I personally think we are all born with a wonder in our consciousness. Something that tells us that our reality might not be as what it seems, that there may be something mysterious and unexplained in our consciousness.. Something beyond our reasoning...
And we see this manifesting in peoples thoughts all the time... There are sooo many claims (even scientific claims) that go beyond our reasoning.. Like mind over matter, or infinite parallel universes, multiverses, aliens, ghosts, the afterlife, telekinesis, out of body experiences, past lives, the "matrix", mysticism, sorcery, magic, etc... We see people, who honestly wonder about the possibilities of many of these things, perhaps all of us have had these kinds of thoughts amusing the unexplained...
I mean even science, and scientist, and even atheist scientist have amused some of these possibilities, like the multiverse.. The multiverse (something that there is no evidence of) is a theory that came up in a rebuttal against God creating THIS universe... (Ill put a scientific video below that suggest "mind over matter" is a real thing)
But then when we come to the idea of God, all of these wonders turn away and people are certain that God cant exist, that miracle cant happen, that there is no after life, there is no soul, etc.... As soon as God gets into the picture, all these wonders that we are born with contemplating, are trashed as a means of mocking and discrediting anything out of the inexplicable, and everything boils down to cold hard science... This is Scientific Materialism.... This is why David Berlinski (atheist philosopher) says in his book "The Devils Delusion" that "scientific atheism is a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt"... It is this notion that nothing inexplicable exist, that everything is explained, and anything beyond explanation (like God) is mocked...
Its a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt...
To me, this seems like a complete indoctrination of atheism... And is there any proof that there is nothing beyond these cold hard explanations? No... But it is assumed....
So if you play around with any of these thoughts, how come you discredit God automatically? If something like "mind over matter" is true, how can you say the divine is false? (example: video below)...
(Personally i think Christianity explains in perfectly.. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)
[youtube][/youtube]
If science cant explain everything.. Scientific Materialism
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
Ok, great... So you are quoting Bart Erhman here, who is an agnostic New Testament Scholar... To support you opinion that Jesus was a creation of other gods... Bart Erham is actually one of the biggest misquoted Scholars around, (which is ironic given his book "Misquoting Jesus") and he has actually spoke out against this kind of thing many times.TSGracchus wrote: [Replying to post 46 by Tart]
There is some support for my position:
"Lost Christianities
[font=Serif]Bart D. Ehrman
Oxford University Press, USA, Oct 2, 2003 - Religion - 320 pages
14 Reviews
The early Christian Church was a chaos of contending beliefs. Some groups of Christians claimed that there was not one God but two or twelve or thirty. Some believed that the world had not been created by God but by a lesser, ignorant deity. Certain sects maintained that Jesus was human but not divine, while others said he was divine but not human.In Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman offers a fascinating look at these early forms of Christianity and shows how they came to be suppressed, reformed, or forgotten. All of these groups insisted that they upheld the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, and they all possessed writings that bore out their claims, books reputedly produced by Jesus's own followers. Modern archaeological work has recovered a number of key texts, and as Ehrman shows, these spectacular discoveries reveal religious diversity that says much about the ways in which history gets written by the winners. Ehrman's discussion ranges from considerations of various "lost scriptures"--including forged gospels supposedly written by Simon Peter, Jesus's closest disciple, and Judas Thomas, Jesus's alleged twin brother--to the disparate beliefs of such groups as the Jewish-Christian Ebionites, the anti-Jewish Marcionites, and various "Gnostic" sects. Ehrman examines in depth the battles that raged between "proto-orthodox Christians"-- those who eventually compiled the canonical books of the New Testament and standardized Christian belief--and the groups they denounced as heretics and ultimately overcame.Scrupulously researched and lucidly written, Lost Christianities is an eye-opening account of politics, power, and the clash of ideas among Christians in the decades before one group came to see its views prevail."[/font] --- https://books.google.com/books/about/Lo ... escription
Extensive citations to the original literature are found in the back of the book.
