Thought for the day

Well Billy, I didn't want to get on your case. None of what you presented qualifies in any way as "proof" and really doesn't qualify as evidence either. ou can't point to the likely existence of someone named Jesus who happened to claim he was the son of god as being proof that there's a god. That's not a valid argument. It's like saying that the existence of someone who claims to be something supernatural proves the supernatural exists. It's circular logic. It isn't evidence.

As to why Jesus might have made the claim, I've already given my thoughts on that in a previous post. You asked why he'd have risked so much to do what he did. Why did Ghandi? Why did Martin Luther King? Why does anyone put themself at risk to try and improve conditions in their society? Jesus had a clear agenda. It's far more reasonable to assume that he (or his followers after his death) made false claims in order to aid their cause than it is to assume those claims were true.

As for evidence of Jesus existing, there's actually very little. There's only the gospels. That's it. That's hardly "mounds of evidence." There's so little evidence that no historian worth his salt would make the claim that he definitely existed. All they'll say is that it's likely that he did. Even if there was definitive proof that he existed, that by itself would in no way validate his claim of being the son of god. Like Paolo, you seem unable to divorce yourself from your emotions and look at these things purely in terms of objective evidence and critical thinking.

Ever heard of Josephas (sp?) or the Dead Sea Scrolls? There is your secular proof that Jesus lived and breathed.

Yep, that's precisely what I'd call them. To my knowledge I haven't accused you of being arrogant, of belittling me, of ambushing me, or any of the other emotional retorts I've been getting from you. I'm simply refuting your arguments with explanations of my reasoning.



Paolo, I'm truly sorry that you're feeling put upon, but I must restate that emotion has little to do with logic and if you want to have a logical debate you have to leave the emotions at the door. They detract from our ability to have honest dialogue.



There's no way for me to put this delicately... I DO consider the possibility and summarily reject it because of the complete lack of any empirical evidence to support it. Your argument seems to rest on the belief that our positions are both ones of faith. Mine is not. I don't take anything on faith. I do consider it possible that there's a God, but the possibility is so remote that barring extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim I don't intend to give it much thought... without any evidence what is there to think about? There's such a thing as odds, and they favor the atheist. That's just the way it is.



I appreciate that about you very much, and you're correct... I don't tend to stray too far from critical thinking, skepticism, and logic and it's difficult for me to have empathy for people who do. If you want to inspire understanding in me then I require data. Neither you or Billy have quantified why you believe what you believe in a non-emotional factual way.



What specific questions have I not answered? I won't argue that my burden here is much easier than yours. Not much I can do about that. I'm not making any extraordinary claims.



That's not actually true. I was raised Christian... sunday school, youth group, baptism, and the whole nine yards. I was never exposed to another atheist or an atheist viewpoint until after I already knew I didn't believe in God. Not that any of that matters. Lack of belief is the default state of mind for any topic of which one is unaware. I said earlier that you didn't pop out of the womb with a belief in God. You popped out with a lack of belief (also known as atheism). You couldn't believe in the idea of god until you either invented it or had it introduced to you. Belief in God has to be learned. It doesn't happen spontaneously.



You're right. There's not really any point to this unless you enjoy having your beliefs challenged (and I'm getting the distinct impression that you're not enjoying it ). I'll never believe without proof and no one will ever be able to provide it, and that, ultimately, is the crux of everything I've been trying to say. I simply don't take things on faith. I do appreciate the exchange though. I'll always be fascinated by religious beliefs precisely because they're impossible to justify with logic.

The dead sea scrolls are only proof that stories about Jesus exist. No one is refuting that.

Are you seriously telling me that you don't get a certain satisfaction out of playing this rhetorical game? Oh, for shame! That's emotion.

Furthermore, you haven't refuted any arguments with regard to the existence of God or spirit. You have simply pointed out that there is no current method by which either of us can empirically do so.

First sentence: No condescension there? Put upon? Who uses a term like that when it isn't intended to demean the other, even if ever so slightly? So, you get to make covert zings at my expense and then make me out to be some emotional basket case. My responses aren't emotion for emotions sake; my more impassioned responses sought to refine the rules of engagement.

Yes, I feel passionate about this topic. I won't try to pretend, otherwise. If I am nothing else, I am an authentic human being. Further, if this is a debate, then it is persuasion speech. Emotion is an ally, not a foe, of the skilled debater. Am I substituting emotion for a reasonable explanation for my faith? I think my posts speak for themselves.

