Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Admittedly, I'd need some very strong evidence to believe in god, but that's very justified. To give you an example: If you tell me, that you have a cat called Mr. Winterbottom, then I might believe you outright or maybe if I'm being skeptical, I'd first want to see a photograph of you with your cat. That's because it's an ordinary claim and whether I believe you or not doesn't have any consequences. However, should you tell me that your pet is Puff, the magic dragon, then I'd need a lot stronger evidence. A mere picture wouldn't do in that case as that could easily be manufactured artificially. That's because this would be an extraordinary claim, one that would have a severe impact on the world as we perceive it. I would have to see your dragon in person before I believed you, or at the very least I needed a host of credible evidence that together would be virtually impossible to fake, like all TV stations from around the globe broadcasting live from your backyard where the Dragon lives. A god would be a lot more extraordinary than a pet dragon, so you better be ready to provide extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, I have never seen anything that would even amount to a tiny shred of evidence. The evidence for the Christian god isn't any better than that for pixies, leprechauns, UFOs, Poseidon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What do you mean by religions having their roots in reality? Of course religions are real in the sense that they exist. But that doesn't mean that the beliefs are any more true than those described in Tolkien's work. The only major difference between the Silmarillion and the Bible is that you find the first in the fiction section of your book store and the latter in the religion section. But that's a human made classification, a social convention and not based on any evidence. In fact if you look at the results of Israeli digs over the last 50 years, then the evidence tells us that the Bible is only a marginally more accurate history of the middle east than is Tolkiens work of western Europe. The (Christian) assumption is that god is all good, all powerful, all knowing. Apart from leading to some logical dilemmas (can god make a taco so hot not even he can eat it?) it doesn't square at all with the world we live in. So if your god is like Q in Star Trek, then this is no problem for you, but whoever believes in a god with the attributes above is refuted by reality every single day or he must twist the meaning of the word "good" so much as to it losing any and every significance.
Very much OT, but didn´t Q make his existence very evident to the crew by interacting with them at every possible opportunity? I mean, it´s not like he asked them to believe in him as an article of faith...
You did not answer my question. It was adressed to Gordon, but it can apply to everyone. I fully expected you to need some an "extraordinary evidence" and your example merely elaborated upon this obvious issue. But what is this "extraordinary evidence" supposed to be ? Assume that Stilton will start tomorrow on a quest to search evidence for God's existence. What evidence should he provide to you ? That was a serious question, so don't treat me with such comic relief statements. This is the reason why the discussions between theists and atheists degenerate so often. Seriously, I'm not a theist, but this kind of statements grate even on MY nerves. To claim that "The only major difference between the Silmarillion and the Bible is that you find the first in the fiction section of your book store and the latter in the religion section" is utterly ludicrous. With this kind of rubbish, you do nothing more than provide a basis for Dignan's argument that "atheism is more a knee jerk mode couched in faux-intellectualism". As for what the major difference is, how about, for a start, the fact that the NT is based on the life of a real person, Jesus, which actually existed ? It's up to each person whether he considers Jesus God who sacrificed himself or a wise rabbi who got on the bad side of the roman/jewish authorities, but he is a historical character. Pontius Pilat is also a real character and many others, both in the NT and the OT. A far more reasonable comparison would be, for instance, Herodot's works, who also mixes real facts with exaggerations and supernatural occurences. But to compare Bible with the Silmarillion is just laughable. And I'm agnostic, btw. I'm sorry, you have to be kidding. From this assumption does not result at all that God has to personally move every bolt and nail in this world. Even if you consider the Bible inerrant (which I don't), at no point does it says that God controls every event and occurence in the world. That's fundamentally false. First of all, I assume that those "attributes" being refuted by reality is actually just one, the attribute of benevolence, because I don't see how power and knowledge would be refuted in any way. And your statement is based on the premisis that God directs every event, from a brick falling on your head to the Yellowstone volcano blowing itself up. That is nothing but a caricaturized version of a God which throws darts at the globe. Maybe I'm wrong, so some Bible scholar should correct me, but I never had the impression that the Bible depicts a God in this manner - he could just as well act like a simple overseer who does not interfere except in exceptional circumstances and with maximum discretion. Second, you made a comment yourself in this very thread that "if someone believes in afterlife, then this one is minuscule". That's a blatant contradiction in your position. If this life is "minuscule" in comparison to this hypothetical aftertlife, then this "reality" refuting the benevolence of God isn't also insignificant ? You gave me the example of my dragon pet, so let me give you one as well. Imagine that you designed a virtual reality, a kind of Sims game. Your Sims character live their in-game life, which in real life is several days at most. But each time one days in the game, your super-machine would transfer that character into real life, kinda like what Clu wanted to do in TRON. Obviously, as each character is unique, existing in real life means they die in the game. Would you consider yourself an evil person because of that ?