And please note, my position does not require the any magical, miraculous, or "spiritual" excuses, explanations and apologetics. We see, historically, (Hysterically!) numerous sects and cults replaced by the establishment of an official governmental religion, imposing a temporary and largely artificial official unity on doctrine and ritual practices, followed by a sometimes violent return to divisiveness, which process continues to this day. This tendency to schism is not exclusive to Christianity of course, and we see the same tendencies in Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. Hinduism is actually a potpourri of cults and sects, united only by the threat of other religions.
.
And he certainly doesnt share your opinions..
http://reasonsforjesus.com/zeitgeist-de ... agan-gods/"We are told Jesus is just one of many dying and rising gods present in history, and that every culture has their own saviour figure with stories that are exactly the same as the story of Jesus in every way. Since we apparently have stories of gods that predate Jesus who have the exact same outline and ministry as he did, it’s suggested that the story of Jesus is a knock-off of pagan stories that come before him."
"This idea could not be farther from the truth. As Bart Ehrman, atheist professor of Religious Studies at UNC, has said:"
“"The alleged parallels between Jesus and the “pagan� savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).�"
~Bart Ehrman"Jesus "certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees,"
~Bart EhrmanThe idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"
~Bart Ehrman“The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life�
~Bart Ehrman“That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.�
So this is what Bart Ehrman is quoted saying... That Jesus existed, that he wasnt a creation of other Gods, that the was Crucified by the Romans, and that His followers genuinely believed they experienced the resurrected Christ...
That doesnt seem to support what you are saying... Does it?
Post #52
Ok great, so you dont know anything about Jesus, and him as the Messiah... We could have saved much time...TSGracchus wrote: [Replying to post 49 by Tart]
Tart: "This is basically a scientific materialist claim to know truth... That consousness (Consciousness?) is nothing more then grey matter fizzing in your brain... Is that how you know 'truth'?"
I do not claim to know truth. I do claim that my admittedly conditional beliefs are based on observation and reason. I've even been known to accept correction!
And, yes, I do use my brain to form my opinions, or more accurately I am my brain forming opinions and reactions based on environment and individual biological processes. What do you use, the entrails of a goat, or just the records of those who did consult the haruspices?
But you dont really believe that, you really think God doesnt exist, and Jesus is a myth or legend like charactor... Yet you dont "claim to know truth"... (this is actually spot on topic)...
How do you make sense of not knowing truth, but knowing Christianity is false? (and lets be honest here... You can backstep and become an agnostic if you want, but you claim to "know" many things, including Christ being a legend)...
"I do not claim to know truth." is the most bizarre claim anyone can make, especially after every sentence you said in this thread... Do you claim to know, you dont claim to know truth? Or not even that?
-
DeMotts
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Post #53
[Replying to post 52 by Tart]
Hey Tart, firstly yes this thread has kinda gone all over the place, but cheers for rolling with it (it's more fun that way). Also I respect you sticking to your guns, even though we disagree.
You admitted yourself that you are unsure of the old testament and it's status as allegory or literal recounting - I can accept that. But surely you can see how if you are doubtful of the old testament, we can be doubtful of the new testament for the exact same reasons.
This historicity of Jesus is IMO not in question in this debate. I think the vast majority of historians agree that there was a guy named Jesus, and he caused a ruckus in the first century, and was crucified.
But there are all sorts of supernatural events in the new testament, in addition to Jesus' multiple healings and miracles and eventual resurrection, we also have stuff like dead people in Jerusalem rising up out of their graves and walking around during the crucifixion, Peter walking on water, etc. This is just as "supernatural" as the old testament.
Biblical historians generally date the four gospels around AD 66-70 for Mark, AD 85-90 for Matthew and Luke, and AD 90-110 for John. All four were written anonymously, and near as we can tell none of them were written by eyewitnesses, and decades after the supposed events.
So if you can be unsure about the old testament, I think it's fair that we be permitted to cast our doubts on the new testament. And to tie this whole thing back to the original question in the OP, scientific materialism, or whatever you want to call it, to me just means this: the most logical place to start with your beliefs is what is most objective and true to everyone. Science is consistent no matter who is doing the experiment. It's the closest thing we have to objective truth. If I want to stop there and only accept as true what can be proven to me consistently, then I think that's reasonable. I can accept many other viewpoints as possible by virtue of the fact that I can't disprove them, but that which cannot be proven cannot be de facto accepted to be true. Make sense?
