Faith and Reason.

[Correction]

It is probably more likely that he was just another crazy middle-eastern religious fanatic that died for upseting the order, and whose stories became more and more magical as they passed through time.

3. Provide sources if you quote a statistic or a “fact” to support your premise.

lol Neo's not trolling at all folks! He's an intellekshual.

[Neosutra]

You want me to provide the lack of sources for the existance of christ?

Well here they are:

[Correction]

I'm saying you, as a man of reason, should resist the temptation to bullshit and provide a hypothesis without a basis for testing it (haha he's just some crazy aramaic-speaking dude who got mythic status over time), something you've repeatedly spat venom that those of faith are guilty of. If you don't know something and aren't sure you can't test it one way or the other, just say you don't know it. Otherwise you're not adding to the discussion anything more than provocation without intellect. There's another word for that but gosh I can't think of it.

[Neosutra]

I'm saying you, as a man of reason, should resist the temptation to bullshit and provide a hypothesis without a basis for testing it (haha he's just some crazy aramaic dude who got mythic status over time), something you've repeatedly spat venom that those of faith are guilty of.

Which hypothesis? I simply pointed out the lack of evidence that jesus ever existed. Im not the one making the hypothesis that jesus was the son of god, so I dont have any wild claims to back up.

[Alleya]

It's scary to think where you get your morals, because I have no idea where you guys are coming from.

You act as if religious guidance never creates horrifying morals. Again, look at the middle east. They follow their religious text a hell of a lot closer to the hilt than western Christians do.

When was the last time you opened the bible when you had a moral dilemma? A lot of the moral decisions you make every day are outlined as sins and abominations unto the lord in the bible (for instance, when was the last time you stoned a man to death for working on the sabbath? If you didn't do it, you are a blasphemer). Moreover, how is it that those blaspheming Greeks, who never heard the word of the Lord, had a society based on moral and ethical principles we still invoke ourselves? The foundations of western democratic society are much more deeply rooted in ancient greek and roman systems than in the catholic theocracy of the middle ages. Does that make Zeus the one true God?

[kuronosan]

you're running into two really bad sorts of ideas/arguments here and I think before you go on you need to realize what they are.

1. It's not random chance, life, communication, etc. I know this is a difficult concept but please if you go further in science you absolutely must understand that.

2. Don't use the galileo gambit, it's not enough just to have a "crock shit theory" you must also be RIGHT. There are plenty of crock shit theories that didn't pan out, and were discarded. If you use the galileo gambit in an argument about religion, the correct response is "So why hasn't religion been discarded yet?".

Keep in mind I'm not saying your cosmology is irrelevant, but you're using arguments that have been well discussed and tossed out. I think what your long posts boil down to is argument from personal incredulity, and I think you should stop there.

I think I'm going to partially agree with you there, and simply quit while I'm behind. I'm regurgitating at this point.

[Meian]

Which hypothesis? I simply pointed out the lack of evidence that jesus ever existed.

Refuting the Jesus Myth

Too lazy to bold or quote not to mention going to have a late lunch in a minute

[Mizango]

To be fair bede.com is a Catholic website. I'm sure I could find some fringe atheist somewhere and use him as a source for my facts, I'd like to see this from a non-biased source if that's possible. They will put their spin on it because it fits their needs and purposes.

Here is the homepage....

St. Bede the Venerable Catholic Church, La Cañada Flintridge, California

[Seraph]

Has everyone admitted they don't know for sure yet? Haven't even gotten to page 10.

[Melchiah]

Alleya, don't forget civilizations like the Mesopotamians who predate the Jews and had moral structures and systems of laws.

This leads me to an excellent argument:

If we use God as the source of human morality as a premise:

If God is the source of human morality, then human morality cannot predate God.

The Mesopotamian civilization and it's moral code predates the Hebrews and any recorded instance of their god Yahweh.

Therefore, if God is the source of human morality, and there existed a civilization with a moral code prior to the Hebrews and Yahweh, then Yahweh is not God.

[Daemeon]

Dear theists and agnostics, if we can agree the Bible is not literal and God is a concept, then of what educated guess did this God concept arrived? It is intellectual honesty to admit that we do not know everything and that we will never know everything, but that doesn't justify your reason to just "believe". Isn't it more intellectually honest that we adhere the objectivity of science and the philosophical reasoning of ethics? Albeit, science has a small degree of subjective interpretation (but self-correcting) and philosophical reasoning is subject to perversion, but these are still of higher integrity. It is simply common sense to observe that modern society's success is mostly attributed to science and reason.