That's a complete strawman. I have not used the words "arrogant" and "insult" because someone said God doesn't exist. I used it because someone compared the Bible with the Silmarillion, claiming that the only difference them is that one is "in the fiction section, the other in the religion section". And yes, it's an insult. Not to God or religion or whatever, but to science itself. I am sorry, you discredit yourself with such statements. It did. Not in the way it is depicted in the Bible, obviously, but that's a far cry from comparing it with the march of ents and you are not doing yourself any service with that kind of claims. What do I mean ? When british archaeologist Leonard Wooley dug at Ur in the 20'a and the 30's, he made a lot of important discoveries. He found a lot of royal burial chambers with tons of artifacts, but also something else. He found a 2.5 m thick homogeneous silty loam stratum which dates from around mid IVth millenium BC, indicating a massive flood in the mesopotamian area. While it's impossible to be totally sure in regard to events that old, there is a good chance this was the Noah's flood. Wooley certainly thought so. Both the area and the period match. Now, certainly, it was not a global flood and it was not brought by the wrath of God, but can you really not see the difference between a real event which was exaggerated by the accounts written more than 2000 years later and wrapped in religious clothes and the march of the ents ? Seriously ? And, btw, this was nothing to do with Noah's flood, but an ocean planet is perfectly possible. I don't see why you call it outlandish. Let me give you another example. When he described ancient Babylon, Herodotus estimated the walls to be 300-feet high, 80-feet wide and 55-miles long. That's a total exaggeration. Herodotus also likes to give much credit to divine intervention. But, if you are going to tell a historian that Herodotus' works are worth as much as the Silmarillion because of the inherent embellishments they contain, he would call your statement an insult.
OK, I accept the point. In that case would comparing certain Bible stories to Arthurian Legend be more accurate or acceptable?
Didn't I already say that I did not regard the Bible to be inerrant ? Someone could make the comparison with the Silmarillion only in regards to the initial parts of the Genesis, but that's about it. To extend that comparison to the whole Bible it's a complete nonsense. In fact, most of it is your typical historical chronicle, as one would expect it to be. Get a lot of basic facts right, get many details wrong and "God did it" at every step. But, as I said, that does not equate a chronicle with the Silmarillion, which is an asinine comparison. Why do you assume that even a theistic God "created horrible ways to cause suffering" ? Stilton's view of a God is of one which interacts directly with the world, but why do you assume that this interaction goes as far as making every atom in this universe move ? I haven't seen anything to justify such an assumption, even from the Bible's perspective.
Would you consider the Iliad to also be a "typical historical chronicle"? I certainly would not consider the Bible to be a typical historical chronicle. In many/most cases we have no idea the lag time between the events described and their writing down. Some of the NT was written at least two generations, if not more after events, by anonymous authors in multiple languages. Going back to the 5th century BCE Thucydides wrote a historical chronicle about his contemporaries and witnessed many of the events described. I would consider this more of your "typical historical chronicle".