Hey Tart, firstly yes this thread has kinda gone all over the place, but cheers for rolling with it (it's more fun that way). Also I respect you sticking to your guns, even though we disagree.
You admitted yourself that you are unsure of the old testament and it's status as allegory or literal recounting - I can accept that. But surely you can see how if you are doubtful of the old testament, we can be doubtful of the new testament for the exact same reasons.
This historicity of Jesus is IMO not in question in this debate. I think the vast majority of historians agree that there was a guy named Jesus, and he caused a ruckus in the first century, and was crucified.
But there are all sorts of supernatural events in the new testament, in addition to Jesus' multiple healings and miracles and eventual resurrection, we also have stuff like dead people in Jerusalem rising up out of their graves and walking around during the crucifixion, Peter walking on water, etc. This is just as "supernatural" as the old testament.
Biblical historians generally date the four gospels around AD 66-70 for Mark, AD 85-90 for Matthew and Luke, and AD 90-110 for John. All four were written anonymously, and near as we can tell none of them were written by eyewitnesses, and decades after the supposed events.
So if you can be unsure about the old testament, I think it's fair that we be permitted to cast our doubts on the new testament. And to tie this whole thing back to the original question in the OP, scientific materialism, or whatever you want to call it, to me just means this: the most logical place to start with your beliefs is what is most objective and true to everyone. Science is consistent no matter who is doing the experiment. It's the closest thing we have to objective truth. If I want to stop there and only accept as true what can be proven to me consistently, then I think that's reasonable. I can accept many other viewpoints as possible by virtue of the fact that I can't disprove them, but that which cannot be proven cannot be de facto accepted to be true. Make sense?
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: If science cant explain everything.. Scientific Material
Post #54This is my first post in this thread and I'm just answering the question of the OP above.Tart wrote: So if you play around with any of these thoughts, how come you discredit God automatically?
The bottom line is that I don't automatically discredit the idea of a "God" (as a generic concept)
However, I totally reject the Abrahamic myths of a God because those myths are extremely self-contradictory as well as being utterly absurd.
The self-contradictions alone are sufficient to know that these myths are necessarily false. However, the utter absurdities of how this mythological God behaves is an equally valid reason for rejecting these myths. Especially since these myth don't even allow that their God could be this ignorant, yet they simultaneously demand that he is.
So my rejection of the Abrahamic folklore of a jealous personal God who behaves like an immature unethical human has nothing at all to do with science, or a disbelief in the possibilities of "miracles".
In fact, I will even allow for the possibility of miracles. After all, if I can't rule out the possibility of a "God" then I most certainly can't rule out the possibility of miracles.
But even this doesn't help the Bible because the miracles that are performed by the God of the Bible are also ignorant and utterly absurd. So even if I allow for miracles I still see no reason to allow for absurdly ignorant miracles being performed by a God that is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and infinitely wise and intelligent.
The Biblical God's behavior doesn't even amount to the level of intelligence that I see in many mere mortal men. So there's simply no reason to think that the Biblical myths of a God have any merit.
No science required:
~~~~~~
Having said the above, I'm not going to ignore the scientific evidence against the Bible as well. The Bible claims that God created a perfect world and "Saw that it was Good". Then it goes on to claim that humans supposedly falling from grace cause imperfection and "sin" to pervade the world. Well science has revealed to us that these ancient stories are false. The world was not "Good" before humans came onto the scene unless you think that terrible diseases and animals horribly eating each other alive is "Good".
So science disproves the Bible as well.
Could there still be a "God" of some sort?
Sure, the God of Buddhism could be true. Buddhism neither makes self-contradictory claims about its God nor does it have its God doing ignorant foolish things. So the God of Buddhism could be true.
In fact, there are many God myths that I cannot disprove. For example I can't even discount Zeus and company. The Greek Gods were allowed to be ignorant, foolish, stupid, and even evil. So there's no self-contradiction in Greek Mythology as far as their Gods are concerned.
I also see no reason why the God and Goddess of Wicca cannot potentially be true. Again, there is no major claims about these God and Goddess characters that is self-contradictory. So without a contradiction it's next to impossible to disprove them.