And finally, the argument that atheists must provide proof for their denial of the concept of god is silly: it is up to the person making the claim to do so; to come up with a bogus idea and to challenge other people to falsify it is illogical. For example, it's like me challenging you to falsify my theory that a butterfly flap was the catalyst to hurricane Katrina.

So what is your reasoning for clinging onto the theory of god, even when you know it was purpose to fill the gaps of ignorance, and still is.

[Alleya]

Has everyone admitted they don't know for sure yet? Haven't even gotten to page 10.

What would that prove? Every scientist in this thread will say that they don't know for sure, and do so with a smile, because that's what separates us from the people who actually believe the stuff.

Knowing or not knowing has nothing to do with the problems religion causes.

[Muffins]

I don't even know how some of you more religious types can even form your arguments in your heads before writing them out. Do you even read what you write before posting? If you're not doing mental aerobatics, gymnastics, or contortions as you come up with your arguments and justifications, my head is doing them trying to make sense of it.

I have nothing to add to this discussion yet. My head's still reeling about how some of you point to severely lacking/debunked moral theories as true representations of morality. And that doesn't even get into the basics of what separates religion from science and how the two cannot be reconciled. Ugh... need a nap.

Edit: Melchiah, there's a better argument that's known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. It basically concludes that morality obtained from religion is completely arbitrary and god's goodness is meaningless.

[Melchiah]

Dear theists and agnostics, if we can agree the Bible is not literal and God is a concept, then of what educated guess did this God concept arrived?

Well, you'll never get a Protestant or a Puritan to ever agree that the bible is anything less than an absolutely accurate representation of history.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I didn't say you could. I don't believe God created the universe in an instant. I do, however, choose to believe that something that can be construed as God happened to create a series of chemical reactions leading to the beginning of and evolution of life.

I know they've created life in test tubes using similar circumstances. I know about observation, etc, etc. I've conducted lab experiments. I get the concept. I don't choose to explain away things by saying "oh lordee gawd must have done it lawl" every time there's no explanation. I'm saying as a gut instinct some things cannot be explained and until then I rationally choose to believe the possibility a higher power did it.

Again - there is nothing ignorant or wrong with that belief.



Nobody is attributing 'everything' to a concept of God. I never said I accept it as unknowable and unobservable. I think what my exact words were left the impression that what I believe is that God is just another aspect of scientific knowledge that has yet to be disproven. In a religious way, his existence can probably be snuffed out in terms of how the Christians, Muslims, and Jews view him in their books. However, those stories had to come from somewhere and someone (unlike Dianetics) didn't just make it up out of nowhere to scare people. It simply evolved that way.

People tell stories to make sense of what they see (similar to how people dream to make sense of what occurred). Think back to how long ago humanity first got its start and think to how far they've evolved and changed over the years. To imagine that it was all random is nothing short of ignorant and magnificent at the same time.

Yes, it is fascinating that the possibility everything that has happened, including the conversation we are currently having, is nothing more than random chance. I choose to believe otherwise. It's a choice I make. I've simply been too fortunate to choose to believe that my life is random.

Scientifically, it's a matter of probability and I understand that. However, my spirituality has made me a better person and a more cautious and thoughtful person because of the lessons I learned from the bible when I was growing up. The same can't be said about everyone but I still maintain that it is just as ignorant to try to debunk someone's spiritual beliefs and ask them to explain it as it is to get angry when people try to force their beliefs on you.

The fact that you 'cannot let this one go' and 'won't have it' simply displays that you and anyone who argues like you is not simply just looking to debate religion and its existence. You are looking to prove people wrong with your scientific knowledge and try to back them in a corner so that they'll get mad and gargle out some angry thoughts so you can be right.

If you truly were scientifically looking to debate, you would accept another's explanation as a possibility. That is what the foundation of science is. If nobody did that, ever, then we wouldn't have discovered shit. SOMEBODY believed Galileo's crock shit theories in his time. SOMEBODY believed Columbus would make it to the other side of the world.

I'm sorry, but sometimes while you don't have to believe what other people believe you really need to learn to accept the possibility of another person's point of view being accurate (even if it isn't precise).

