| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spin off from a thread thats spun off from.. well you know how it goes.
1) The cosmological argument – the universe came from something rather than nothing.
-Everything came from something... except god (for some reason). Nothing can be eternal... except god (for some reason). An unintelligent force cannot have created the universe.. for some reason.
The argument is completely arbitrary and its own special pleading undermines its case.
2) The teleological argument – the complexity in the universe presents the case for an intelligent designer.
Then what designed the designer?
3) The moral argument – true morality comes from God.
Horribly circular. You need to argue that morality is something beyond what it is (respect for living thinking beings), that it is somehow "higher" than that. That higher level then requires a god.
Evolutionary biology provides a LOT of insight as to the benefits of a social species being moral.
4) The resurrection of Jesus – the evidence of the resurrection has not been refuted.
The short argument is that you don't have enough evidence for something that bizarre.
The slightly longer argument is that other religions and supernatural events in history have much if not more evidence for them as the resurrection. Once you prove the supernatural other than jesus, then jesus' evidence becomes meaningless: it doesn't verify his divine origins, only supernatural ability.
Longer argument:Those attempting to show that the faith of Christianity is well grounded in fact often point to the historicity of the resurrection event. Supposedly the bible is valid evidence because1) It is an eyewitness account
2) Said eyewitness accounts were preserved
3) Said eyewitnesses were reliable
4) The bible backs itself through archeologyNow, if Christians are being consistant with their methodology any work of history that meets these criteria would be deemed historical. After all, the amount of evidence required is generally proportional to the level to which the potentially true event falls outside of our experiences and against our expectations. The idea that there was a Particular blacksmith named Tiberius in Rome wouldn’t require much evidence. As Rome had a large number of blacksmiths and Tiberius was a common name all that would probably be required would be a receipt, work order, or a sign etc. The idea that he personally made and fitted 50,000 horse shoes a day is a lot further outside of our expectations and would require much further evidence to be accepted as fact.
Similarly, people rising up after being genuinely dead for three days falls FAR outside of our observations and expectations. There have been roughly 12 billion people on the planet and to all appearances dead people stay dead. It is perhaps the most universal and well-observed fact of our existence. Any evidence that said universal constant had been altered or written an exception would require an extra ordinary amount of evidence. Certain sectors of Christianity think their level of evidence meets this requirement but do they evaluate other extraordinary claims in the same and consistent manner?So here we go… Do any Christians arguing for the historicity of the resurrection event believe in magic? You know, witch craft, Satanism, people flying through the air, causing men’s members to disappear, sex with demons, shape shifting, the ability to control the weather.. the whole nine yards?
If not I have to ask why, the historical evidence of such events appears to meet if not exceed the criteria used for the bible.
It is an eyewitness account
Here is an excerpt from a book entitled THE MALLEUS MALEFICARUM, hammer of witches. The book was written as a handbook for hunting witches, the authors being authorized to conduct such hunts under the Pope Innocent the XIII under a papal bull. It describes at great length the powers, abilities, limitations of witches, and the means to root out and destroy them.
WE must not omit to mention the injuries done to children by witch midwives, first by killing them, and secondly by blasphemously offering them to devils. In the diocese of Strasbourg and in the town of Zabern there is an honest woman very devoted to the Blessed Virgin MARY, who tells the following experience of hers to all the guests that come to the tavern which she keeps, known by the sign of the Black Eagle.
Now this is at least as much information, if not more, than we have of the authors of the bible. Finding this woman would have been a piece of cake. All you need to do is find the female owner of the black eagle inn in Zabern. If such a woman or inn did not exist then the local priests should have reported back on it.