Could any of those Gods exist? I suppose. I remain agnostic with regard to them.
But I have no need to be agnostic about the Biblical God because I know that it cannot exist as it is described in the Biblical folklore.
So again, no science required.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #55
[Replying to post 51 by Tart]
The point you (deliberately?) miss is that what "Christians" have believed about Jesus, what they do believe about Jesus, is all over the map. Pick the style of Jesus you want. There may have been such a man, although my hunch is that there were two or more of that name, conflated and confused. That there were also admixtures in the Jesus myth of other divinities, dying and rising gods is a matter of history. About 500 BCE three magi (astrologers) attended the birth of Zoroaster and a king tried to kill the babe. And "Christmas" was the birthday of Sol Invictus, the date of the summer solstice when the sun seemed to pause for three days before beginning its annual journey north.
It is also apparent that the four "Gospels" were written for four different audiences, including Ebionites, Marcionites, and Gnostics. It's kind of like the different versions of Star Trek have different arcs and backstories where Kirk and Spock and company are hardly recognizable except for the names.
.
The point you (deliberately?) miss is that what "Christians" have believed about Jesus, what they do believe about Jesus, is all over the map. Pick the style of Jesus you want. There may have been such a man, although my hunch is that there were two or more of that name, conflated and confused. That there were also admixtures in the Jesus myth of other divinities, dying and rising gods is a matter of history. About 500 BCE three magi (astrologers) attended the birth of Zoroaster and a king tried to kill the babe. And "Christmas" was the birthday of Sol Invictus, the date of the summer solstice when the sun seemed to pause for three days before beginning its annual journey north.
It is also apparent that the four "Gospels" were written for four different audiences, including Ebionites, Marcionites, and Gnostics. It's kind of like the different versions of Star Trek have different arcs and backstories where Kirk and Spock and company are hardly recognizable except for the names.
.
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #56
[Replying to post 52 by Tart]
Tart: "Ok great, so you dont know anything about Jesus, and him as the Messiah... We could have saved much time... "
I am reasonably familiar with stories about Jesus, just as I am somewhat familiar with stories of Herakles and Paul Bunyan. There may have been a wandering hero as the basis of the first and a real lumberjack as the basis of the second. And there may have been a communistic pacifist Jewish preacher named Yeshua and another Yeshua who tried to incite rebellion against Rome.
Tart: "But you dont really believe that, you really think God doesnt exist, and Jesus is a myth or legend like charactor... Yet you dont "claim to know truth"... (this is actually spot on topic)..."
Existence of God and existence of a historical Jewish rabbi or insurrectionist are not the same topic, however you may have conflated them in your mind.
Tart: "How do you make sense of not knowing truth, but knowing Christianity is false? (and lets be honest here... You can backstep and become an agnostic if you want, but you claim to "know" many things, including Christ being a legend)... "
Some legends may have a basis in reality, but most have accretions of exaggeration and outright fantasy. Even the term "Christ" simply stems from the Greek meaning "annointed", and was used to refer to kings or just those initiated into mystery religions.
I know a bit about mathematics and the sciences, and have examined those subjects enough to have some confidence in their correspondence with reality. I have also taken college level courses in religion, philosophy and psychology.
I have studied history and observed people of all religions murdering, stealing, enslaving and raping in the name of their gods. And, yes, atheists have done these things too, and even atheists sometimes like to pretend to superior holiness. Religion seems to make little difference in behavior. But the "Bible Belt" has the highest rates of divorce and unwed pregnancies, and non-believers are under-represented in prisons.
Tart: "'I do not claim to know truth.' is the most bizarre claim anyone can make, especially after every sentence you said in this thread... Do you claim to know, you dont claim to know truth? Or not even that?"
One pertinent thing that does seem fairly clear to me, is that you are incapable of rational thought when your superstitious fears are roused, that you infer your biases when reading simple statements. I'm fairly sure it is not deliberate, you simply can do no other.
.
Tart: "Ok great, so you dont know anything about Jesus, and him as the Messiah... We could have saved much time... "
I am reasonably familiar with stories about Jesus, just as I am somewhat familiar with stories of Herakles and Paul Bunyan. There may have been a wandering hero as the basis of the first and a real lumberjack as the basis of the second. And there may have been a communistic pacifist Jewish preacher named Yeshua and another Yeshua who tried to incite rebellion against Rome.