Well, first of all, it's up to god to provide evidence. I doubt that Stilton could do any of that sort. So what kind of evidence would I accept? As I said I'd need a host of evidence, each piece conforming with all the others that together make a strong case. The most basic thing would be a foundational story that checks out, that makes sense and conforms with reality. Secondly, how about some revelations that actually give us some new knowledge? Then personal revelation would be good, but it would be worthless if it was singular, it would have to be a mass revelation that would be confirmed by many, including myself. Then a more drastic piece of evidence would be for god to tamper around with the world in ways that are physically impossible, like moving around the stars so that they spell out a different chapter of the Bible every night. That would be a pretty strong piece of evidence. Then, if I'm supposed to believe in the omnibenevolence thingy, then I'd expect god to intervene whenever someone is in danger, either physically or mentally, because that's what a good parent does, like making bullets disappear shortly before they hit the target, turning knifes into rubber before someone gets stabbed, turning houses into pillows when earthquakes hit, turning bombs into pudding shortly before they explode...that kinda thing... It's not comic relief, it's the truth. Or do you have some secret knowledge the rest of us doesn't have? The contents of the Silmarillion and the Bible are fundamentally similar. Both contain a bunch of myths. In case of the Silmarillion, we know who wrote it and we know what he said about his motivation. In case of the Bible we don't know who wrote it and we project what we believe the motivation onto it. Other than that, you may choose to believe parts of the Bible, but you don't have any evidence other than the Bible itself... Do you know that? How? That's why I said it's marginally more accurate. Some characters in the Bible have actually existed. But then some people in the Illiad actually existed. That doesn't make the Greek pantheon any more real. I'm not. It doesn't mean that god controls everything, but that god can control everything if he so choses. As I said above, that's not the case. God wouldn't direct the brick falling on my head, but if he was all good, all knowing and all powerful, he'd stop the brick before it hit me... So god's all good, but not in this life? That wouldn't make him omnibenevolent, would it? Plus it's a terribly weak cop out... No, but unless I provided the sims with my plans and sufficient evidence, I'd expect them to consider me evil which is all that matters from their POV. So to project your analogy on real life: A mother who lost her daughter after she was raped and tortured cannot be expected to believe that what happened was actually a good thing.
The apostle Paul said that the entirety of Christianity lives or dies on the matter of the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, whether I think he was good or his teaching is valuable is immaterial to the fact that I have no real hope of my resurrection, which means that I would die and that would be the end of it. So the issue comes down to the empty tomb and the witnesses to his return to life after his crucifixion. If you want to take the view that he didn't actually die, then you are subscribing to some kind of conspiracy theory, and you end up like one of those people who think they saw Elvis at a mini-mart. If you think he did die and that his disciples managed to spirit his body away, where is the evidence of that? And why would Peter and the others go around proclaiming what they knew to be false to be true, even going to their deaths, maintaining a fiction? That simply makes no sense. Mass hysteria? Not very likely. Oh, they were hip-no-tized. The absence of any evidence to challenge the biblical version is quite condemning to the naysayers, really.
From Tacitus, for instance. In his Annals, he says : "The founder of this name, Christ, has been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate". Flavius Josephus makes references to him as well in book 18 of the Antiquities. Seriously, dude, my first reply was not adressed to you, but you choose to interfere nonetheless. So have you butted in just to take the piss ? The existence of Jesus Christ as a real historical character has been accepted by the huge majority of historians. If you aren't aware of that and have to ask "how do I know", either you are not qualified to discuss this subject, or you are just trying to irritate. So move along.
It would do you good to actually learn what a chronicle is. Chronicles often record distant events over a great period of time, so the fact there is a lag time is completely irellevant. Take for instance the Buda Chronicle, published in 1473 by Andras Hess, which relates the history of Hungary from the 9th century till 15th century. Thucydides work is not a chronicle for the very simple reason that he places the events he describes in an interpretive context, which a chronicle does not.
Pretty surprising that such a momentous and supernatural event that had personal witnesses would barely register a blip on the social and cultural radar until three generations had passed. That should tell you something.
Why the piss poor attitude? You're lashing out at others for merely participating in a conversation (this is a forum you know, more than two people participate in discussion threads), and engaging in the very same type of intellectually superior behavior that you accuse atheists of.
I'm sure everyone posting on this forum is well aware of the rather specious arguments for a historical Jesus based on the incredibly limited citings of non-contemporary sources. I can go to Alesia, I can see the remains of the double walled fortifications Caeser described building in his writings on the Gallic wars, that's evidence, not some passing secondary citation from a non-contemporary author that was probably a later addition anyway.