And to make the matter clear we will quote a case which occurred at Spires and came to the knowledge of many. A certain honest man was bargaining with a woman, and would not come to terms with her about the price of some article; so she angrily called after him, "You will soon wish you had agreed." For witches generally use this manner of speaking, or something like it, when they wish to bewitch a person by looking at him. Then he, not unreasonably being angry with her, looked over his shoulder to see with what intention she had uttered those words; and behold! he was suddenly bewitched so that his mouth was stretched sideways as far as his ears in a horrible deformity, and he could not draw it back, but remained so deformed for a long time.
www.malleusmaleficarum.or...3_13a.html
Now this is certainly more information than we have on the 500 who supposedly saw Jesus, without a single name, town, time, or even country given.
1 Corinthians 15:6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.2) Said eyewitness accounts were preserved
An original copy of the 1496 edition is in the Lea Library at Penn, and is described by John Shea: " looks harmless enough from the outside. Barely five inches wide and eight inches tall, its spine has grown bare... Although its light-brown leather covers are mottled and worn, they are supported by two robust blocks of wood that suggest hard, frequent use." (The Pennsylvania Gazette, May-June 2003, p. 30)
Found at www.dailyreprobate.com/wo...bles_2.htm
Such evidence far exceeds that for the chain of knowledge of biblical events. There is no risk of false authorship, false accreditation, translation, editing or the inclusion of unoriginal materials. You have an original copy you can pick up, hold in your hand, and compare against any modern copy to check for errors at your leisure. Whatever the preservation of biblical texts implies for the truth of the resurrection event it applies more so here.
3) The eyewitness accounts were reliable.
These authors had the official sanction of the Roman Catholic Church, one of the most sophisticated organizations on the planet at the time. A papal bull signed by innocent VIII gave the authors the right and obligation to root out heresy and witchcraft using the local church and state officials as well as any an all methods, the "particular methods" (torture) not excluded. Reasonable, thinking people would not have handed over that kind of power to people who were not reliable and trustworthy enough to root out fanciful rumor from extraordinary fact. The authors themselves would not have risked life and limb gallivanting about the countryside without reliable evidence that they were doing the right thing. They were well-educated respected men and professors of theology. If any action they were undertaking was against the biblical precepts or reason they would have been aware of it.
www.malleusmaleficarum.org/mm00e.html
They were not spotting witches behind every rock and tree and executing on a whim. They state that
THE second method of delivering judgement is to be employed when he or she who is accused, after a diligent discussion of the merits of the case in consultation with learned lawyers, is found to be no more than defamed as a heretic in some village, town, or province
www.malleusmaleficarum.or...3_21a.html
These were people who knew the serious implications and burdens of their job and conducted themselves as such.
4) Archeological evidence
In the diocese of Strasburg and in the town of Zabern
For in the diocese of Constance, twenty-eight German miles from the town of Ratisbon in the direction of Salzburg
Not long ago in the town of Ratisbon
There lived in a town of Wiesenthal
Quite lately a witch was detained in the Castle of Königsheim near the town of Schlettstadt in the Diocese of Strasburg.. as well as the aforementioned black eagle inn.
Historians have cooperated these towns all existed at the time where they were indicated, showing that these people were traveling about in the course of their duties and acquiring the local knowledge that can only come from first hand experience.
In short… The reasoning and methods used by those wishing to have the resurrection event considered historical would also render the witchcraft phenomenon of the European as real events that actually happened. If the methods are an acceptable and valid
way to determine history then we must also accept the reality of European witches possessing supernatural powers or risk falling victim to special pleading.If you accept witches and witchcraft as real, then what is there to prevent Jesus having faked his death or returned after the event through sorcery, illusion, or trickery? The exclusiveness , uniqueness and very reason for believing that Jesus is god on the basis of his ability to resurrect himself goes right out the window if other people posses the supernatural ability to either confuse the eye witnesses or perform the event for real.
5) The immediate experience of God – experience as evidence for God.
I have an immediate and ineffable experience of the non existance of god. Buddists have the immediate experience of the budda nature/oneness with the universe etc.