I'm not saying there is a Heaven or Hell or angels or Jesus (as I said in my first post). I am simply saying that I believe in some cases that a higher power might just possibly exist. You don't ALWAYS need scientific evidence to prove it and if you had travelled back to 500 years ago before bacteria was discovered and tried to tell people without the instruments necessary to measure them that they existed, you would have been laughed out of the auditorium.

This thread is moving to fast lol, I need to stop sleeping in.

Going to respond to your initial response about the "20 to life." I think both of our arguments stem from and obvious bias, but I just have two points to make and one of which Neo pretty much laid out but I wanted to add to.

For one, the God-fearing who keep themselves in check; are they really afraid of God or Hell, or the personification of God ( the Church ) and the repercussions of their actions in life.

And two, this belief works in two ways because someone is going to have the upper hand in "morality" and abuse this power. As has been done and will continue to be done in a variety of religions. Whether it's suicide bombings, child abuse, honor killings - someone is abusing the power religion has and blurring the lines of "good" and "evil" for their own end.

It is still largely possible on a psychological end, but less likely as that kind of power tends to lie in the hands of the educated. And being well versed in the Bible does not make one educated.

That's my stance on that.


Now to respond to this post:

I find myself to be an agnostic, which is a true scientific stance in my opinion. I understand that I don't know everything and leave it open for the possibility of something and be examined or experienced.

Now the chance that one group of people nailed it and had conversations or experienced the testament of god I find to be wholly bogus.

Now one question I want to pose to you is based off of what you said here:

However, my spirituality has made me a better person and a more cautious and thoughtful person because of the lessons I learned from the bible when I was growing up.

Which do you think is better, doing right and being a kind, good, loving person because of a belief structure and a possible fear of repercussion? Or doing the right thing just because you abide by the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

I think if I blasphemously put myself in God's shoes and there were people on my created planet that were good simply for the sake of being good. Being nice because they knew it was the right thing to do, even though they outwardly refused to accept my existence or teachings. Well, I would hold these people in much higher regard than those that did it only because they felt they had to to get a reward.

But, I'm sure you can provide more insight onto your views on that and your belief structure so I'd love to hear it.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Knowing or not knowing has nothing to do with the problems religion causes.

Gonna respectfully disagree here and say that "knowing" has everything to do with those problems. The people that "know" cause all these problems because they are completely sure of the results they believe in.

[Stiker]

Well, you'll never get a Protestant or a Puritan to ever agree that the bible is anything less than an absolutely accurate representation of history.

Sup?

You have apparently read none of my posts. I'm not fringe either. I'll say it again, there are Protestant sects that do believe in 100% literal Biblical interpretation, but not all.

[Brill Weave]

Well as I said before I consider myself agnostic. I can't fully endorse God/Jesus because I've yet to see anything that proves their existence to me. But I choose to believe in a power higher than myself. I consider myself a scientific person. I like to have proof of things before I truly believe in them. And therein lies the problem.

There's no middle ground. You either believe in something or you don't. Should you choose to believe in the spiritual, you're choosing to believe in something that is most likely never going to be proven or disproven. We can argue back and forth for the next hundred years without anyone giving ground. At least until Guartz decides to suicide bomb us in Allah's name.

[Neosutra]

Refuting the Jesus Myth

Too lazy to bold or quote not to mention going to have a late lunch in a minute

As stated, that website is a catholic website, not an independent record of information. It is as credible as me blogging in my LJ about jesus.

Secondly, if you read what is posted, they basically back up the fact that no records of jesus exist from that time. The only historian to classify his existance was Josephus, to whom existed after the suppossed life of jesus, and to whom legitimate historians deny authenticity (due to claims that his records were altered by the church to reflect jesus as the son of god, since apparently his original comments werent very inspiring).

Besides, I already stated I felt it was more statistically likely that jesus was just another fruit cake (like so many through our history), no better than David Koresh, whom inspired the poor in a time of political oppression through tales of divine authenticity. I was just pointing out my surpise when I went to research just what data we had on his existance, and sadly found little to none.

[Alleya]

Gonna respectfully disagree here and say that "knowing" has everything to do with those problems. The people that "know" cause all these problems because they are completely sure of the results they believe in.

You're right. Let me clarify.

Theists have backed themselves into a corner where the only objective truth is their subjective opinion ('I believe it and screw you if you think I need proof'), so the issue of knowing will never be resolved even if scientists finally come up with the theory of everything. Therefore, the issue of knowing can never be resolved, so the issue becomes what those who believe in the supernatural do with their beliefs.