Tart: "But you dont really believe that, you really think God doesnt exist, and Jesus is a myth or legend like charactor... Yet you dont "claim to know truth"... (this is actually spot on topic)..."
Existence of God and existence of a historical Jewish rabbi or insurrectionist are not the same topic, however you may have conflated them in your mind.
Tart: "How do you make sense of not knowing truth, but knowing Christianity is false? (and lets be honest here... You can backstep and become an agnostic if you want, but you claim to "know" many things, including Christ being a legend)... "
Some legends may have a basis in reality, but most have accretions of exaggeration and outright fantasy. Even the term "Christ" simply stems from the Greek meaning "annointed", and was used to refer to kings or just those initiated into mystery religions.
I know a bit about mathematics and the sciences, and have examined those subjects enough to have some confidence in their correspondence with reality. I have also taken college level courses in religion, philosophy and psychology.
I have studied history and observed people of all religions murdering, stealing, enslaving and raping in the name of their gods. And, yes, atheists have done these things too, and even atheists sometimes like to pretend to superior holiness. Religion seems to make little difference in behavior. But the "Bible Belt" has the highest rates of divorce and unwed pregnancies, and non-believers are under-represented in prisons.
Tart: "'I do not claim to know truth.' is the most bizarre claim anyone can make, especially after every sentence you said in this thread... Do you claim to know, you dont claim to know truth? Or not even that?"
One pertinent thing that does seem fairly clear to me, is that you are incapable of rational thought when your superstitious fears are roused, that you infer your biases when reading simple statements. I'm fairly sure it is not deliberate, you simply can do no other.
.
Re: If science cant explain everything.. Scientific Material
Post #57The usual DI "logical" (quote on quote) assertions.... DI, if we amuse that Christian can be true, then that is amusing the idea that the God of Christianity is "all knowing", and that humanity isnt "all knowing"... Does this give room for your logical reasoning to be wrong?Divine Insight wrote:This is my first post in this thread and I'm just answering the question of the OP above.Tart wrote: So if you play around with any of these thoughts, how come you discredit God automatically?
The bottom line is that I don't automatically discredit the idea of a "God" (as a generic concept)
However, I totally reject the Abrahamic myths of a God because those myths are extremely self-contradictory as well as being utterly absurd.
The self-contradictions alone are sufficient to know that these myths are necessarily false. However, the utter absurdities of how this mythological God behaves is an equally valid reason for rejecting these myths. Especially since these myth don't even allow that their God could be this ignorant, yet they simultaneously demand that he is.
So my rejection of the Abrahamic folklore of a jealous personal God who behaves like an immature unethical human has nothing at all to do with science, or a disbelief in the possibilities of "miracles".
In fact, I will even allow for the possibility of miracles. After all, if I can't rule out the possibility of a "God" then I most certainly can't rule out the possibility of miracles.
But even this doesn't help the Bible because the miracles that are performed by the God of the Bible are also ignorant and utterly absurd. So even if I allow for miracles I still see no reason to allow for absurdly ignorant miracles being performed by a God that is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and infinitely wise and intelligent.
The Biblical God's behavior doesn't even amount to the level of intelligence that I see in many mere mortal men. So there's simply no reason to think that the Biblical myths of a God have any merit.
No science required:
~~~~~~
Having said the above, I'm not going to ignore the scientific evidence against the Bible as well. The Bible claims that God created a perfect world and "Saw that it was Good". Then it goes on to claim that humans supposedly falling from grace cause imperfection and "sin" to pervade the world. Well science has revealed to us that these ancient stories are false. The world was not "Good" before humans came onto the scene unless you think that terrible diseases and animals horribly eating each other alive is "Good".
So science disproves the Bible as well.
Could there still be a "God" of some sort?
Sure, the God of Buddhism could be true. Buddhism neither makes self-contradictory claims about its God nor does it have its God doing ignorant foolish things. So the God of Buddhism could be true.
