the literalists were making sure their beliefs made it into government with their theocratic leaders? Where were you when they started taking our civil liberties away?
Don’t think I’m letting us off the hook; we’re responsible for giving in to social and cultural pressure not to question people’s faith because it’s sacred / holy / on a pedestal. We’re responsible for assuming that otherwise reasonable, moderate xians like yourself would be likely to value the same things we do, like tolerance, equal rights, and workable economic and foreign policies. We’re responsible for not realizing that ultimately, too many religious people get sidetracked by distractions like “teh gay is ruining our country!” and end up voting for the same assholes that the end-of-the-worlders do.
I hope that’s not the case with you, since on some points you seem like a pretty rational person, but no, we’re not going to shut up and stand in the corner anymore. If there’s a weakness in your argument, we’ll point it out; after all, that’s what you did with me on the matter of scholarly consensus on the historicity of jesus. But unlike you, I was honest enough to concede the point and continue the conversation.
I sincerely meant my thanks, however, because I myself don’t consider interactions like this a waste of time. It’s given me ideas for future posts and points to put out there for theists to ponder.
And now, once again, I’m being kicked off a computer. If any GifSters out there are in the tornado strike zone, I hope you’re OK and getting the assistance you need. It looks like it was pretty bad in Tennessee.
9 February 2008, on 6:05 pm
Kevin’s blog only allows google blogger entries, so even if we were interested in feeding his blog, he’s out of luck with those of us who don’t have accounts.
Maybe he just doesn’t want to deal with too many people, or maybe like me, he wants to keep the trolls away. I had to set my Stardust Musings blog to no anonymous comments allowed because I was getting trolled by radical Xian fundies and is a real pain in the ass to keep finding and deleting them. That housekeeping takes too much time. I wish Blogger had a moderation system similar to WordPress where we can moderate comments easily.
I guess next he’ll be asking the meaning of life?
Karen, I am sure that one will get asked eventually.
9 February 2008, on 6:19 pm
Eve, I would go crazy with a limited time on my computer! Thanks for jumping in on this one. I always learn from you and others here so am glad when we get into these lengthy discussions.
9 February 2008, on 11:22 pm
I realize I’m quite a bit late to the game, but I can’t resist adding to what Stardust said in comment #13:
I heard an even better one. (paraphrased)
10 February 2008, on 12:17 am
Yeah, it was a real intelligent designer who ran a toxic waste dump through a recreational area.
Stupid design or practical joke!
I would say the god of Abraham is a real trickster!
10 February 2008, on 1:05 am
HA… The God of Abraham is Loki. I’ll bet Odin is really ticked off, then.
10 February 2008, on 3:38 am
Speaking of trickster gods…
Bumper sticker on my car, “Eris is my co-pilot. Loki is my bombadier.”
Amazingly, I haven’t been hassled by the cops or had rocks thrown at me. Amazing only given that I live in the bible belt.
10 February 2008, on 4:10 am
[...] Hot on the heels of a rather intriguing discussion (see here), I think it time we dust off some of the more obvious blatherings of the religious. [...]
10 February 2008, on 9:59 am
Inari, I love that one! ha!
“Eris is my co-pilot. Loki is my bombadier.”
10 February 2008, on 4:52 pm
I want feedback, not “traffic” at my blog – particularly on the recent “faith and reason” blog.
I didn’t know only Google bloggers, I’m open to anyone commenting and will adjust the settings.
Kevin H
10 February 2008, on 5:13 pm
I want feedback, not “traffic” at my blog – particularly on the recent “faith and reason” blog.
And we want delusional Xians and other god believers to wake up to reality, but that isn’t going to happen anytime soon now is it?
You’re a wee bit demanding, aren’t you Kevin? In other words, you want people to come give you “feedback” so you can say they are wrong and declare yourself the winner like you apologists always do to prove to yourselves that your god beliefs, and particularly YOUR version of god beliefs are real.