Second sentence: Humans have emotions. Emotion cannot be inextricably decoupled from any human endeavor, especially in a non-formal forum environment like this. You think the Einsteins of the world weren't passionate people? You don't think the quantum and string theorists fight and scream and cajole one another? You don't think that human fallability isn't a part of the scientific method? No, our humanity infects everything we touch, whether we like it or not. You are, therefore, asking far more of me than you are entitled to ask: For me to be something other than human.

Chip,

I assume then that you use the same skeptical view on all of the historical figures then. After all, there is no empirical proof that say Cesar ever lived... just stories... right? Or Abraham Lincoln... bunches or "stories" about him... no "actual" proof. Shakespeare... Isaac Newton... pfft... no proof there... just stories.

You have no trouble with having faith that Napoleon lived, you have never seen him... all you know is what you have been told from others... sure there are stories... but they are just stories, not reliable facts... right? You must have no clue whatsoever about anyone that is a historical figure.

Furthermore... how about Iceland? Have you been there? Do you KNOW it exists or are you relying on what others say? You have a hell of allot more faith than you will admit Chip.

And you must be really really surprised when you flip a light switch and electricity makes your light work... that requires faith which you have none. How about sitting in a chair that you never have sat in before... I’ll bet you never dream of sitting... how would you ever know if it would hold your weight? How would you know that it was not electrified and would fry you right there? Because you have faith is why.

Ok, maybe you do believe in Napoleon... and not Jesus... but that's only because you do not hold Napoleon to the same standard because he is not a religious figure Chip. Think about it for a bit & comment.

LOL Billy. ummmm, you did notice elsewhere in the thread where I said that I personally believe that Jesus was a real person who did exist, right? The point wasn't whether or not Jesus existed, but whether or not the existence of Jesus could be considered proof of God's existence. As for the question of Jesus's existence, the evidence is very scant. There exists no physical evidence... no artifacts... no self-authored manuscripts... and no first person eyewitness writings. All of the writings about Jesus, which are all from the oral tradition of the Gospels, are hearsay (none of it was firsthand eyewitness knowledge of the authors). A valid historian's writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, can't serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the original writings about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, so all that leaves us with is hearsay. This isn't my own bias. These are the criteria historians use.

I appreciate your point about Odo's kind (from an earlier post, not quoted). It's a good imaginary illustration. Evenso, I still don't understand how Heaven solves the problem of humanity, if being human was what kicked off the whole thing in the first place... if things were once "perfect", and got off-kilter, why will [future] Heaven not have the same eventual problem, unless its inhabitants aren't free to make choices that "matter" (ie. moral choices)? If God was "bored" with the predictability of humans in the first place (thus allowing them to make a "bad" choice by placing the Tree), won't He once again get bored with the new Heaven? If He wasn't bored, why bother giving Adam a chance to get the boot?

See, I find things like these "gosh numbers" pretty amazing, enough so to believe that there's a good chance our universe was created intentionally by something. But I have trouble resolving the explanation given in the [Christian] Bible; it seems more plausible to me that we were created already-imperfect, and that we're more like some super-being's science experiment or toy.

To give an example, regarding Eden, why would God place the Tree there? Supposing Adam didn't eat the fruit on day 1, on day 2, Adam would still be there, and the Tree would still be there. As far as we understand probability, since there was a non-zero chance that Adam could eat the fruit, it was simply a matter of time before he would. So, in effect, if Adam truly had free will, God would know it was inevitable that Adam would fall; a God like that seems capricious and tricky; furthermore, if I was made by God, as the Bible claims, and I dislike capriciousness and tricky people, how would I ever come to respect (and want a relationship) with this God? This type of conundrum is what makes me think the Bible is moreso a book of wisdom (and history, in the earlier parts), and not representative of the actual Creator's (supposing there is one) personality.

Good to have you back in the debate (as we now understand it to be), gene. I really need to turn off auto-notifications for this thread, lol. I wonder if I can copy all of this down for a thesis paper, one day? hmmm

Yes, I've had similar thoughts from time to time. I honestly don't fear that particular conundrum, but there is so little actually said about heaven in the Bible, who knows? It certainly seems plausible that heaven is not immune to rebellion. Look at the host of heaven (angels), for heaven's sake (hehe, punny).

Yeah, good points. I believe free will is the underlying cause and/or justification, but I also assume that, as an omniscient being, God foreknew that Adam and Eve would fall (which brings up a whole other conversation about whether they were literal or figurative people). In a way, it was probably the necessary means by which to overcome the problem inherent in bestowing upon a created being god-like sentience. Maybe in divine law, there is a "no double-jeopardy" provision, which states that once you pass ultimate muster, it's a signed, sealed and delivered covenant. I dunno -- I can't say for sure. Maybe one of our resident theologians has more to offer than I.