The problem is your God is exclusive: if your experience is evidence that you're right then their experience is evidence that you're wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An excellent summary of the arguements for and against of all these points and more. Hint; the Against points are far more compelling.
In fairness, I doubt these are the "main" ones. Because they're terrible.
In fairness, I doubt these are the "main" ones. Because they're terrible.
Therein lies the irony. These are the best Pro-god arguements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Therein lies the irony. These are the best Pro-god arguements.
No, I'm being serious. This is 12th grade stuff. I know there are theists who are much sharper than this...I've met some, and I doubt they'd hitch their wagon to these.
And exactly what is the intention ofthis trhead BNW?
To avoid thread derailment and alleviate boredom.
Therein lies the irony. These are the best Pro-god arguements.No, I'm being serious. This is 12th grade stuff. I know there are theists who are much sharper than this...I've met some, and I doubt they'd hitch their wagon to these.
I know there are theists who can put more philosobablerazzledazzle on top of the arguments, but i have never seen anything that is substantially better than whats above once you kick the tires. If you think you know any I'm listening.
An excellent summary of the arguements for and against of all these points and more. Hint; the Against points are far more compelling.
Ugh that book was terrible. Most of the counter argument was "it has been shown elsewhere that..." or "Some other guy shows in this other book that this is nonsense..."
I know there are theists who can put more philosobablerazzledazzle on top of the arguments, but i have never seen anything that is substantially better than whats above once you kick the tires. If you think you know any I'm listening.
Obviously I've never found any that are convincing -- I'm an atheist. And I'll admit I believe faith to be, at its heart, irrational.
I just can't imagine first cause is something anyone remotely sophisticated could take seriously, and I know there are sophisticated theists. I'm sure they could do better.
I guess I'm trying to say that this thread feels like beating up strawmen.
I just can't imagine first cause is something anyone remotely sophisticated could take seriously, and I know there are sophisticated theists. I'm sure they could do better.
YOu're assuming that they're trying. Most theists seem to believe just because and don't look into it much, or allow their theology a lack of rigor they'd never give to something else. If you can ask them what they're using I'm all ears.
Just to show that Aretas isn;t alone here (but thankfully even he stayed away from the inanity of presuppositional arguments)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about God, but,
Hell is other posters!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe God exists because I want to. I also believe that he does not care about us in any way, and should not be worshipped. I believe in him in the same way I believe in multiple universes. A choice that does not affect how I act or expect other people to act. I do not believe you will be condemned to an alternate universe of fire when you die just because you like sex.
If anyone actually is interested in seeing people who do put a lot of thought and research into their beliefs, you can check out these things.
Ravi is a Christain apologist and itinerant speaker who has spoken around the world, at the UN, and many universities. His question and answer videos on Youtube are usually well received, even if you don't agree with him. He is well educated, but leans toward the philosophical side of Apologetics.
A former agnostic set out to disprove Christianity found more evidence for it than against it. Eventually he put his findings in a book. It is a case for a Historical account of the accuracy and reliability of the biblical historical record compared with any other ancient document, and deals pretty comprehensively with that idea.
I also don't usually put my beliefs out on the internet, because of incivility, but I figure that I could at least show something to some people who were interested in a counterpoint.
Therein lies the irony. These are the best Pro-god arguements.No, I'm being serious. This is 12th grade stuff. I know there are theists who are much sharper than this...I've met some, and I doubt they'd hitch their wagon to these.
I have no doubt there are theists smarter and more educated than I am, just as there are certainly the opposite kind. But we are not taught religion at a time when our intellects are fully developed and we've had a good education in critical thinking. Smart people are very good at rationalizing beliefs they actually adopted for very dumb reasons like "Father says so" or "I miss Grandma and want to see her again."