10 February 2008, on 7:31 pm
One more thing, Kevin, maybe you should put more effort into trying to get all you Xians to come to a common consensus amongst yourselves about what it is you all believe before evangelizing to others about your version of “truth.”
11 February 2008, on 9:18 am
Stardust,
The good thing about public exchanges is that people can judge for themselves, despite anyone “declaring themselves a winner”. I’m just interested in thoughts about the topics on the blog – something we seem to have in common.
KevinH
11 February 2008, on 11:05 am
Kevin, Are you REALLY interested in our thoughts, Kevin? Or just using us to “strengthen your faith” and practicing debating skills? Be honest.
11 February 2008, on 5:21 pm
^ I’m not going to increase traffic to a site that promotes the sabotaging of science education.
And my personal response to the topic is as follows:
Dover, bitch!
11 February 2008, on 11:08 pm
Eve I bet none of those god luvvers bothered to watch even a bit of the NOVA series I posted the link to. It reminds me of a debate my husband had with a Baptist minister once on evolution. The pastor was trying to get my husband to take some literature about Jeebus and being “saved”…and my husband said he would take it and read it if the pastor would take and read his book on evolution. The pastor said he would never read anything “of the devil” and my husband couldn’t get through this dude’s thick head that he could have his god delusion and evolution at the same time.
12 February 2008, on 8:51 am
Okay, take a breath… my post is not about evolution. It’s a philsophical issue concerning faith and reason. It just seemed to me that it would be of interest to those who post here.
K
12 February 2008, on 9:42 am
^^Kevin, your post isn’t about evolution, but it is written around the fantasy premise that a god exists. We do not believe god, gods, goddesses exist. Your first sentence of your post is “Christian faith is reasonable faith.” We disagree right from the get-go. The title of your post is “Faith and Reason”. Faith is unreasonable since there is no evidence for the existence of a god to have faith in. It’s just something you choose to believe for whatever reasons. You are not going to convince anyone here.
You have posted your link on our blog, people can go there if they want to be bored out of their skulls. You can also comment on other posts here concerning events which are happening in our real world which your god seems powerless to do anything about. (As well as other things like THIS)
Do you REALLY believe there is a puppetmaster god who knows the thoughts, sufferings, and actions of billions and billions and billions of people past, present and future while at the same time controlling all the elements of this world and the cosmos? Get with fucking reality.
12 February 2008, on 7:57 pm
Not to mention that I’ve rarely if ever seen, heard, or read a debate between a theist and freethinker/atheist done on the theist’s turf in which the theist played fair. I don’t think believers deal honestly with themselves, let alone unbelievers; as long as it’s being done in god’s name, anything seems to go.
12 February 2008, on 9:22 pm
Not to mention that I’ve rarely if ever seen, heard, or read a debate between a theist and freethinker/atheist done on the theist’s turf in which the theist played fair.
Eve, excellent point. They don’t even want to play fair on our turf. And they dance around the hard questions.
12 February 2008, on 11:15 pm
Driving home now in a tornado warning, Star; praaaaaaay for meeeeee!
12 February 2008, on 11:47 pm
Be careful Eve…
My son called my husband today when his car broke down on I-94 in a snowstorm on the north side of Chicago…and my husband and a towing service went to rescue him. My husband says he is a god who shows up whenever he is called.
13 February 2008, on 1:10 pm
Survived the tornadoes; Thor be praised!
Star, that’s a lot more reliable than any other “god!”
13 February 2008, on 1:35 pm
Eve, Glad you got through the storms ok.
Praise Crom for being merciful. But that mercy is of his own accord, because “Crom is a stern and unforgiving god that answers no prayers.” Hmmm Just like the Xian god.
“As a god of storms, Crom can likely summon wind, rain, thunder, and lightning in any amount and intensity he desires. He has incalculable mystical powers on an omnipotent level and the ability to grant power on mystics and sorcerers who know how to summon him.” Sounds just like Xianity and the church leaders, doesn’t it?
14 February 2008, on 4:48 pm
Star, perhaps we should start to classify religion (at least currently “live” ones) under “Good Pulp Fiction – Not!”