In fact, there are many God myths that I cannot disprove. For example I can't even discount Zeus and company. The Greek Gods were allowed to be ignorant, foolish, stupid, and even evil. So there's no self-contradiction in Greek Mythology as far as their Gods are concerned.
I also see no reason why the God and Goddess of Wicca cannot potentially be true. Again, there is no major claims about these God and Goddess characters that is self-contradictory. So without a contradiction it's next to impossible to disprove them.
Could any of those Gods exist? I suppose. I remain agnostic with regard to them.
But I have no need to be agnostic about the Biblical God because I know that it cannot exist as it is described in the Biblical folklore.
So again, no science required.
Also, your logical reasoning pointed out that:
~DIIn fact, there are many God myths that I cannot disprove. For example I can't even discount Zeus and company. The Greek Gods were allowed to be ignorant, foolish, stupid, and even evil. So there's no self-contradiction in Greek Mythology as far as their Gods are concerned.
Given that you believe in the quote above, that you can not disprove the Gods of Greek Mythology for the reason that they were "allowed to be ignorant, foolish, stupid, and even evil."... Specifically "foolish"...
Then certainly you cannot disprove Christianity on such grounds either, as noted in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25...
Post #58
I think Christians agree, Jesus came in the flesh, fulfilled the requirements and prophecy of the Messiah, and was risen again...TSGracchus wrote: [Replying to post 51 by Tart]
The point you (deliberately?) miss is that what "Christians" have believed about Jesus, what they do believe about Jesus, is all over the map. Pick the style of Jesus you want. There may have been such a man, although my hunch is that there were two or more of that name, conflated and confused. That there were also admixtures in the Jesus myth of other divinities, dying and rising gods is a matter of history. About 500 BCE three magi (astrologers) attended the birth of Zoroaster and a king tried to kill the babe. And "Christmas" was the birthday of Sol Invictus, the date of the summer solstice when the sun seemed to pause for three days before beginning its annual journey north.
It is also apparent that the four "Gospels" were written for four different audiences, including Ebionites, Marcionites, and Gnostics. It's kind of like the different versions of Star Trek have different arcs and backstories where Kirk and Spock and company are hardly recognizable except for the names.
.
Do you have any evidence, or good reasoning to believe there was more then 1 Jesus? And do you have evidence, or sources for other dying and rising gods, or any other gods that share Jesus's story, so that we can compare and contrast that of Jesus? Becuase right now its just an assertion you are claiming, like a lot of other people who assert the same thing... But note the video below.
[youtube][/youtube]
Note* "primary sources" (as noted in the video) would be critical in this debate.
Post #59
Do you have evidence or reasoning that there is more then one Jesus...TSGracchus wrote: [Replying to post 52 by Tart]
Tart: "Ok great, so you dont know anything about Jesus, and him as the Messiah... We could have saved much time... "
I am reasonably familiar with stories about Jesus, just as I am somewhat familiar with stories of Herakles and Paul Bunyan. There may have been a wandering hero as the basis of the first and a real lumberjack as the basis of the second. And there may have been a communistic pacifist Jewish preacher named Yeshua and another Yeshua who tried to incite rebellion against Rome.
Like for instance, what led you to believe that? Its not just something you created in your imagination... is it?
Actually, my imagination has nothing to do with analyzing the evidence of Christianity, and concluding it is the truth... I certainly did not create Christianity in any sense. I simply observe is claims as true.TSGracchus wrote: Tart: "But you dont really believe that, you really think God doesnt exist, and Jesus is a myth or legend like charactor... Yet you dont "claim to know truth"... (this is actually spot on topic)..."
Existence of God and existence of a historical Jewish rabbi or insurrectionist are not the same topic, however you may have conflated them in your mind.
What about you? You didnt create this idea that there are two Jesus's... In your head... Did you?
That would make those people in the Bible belt "hypocrites", which Jesus warned us against, and showed us that this is a reality for the world we live in... Which is a demonstration of Christianity being consistent with reality... Because Christianity IS consistent with reality.TSGracchus wrote: Tart: "How do you make sense of not knowing truth, but knowing Christianity is false? (and lets be honest here... You can backstep and become an agnostic if you want, but you claim to "know" many things, including Christ being a legend)... "
Some legends may have a basis in reality, but most have accretions of exaggeration and outright fantasy. Even the term "Christ" simply stems from the Greek meaning "annointed", and was used to refer to kings or just those initiated into mystery religions.