Tacitus writes about Christian beliefs. Nobody doubts that Christians believed that Jesus existed. Flavius's account on the other hand has widely been accepted as forgery. All we actually have is the Bible. Now I agree that it's unlikely for a religion to form when it's based on an entirely mythical character. But the point remains that all we have is the Bible. As you can see, the "how do you know?" question was very justified. The point is you don't know, you only have an ancient book.
I guess I meant "founded by" rather than "based upon" but then again, a good case could be made that the Christianity we know of today was founded by Paul rather than Jesus...so yeah, it's all rather blurry.
There are plenty of atheists who have studied religion (just as their are religious people who were once atheists). Yes you're engaging in caricatures and I do too here, but arguments by atheists against religion are not limited to caricatures. I have no problem believing that there are good arguments for religion on a variety of levels. It can make a person feel good, it can do good in a community. There can be internally consistent arguments for something that is not real, I acknowledge that. As such an argument can be intellectually challenging and stimulating whether I believe it to be true or not. The bottom line though to me is "is it real?" No argument for religion provides evidence for god or the supernatural as a real thing. If your bottom line is different, let us know. If it is not, then don't accuse us of not understanding theological arguments. Environmental factors and conditions do not absolve anyone of the responsibility of free choice. (Not in this discussion anyways). Many atheists may simply grow up atheist or become atheist by growing up in their environment. This likely does not characterize anyone you're debating here. It is entirely possible, in fact it is very possible, that I was always likely to be an atheist. That does not prevent me from, at the same time, being aware enough of the arguments in both camps and therefore also having a parallel reason to be an atheist - reason and evidence. It may be complicated to separate why you first labeled yourself X or Y and figure out whether you have a completely separate reason to do so today, but it is not required. On to the insulting nature of comparisons with JRR Tolkien. Maybe being on a soccer board will help me make this point. Much like soccer, religion is an idea held very close to some people's hearts. More specifically clubs or countries are analogous to particular religions, sects or even privately held sets of beliefs that make up a personal religion. I get it that when I say "your team sucks" it hurts. I understand because I can feel personally insulted too whether in soccer or in other realms. However saying "your team sucks" is not a personal insult. Saying "you hold a false idea" is not a personal insult. The attack or accusation is against your idea, your team or whatever it may be. Here it is religion. Attacking ideas is healthy discussion. Attacking people is not. Unfortunately it can be counterproductive if the person you are discussing with holds their idea so dear that they interpret every attack on it as an attack on them. Having said that, it can be reasonable to avoid attacks on dearly held ideas when you know that this will result. I don't believe this is the case here. Religion getting a pass is not something I am willing to accept in a discussion of this nature. The analogy to JRR Tolkien, and I'm sure some realize this but it's worth pointing out, has nothing to do with the origins of the story but that you can have intellectually challenging and stimulating conversations built entirely around this constructed universe if you take those assumptions to be true. The same holds for religion, you can have intellectually challenging and internally consistent arguments about the constructed world of religion if you assume certain things to be true from the outset. You cannot, however, reconcile any proposed religious reality with actual reality. Any religious proposal that works without contradicting reality is either a god in the gaps idea or does not produce any observable differences compared to a non-religious proposal.