Documents are not proof at all as you yourself have pointed out… they are stories… fairy tails made up by men who want you to believe in George Washington.

Have you seen George Washington with your own eyes? No… Prove to me that he existed Chip. I can use your circular logic against you every time.

Come on Chip, use the same standard on all of your historical figures.

Ahem… You mean here?

Or perhaps here?

Does that sound like acknowledgment that Jesus existed to you?

How much more refutation do you need beyond the undeniable fact that there's not a single shred of objective evidence to support your the existence of God or Spirit? Is any other kind of refutation possible? The burden of proof is on the believer. I can't refute the existence of anything that doesn't exist beyond citing the complete lack of evidence to substantiate it.



*bangs head on table* No, there was no condescension there. Pardon the pun, but Jesus man.If you weren't feeling that way would you be spending part of every post complaining that I'm intentionally trying to make you feel that way?



I couldn't agree more. The atheist position is largely a result of accepting that we don't have enough information to make claims about the nature of the universe with certainty, especially supernatural claims for which there's no evidence. The contentious parts of this thread all sprung from someone asserting that atheism is an act of faith and I've been endeavoring to explain why that's not true... that it's not equivelant to belief in God. If I haven't succeeded in doing that by this point, I surrender.

My own circular logic? lol. I gave you the criteria historians use. What more do you want? And how many F'ing times do I have to tell you that whether or not Jesus existed IS BESIDE THE POINT! If you can't be bothered to actually think about and understand what I'm saying don't bother replying.

About the only thing I can expect from the God described in the Bible is that He's not consistent (technically speaking, in the sense that there was once one way to approach Him (the law), and then along came Jesus, and there was afterward a secondary approach (grace)).

Anyway, as humans, hope is one of the main things that keeps us from packing it in early, and my hope is that if God exists, and has a personality, that He will tolerate my slow progress in deciding what I believe. I am by nature generally helpful, giving, and co-operative, and so frankly I'm inclined to believe I don't need a higher moral authority to compel me to be "good". Thus it'd be a rather difficult thing for me to accept religion freely, even if we were to discover some good, solid, empirical proof for a particular religion's veracity.

There are some people who believe too strongly in their own innate goodness to ever give spirituality a chance; there are some who believe too little in the innate goodness of humans to ever consider we might be alone in the vastness of space; and then there are some who just aren't sure yet. But I like 'em all... well, except assholes. It's true. I really can't like assholes. But someone really has to work at it to make me believe they are an asshole.

(Note: it's entirely possible that you could think I'm an asshole, or at least, arrogant, based on my post... but better to meet me in-world and chat a bit first, before deciding...)

Chip - It usually irritates me when people post word definitions, but I'm going to make an exception here:

refutation

n 1: the speech act of answering an attack on your assertions; "his refutation of the charges was short and persuasive"; "in defense he said the other man started it" [syn: defense, defence] 2: any evidence that helps to establish the falsity of something [syn: disproof, falsification] 3: the act of determining that something is false [syn: falsification, falsifying, disproof]

In the context of entries 2-3, you have not established the "falsity" of spiritual existence; all that has been established is that we lack the means by which to do so, unequivocally.


I agree that purest atheism is not the direct antithesis of the faith construct. However, in practical terms, atheism requires that assumptions be made about the nature of humanity and the universe, many of which have not been established beyond doubt. Maybe we're mixing our metaphors, but I don't know how you can not agree with that particular caveat.

Chip, I know we have both experienced frustration during these last several exchanges. On my end, the rapport that we have previously cultivated and enjoyed is unaffected by this particular debate. Regardless of what either of us believes to be true, I value you and your perspectives.

Actually, when you take the Scriptures as a whole, grace has always been the approach to redemption. Although in old covenant terms it required sacrifice and ritual, redemption was no less grace-based. If you have an opportunity to attend a passover Seder this week, I would highly recommend it. It is a symbolic foreshadowing of the coming Messiah, and the experience may help to establish the framework I postulated, above.

I can only speak to this from the Christian perspective. Many other faiths offer differing views and remedies for the ailments that plague the human spirit. That said, I'll give you my take. Strictly speaking, doing good stuff has no bearing on one's standing with God. As I've posted before, it seems to me that the so-called neo-cons are obsessed with sin and behavior modification, and seem to completely forget that it's really about being in relationship with deity. If we are, in fact, sin saturated from birth, what we do or don't do is really a moot point. I'm not saying this to support the idea of doing whatever the hell we feel like, because in reality, actions do have consequences. I'm just trying to point out the notion that Christianity is entirely contingent upon grace.