I'm pretty chauvinistic about intelligence, as anyone who has seen my posts about animal welfare can testify, but it's not a magic wand that one waves and turns everything that comes out of your head into diamonds. Smart people, because they are smart, are very good at fooling themselves if left to their own devices. We're all pretty good at that since we know exactly where we aren't looking and were all the soft spots in our psyches are. But throw a sufficiently creative or agile mind on top of that and you've got the cognitive equivalent of one of those computer worms that overwrites your hard drive with crap.
Which is why we all need to practice our craft as rationalists, no matter how bright we are. It is not one that human psychology is inherently disposed toward so we can just leave off and hope for the best. Nor can we do it alone, because of all that stuff I just typed.
An excellent summary of the arguements for and against of all these points and more. Hint; the Against points are far more compelling.Ugh that book was terrible. Most of the counter argument was "it has been shown elsewhere that..." or "Some other guy shows in this other book that this is nonsense..."
Granted I haven't finished the book yet so I'm hardly an expert. However, thus far I have to disagree with you on that point. Also, many of your arguements seem to parallel those in the book.
I do kind of see what you're saying but things are generally considered more credible if someone who is an expert is being cited. As opposed to just saying the same thing without citation.
If anyone actually is interested in seeing people who do put a lot of thought and research into their beliefs, you can check out these things.
I don't know about the other one, but dosh mcdowels historicity argument was absolutely terrible. The standards used to determine historicity would demonstrate that any number of supernatural events and gods in history were true. (the spoiler in my first post is essentially a response to the case for christ)
The only refutation he offered for the counter argument was "well the person making that argument isn't an expert so nothing they say matters"
I also wince every time i hear the "i was a teenage atheist/agnostic" line.. EVERY apologist seems to use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is really amusing to see some people who don't believe in God, obsess over him more than many who do.Death will answer any and all questions concerning the subject.
On a slightly different note, the religous of the world certainly aren't who i am looking over my shoulder for as i stroll through the hood.And the day a church gets as much influence over our society as most major corporations have, then i might grow concerned.
Belief in God is a personal thing,hardwired in most. No unbeliever will sway a believer or vice versa.Discussions like this are just piss in the wind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a slightly different note, the religous of the world certainly aren't who i am looking over my shoulder for as i stroll through the hood.
After 9/11, they're exactly the people I'm worried about when I get on a plane.
...A week before the events of September 11, 2001, I was on a panel with Dennis Prager, who is one of America's better-known religious broadcasters. He challenged me in public to answer what he called a "straight yes/no question," and I happily agreed. Very well, he said. I was to imagine myself in a strange city as the evening was coming on. Toward me I was to imagine that I saw a large group of men approaching. Now — would I feel safer, or less safe, if I was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting? As the reader will see, this is not a question to which a yes/no answer can be given. But I was able to answer it as if it were not hypothetical. "Just to stay within the letter 'B,' I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. In each case I can say absolutely, and can give my reasons, why I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance."
It is really amusing to see some people who don't believe in God, obsess over him more than many who do.Death will answer any and all questions concerning the subject.]/QUOTE]
Its not your gods that worry me its your followers.
Belief in god is based on some pretty shakey thinking,. That thinking leaks. PUtting absolute faith in one thing despite the evidence makes it easier to do the same thing again for another related ideal.
-[quoteOn a slightly different note, the religous of the world certainly aren't who i am looking over my shoulder for as i stroll through the hood.
given atheists relatively low incarceration rates you might want to reconsider that.
And the day a church gets as much influence over our society as most major corporations have, then i might grow concerned.
The religious right gains power as corporations gain power because they're both with the same party.
Belief in God is a personal thing,hardwired in most. No unbeliever will sway a believer or vice versa.Discussions like this are just piss in the wind.
Yeah and?
Wheeeeeeeeeeee
Osterix, checking out your other speaker he's making argument 3 in the atheism/feminism video.
He's also trying the "you're borrowing morals from christianity in order to debunk it" .. which is circular.
He's complaining of context... which is just old.