Many scholars disagree with you there. I don't remember whether I heard it from Thomas Sheehan, Bart Ehrman, or both, but a much better case can be made that while Paul did believe in the resurrection of Jesus, he never believed in a bodily resurrection, only a spiritual one. So the empty tomb would be entirely irrelevant for Paul. Not to mention that an empty tomb could indicate a host of things, the bodily resurrection of the previous inhabitant being the least likely one. There is none, but neither is there any evidence for an empty tomb or a bodily resurrection. But assuming there was an empty tomb (which I only do for the sake of the argument), then we could come up with an infinity of explanations: - A few followers of Jesus acted alone, removing the body and taking the secret to their graves. - Some Roman soldiers removed the body because the grave was not suitable for a common criminal who got crucified. - Maybe some Jews didn't want to grant the heretic Jesus a regular burial and secretly removed the body. - Some wild animals entered the grave, ate the bodies and dragged the remaining parts into their layer. - Aliens came to earth and picked up a body to experiment with and happened to pick up Jesus. - Jesus was god and actually came back to life. - and so on and so forth... Each of these explanations have exactly the same amount of evidence, but some are more plausible than others. The by far least plausible answer would be the one where Jesus was god. You are aware that lots of people died for their beliefs, some of these being directly contradicting to yours. Are muslim martyrs therefore correct? Are people who died for the cause of fascism correct? People believe all kinds of things. The fact that they believe in them so much that they die for them doesn't make it true. And BTW, there's actually fairly little evidence for the apostles dying for their beliefs. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I&feature=&p=8D71CEDB225E5AE0&index=0&playnext=1"]YouTube - DID the disciples die for a lie? (Part 1)[/ame] If that's how you usually turn the burden of proof upside down, then how do you get by in your life? You have to believe everything that is not clearly refuted. You have to believe contradicting things and stuff that makes no sense at all. You have to believe in Hinduism, Islam and Christianity at the same time, not to mention all the remaining religions that have existed or that could possibly exist... You have to believe that Jesus is god, because it cannot be refuted and you have to believe that Jesus is Satan for the same reason. You have to believe that you were created by aliens in a lab and then implanted into your mothers womb and you have to believe that there are no aliens at all...man that must be tough...
Since I was the one who said that, allow me to respond. First of all, you don't know what "my team" is. I never jumped in to defend "my team", whatever that might be, on religious issues, so you have absolutely no basis for this assumption. Quite the opposite, the fact that I never got involved in this should suggest you I'm pretty indifferent to it. If you want to compare the mythology of the Bible with the mythology of Silmarillion, it's your choice. Not my concern, albeit I would say it's a stretch: first, because it depicts real experiences (at least in the manner those people perceived them), second because there has been a continuity of such experiences involving God. Obviously, none have been the extraordinary evidence required and they can be questioned, but JRR Tolkien's mythology can offer nothing of the sort and making such a comparison has a fragrance of contempt with does not do any good. But, more important, several wise guys around have taken this to another level, by putting the Bible on par with Silmarillion and claiming that their contents are fundamentally similar. Which, with all due respect, is a completely idiotical stance. If the Bible = Silmarillion because they contain a "bunch of myths", then every kind of historical account prior to Thucydides (and many afterwards) is as good as a Silmarillion, because they all do. Even a mere search on Google would show that there is universal scholarly consensus that the parts of the Bible depicting events from 7th century onwards represent a historical document including accurate information. Moreso, the parts relating events from 10th - 7th century is debated between two schools of history, one which considers that period accurately depicted and another which disputes some parts, about king David and the United Kingdom from the 10th century. Only the Pentateuch is regarded as being non-historical - which is 5 books out of 39. This is reality and what several ignoramuses on a soccer board say is not going to change that fact. In this thread, I have been asked why "the piss poor attitude? You're lashing out at others for merely participating in a conversation". Well, because it's pretty obvious to me that some persons want to play smart ass, but are not properly equipped to make a point and instead spout a bunch of nonsense. For instance, when Benztown replied several posts, I answered only to this question "how do I know Jesus existed", ignoring the rest of his post. Do you want to know why ? Because his reply was so bizarre that I was unable to tell whether he was serious or he was just trolling me. As for cheering for "my team", I tell you something. It is very interesting to read an intelligent "duel" with arguments in favor and against God. But you should drop these childish comparisons with JRR Tolkien, leprechauns or the flying pink monster. They do nothing but turn the discussion into shit and give more ground to Dignan's claim that the atheists arguments are just a "knee jerk reaction". I'm telling you that as an agnostic, one who dislikes religion and a scientist myself. Kudos to Gordon for making intelligent points and not lapsing into the realm of ridicule. I would like to say the same for most of the others. That is blatantly false. Here is a study on the subject : http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm#partial Here is an extract in regard to the opinion of historical scholars on the subject : "A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument. Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249)." Flavius account has not been "widely accepted as a forgery". Not even close. What was label as a "forgery" were 2 phrases, which were later inserted in the original text by christian copists, which refer to Jesus as being Christ and his ressurection. In fact, the reference to Jesus in Josephus' work is widely accepted as authentic.