As for the veracity of religion, I think all institutions of humankind are tainted by humanity. There is no perfection to be found in any religious construct. That's why I, personally, generally reject a religious approach to spirituality. I'll stop there, and allow others to offer their opinions.

Yeah, well said ol' chap. You probably see a lot of passion expressed in threads like this. For better or for worse, a topic like this is going to generate some sparks. I don't consider anyone with a contrarian (lol, I have fallen in love with this term - thanks, Chip! ) point of view to be, by default, an asshole. Like you, I have a strong aversion to people who lack kindness, compassion and/or consideration.

Then stop jumping all over Chip because his definition of "Atheism" does not fall in line with your definition of "Atheism." He has explained why he feels how he does. Rejecting his views because he chooses to label himself differently than you would choose to is taking a step backwards.

Show me how I've "jumped" all over him, Lianne. I could point out a few semantic technicalities on Chip's side, too. Are you willing to call him on those, as well, or are you just lashing out at me because you don't like my side of the debate? From the perspective of literary analysis, I think we both deserve credit for seeking to clarify our terms. For this to be an effective discourse, we have to arrive at some common level of understanding for the terms we choose, and what we actually mean by them. How do you construe that as an attack?

I'm just talking about the things on page 10 and now this page. Yeah, i've read the whole thing... and i'm not really sure why you all are debating this further. Chip doesn't belive that the things said in the bible are evidence of God. Paolo and Billy disagree. Billy uses inane arguments and has his head up his ass. Paolo uses good arguments, but most things he considers evidence are not considered so by Chip. I like gene's posts though, they are neat to read. I'm tired right now, so i'm not really making any sense. If I ever do?

It's prolly not me disliking your agrument Paolo, it's that I really dislike Billy's, and you and he are in agreement a lot. I've learned that confronting Billy on his posts is futile though. Sorry

And now, here's a picture of a kitty. And if God made kitties, then She can't be all bad.

3rd grade insults are hardly a way to have meaningfull discorce. TY for adding absolutely nothing to this discussion and devaluing anything you might have to offer.

Paolo, the evidence for the falisty of spiritual existence is the complete lack of evidence. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand. If your argument rests on the impossibility of proving a negative then it's based on logical fallacy. If it were valid it could be used to defend belief in anything at all, no matter how preposterous. "Well you haven't proven the falsity of giant invisible hippos so that makes it likely that they exist." See why that doesn't work? That's the loophole in logic that every believer clings to and I've been trying to show you why it's a red herring. The inability to prove something doesn't exist isn't equivelant to an inability to prove that it does. Everything that we know to exist can be proven to exist. Anything we don't know about and can't observe or measure can never be proven not to exist. You're arguing as if our respective burdens to prove our positiions are equal. They aren't. I guess what it all boils down to is that I find "faith" to be an unreasonable intellectual leap because it's a purposeful abandonment of logic and one that I'm not willing to make. People use a dfferent set of intellectual standards when it comes to religion than they do with any other subject. Most can't or won't admit it. I appreciate that you're far more honest about it than most people.



I actually do disagree with that. Atheism is all about not making assumptions for things that are unsupported by evidence. If there's no evidence there's no justification for belief and nothing of substance to base any assumptions on. It's not in any way an assumptive position. It is precisely not that.



Thanks Paolo I hope you know me well enough to know that I enjoy discussion and debate and don't mind when it's contentious. I don't take these things personally. If I couldn't enjoy and respect anyone I think is out of their mind on certain subjects I wouldn't have any friends at all. I haven't met a purely rational person yet . I certainly don't qualify either.

Please show us what your sorce of information is. Linky please.

Your assertion that proof lies only in the gospels is not true, neither is that "no historian worth his salt would make the claim that he definitely existed."

What do scholars say about whether Jesus existed as a historical fogure? Follow this link to see. http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Here are a few things to ponder:




According to leading Josephus scholar Louis Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged." Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91.

Regarding what real scholars think about the historicity of Jesus, secular historian Michael Grant has this to say:

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Chip, I am still waiting for you to give me proof that George Washington existed. Better yet, give me ANY proof that meets the same criteria you use to quantify the existance of Jesus that ANY historical figure of Jesus's age or older existed. You simply cannot do it. Either proclaim now that you do not believe that ANY of the historical figures existed or admit that Jesus did.

Awww... luv that pic Lo. Sooooo cute

I find that interesting. My mother is a flat-out atheist (one of those who thinks everyone else is suffering under some weird delusion) and even she believes that Jesus existed (she just thinks he was a great teacher, that's all).

She's also heavily into history and fact-checking (she works at a museum).

It's just funny that you hold that outlook; I thought most people believed that Jesus was a real person (even if they didn't believe he was the son of God).