I know a bit about mathematics and the sciences, and have examined those subjects enough to have some confidence in their correspondence with reality. I have also taken college level courses in religion, philosophy and psychology.
I have studied history and observed people of all religions murdering, stealing, enslaving and raping in the name of their gods. And, yes, atheists have done these things too, and even atheists sometimes like to pretend to superior holiness. Religion seems to make little difference in behavior. But the "Bible Belt" has the highest rates of divorce and unwed pregnancies, and non-believers are under-represented in prisons.
Id encourage you to not just accuse me of being irrational, but specifically pointing out what I said that isnt a "rational thought", or point out what i didnt understand from your statement, specifically...TSGracchus wrote: Tart: "'I do not claim to know truth.' is the most bizarre claim anyone can make, especially after every sentence you said in this thread... Do you claim to know, you dont claim to know truth? Or not even that?"
One pertinent thing that does seem fairly clear to me, is that you are incapable of rational thought when your superstitious fears are roused, that you infer your biases when reading simple statements. I'm fairly sure it is not deliberate, you simply can do no other.
.
Ill allow you to give an explanation to these personal attacks.
Post #60
Thanks DeMotts.. It is always a good reminder to be civil in debate (perhaps a reminder I need from time to time).DeMotts wrote: [Replying to post 52 by Tart]
Hey Tart, firstly yes this thread has kinda gone all over the place, but cheers for rolling with it (it's more fun that way). Also I respect you sticking to your guns, even though we disagree.
You admitted yourself that you are unsure of the old testament and it's status as allegory or literal recounting - I can accept that. But surely you can see how if you are doubtful of the old testament, we can be doubtful of the new testament for the exact same reasons.
This historicity of Jesus is IMO not in question in this debate. I think the vast majority of historians agree that there was a guy named Jesus, and he caused a ruckus in the first century, and was crucified.
But there are all sorts of supernatural events in the new testament, in addition to Jesus' multiple healings and miracles and eventual resurrection, we also have stuff like dead people in Jerusalem rising up out of their graves and walking around during the crucifixion, Peter walking on water, etc. This is just as "supernatural" as the old testament.
Biblical historians generally date the four gospels around AD 66-70 for Mark, AD 85-90 for Matthew and Luke, and AD 90-110 for John. All four were written anonymously, and near as we can tell none of them were written by eyewitnesses, and decades after the supposed events.
So if you can be unsure about the old testament, I think it's fair that we be permitted to cast our doubts on the new testament. And to tie this whole thing back to the original question in the OP, scientific materialism, or whatever you want to call it, to me just means this: the most logical place to start with your beliefs is what is most objective and true to everyone. Science is consistent no matter who is doing the experiment. It's the closest thing we have to objective truth. If I want to stop there and only accept as true what can be proven to me consistently, then I think that's reasonable. I can accept many other viewpoints as possible by virtue of the fact that I can't disprove them, but that which cannot be proven cannot be de facto accepted to be true. Make sense?
Yes, i agree with the idea that things that arent proven shoudlnt be believed in... This is actually why i believe in Christianity so strongly, it has been proven to me beyond doubt... But "proof" is a relative claim.. That is, you dont know what i know...
I think the supernatural claims that we didnt witness (you or I), are proven by the supernatural claims we can witness and experience... This would be like prophecy. Either personal, or world wide, which both are described in the Bible. Supernatural reasoning, or that Christianity can be shown to be true by its reaosnablness
As Greek Philosopher turned Christian, Justin Martyr said, claiming Christianity is the one "true philosophy"
"I fell in love with the prophets and these men who had loved Christ; I reflected on all their words and found that this philosophy alone was true and profitable."...
That we can experience the spirit of God within us, as promised and prophecies.
The point is that there is certainly proofs that can lead to the belief that the supernatural claims we didnt witness, are true.
And just a note*, the epistles led into the Gospels, which is what we should expect from the witnesses... And i see no reason to believe the Gospels arent spawned from eye witness account, especially on the evidence from the witnesses talked about in the epistles.