I'm not seeing anything deep or different here, just a pretty ribbon on an old present.
|
It's funny for something you disbelieve and disagree with you spend an awful lot of time worried about and going out of your way to refute it. maybe it's just me but if my knowledge is such a waste of time for you why do you waste your time on an RPG board trying to refute something you believe is bunk. Seems you could in fact be spending your time more productively on theses board by, oh I don't know, talking about gaming.
There's nothing productive about discussing gaming.
That.
It's funny for something you disbelieve and disagree with you spend an awful lot of time worried about and going out of your way to refute it. maybe it's just me but if my knowledge is such a waste of time for you why do you waste your time on an RPG board trying to refute something you believe is bunk. Seems you could in fact be spending your time more productively on theses board by, oh I don't know, talking about gaming.
Sometimes I play chess, sometimes i play hearts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny for something you disbelieve and disagree with you spend an awful lot of time worried about and going out of your way to refute it. maybe it's just me but if my knowledge is such a waste of time for you why do you waste your time on an RPG board trying to refute something you believe is bunk. Seems you could in fact be spending your time more productively on theses board by, oh I don't know, talking about gaming.
I'd like to live in a world where arguing about alignment was more important than arguing about, say, Catholicism or Islam. But it's not the world I've been born into.
No God would give a petty human the knowledge to figure out anything regarding the blueprints for the foundations of the universe. It's an unknown when we die. If it is a faith test as told in the ancient books than death will only be the true teller of the biblical tales. One thing is for sure there is heavy mathematics regarding the universe. As if some architect had mapped it out perfectly.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I also wince every time i hear the "i was a teenage atheist/agnostic" line.. EVERY apologist seems to use it.
I tend to disbelieve apologists when they say this. It's very obvious they're equating nonbelief with juvenile, unstructured thinking, essentially saying they've grown beyond impudent, childish rebellion and developed into a believer. Condescending doesn't begin to cover it.
...I also wince every time i hear the "i was a teenage atheist/agnostic" line.. EVERY apologist seems to use it.I tend to disbelieve apologists when they say this. It's very obvious they're equating nonbelief with juvenile, unstructured thinking, essentially saying they've grown beyond impudent, childish rebellion and developed into a believer. Condescending doesn't begin to cover it.
William Lane Craig likes to pull that one a lot. He actually grew up in a non-believing household, but one that made no particular effort to see if he was capable of critical thinking. Then he met a girl and the rest was horrific genocide apologetic.
No unbeliever will sway a believer or vice versa.Discussions like this are just piss in the wind.
Incorrect.
I used to count myself as a believer. It was a weak faith, and I just sort of decided to believe what I thought was cool and threw out the rest, because that's what I thought religious belief was. Just sort of what you hoped was true. I never felt any sort of certainty or faith about it, but I went to church, and catholic school, and tried meekly to be a good christian.It was, in fact, the words of skeptics like Carl Sagan, and Harlan Ellison, the rational arguments they made for lacking belief, that made me declare at 14 that I was atheist.
Some rational people are in fact religious. Most rational people, including religious ones, are swayed by a compelling argument. So I have to hope that the rational religious people in the world, as I once was, would be swayed by a good argument to reexamine their faith and perhaps move a bit towards agnosticism. Or at least not to identify with a religion in a way that makes them an apologist for it.
+1 for being swayed from religion by logic, debate, and information. I believe this is an important exercize in self-examination as well.
I think it's funny that people who believe in God spend any time in debate. For many, this belief is not based upon evidence or argument, so their only purpose here would be to play Devil's advocate, since they have no interest in the actual contents of the debate. As for the Atheists engaging in this debate: Especially in North America, we face zealotry and religious tyranny that pervades our cultures. Without being informed and prepared to defend logic, we have little hope of removing God from the classroom, from the courthouse, and from the state institutions. Individuals have a right to spend their lives however they wish, and to think what they like, but I am not going to stand by while my tax dollars go into the pockets of an imaginary God.