Topic: Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

[RedRabbit]

Ok, but they are both still comparable sources. If he wants to say that he doesn't buy Genesis for the same reason I don't buy Matthew, then he has to distinguish the two. The reason I reject both is not the same reason he only rejects one. It isn't plausible to say, well, I reject Genesis because it's a couple of hundred years older than Matthew. They're still both a couple of thousand years old and of uncertain authorship and authenticity.

I agree with you. It is him who is making the distinction. And I suppose in a way in making that distinction he's performing a form of cognitive dissonace and choosing to ignore it's consequences. But then again we are dealing with a person who believes that there is a man in the sky.

Trying to use reason and logic to persuade somebody out of a position that they didn't use reason and logic to get into is very difficult. If not impossible. They're always going to be able to play the "it's a library and not a book", "that not all of it is meant to be taken literally", "that we have more information regarding the origins of the universe than the people who wrote that 6,000 years ago", "I just know it's true" arguments. You're just going to end up going round in circles. It's nearly impossible to argue against those points. Pointing out to him that it is illogical to be able to make that distinction is in no way going to persuade him not to continue doing it, so if a book within it is claimed by him to be a literal account that's what should be the target, along with possibly the evidence that he claims supports that conclusion and the God hypothesis in genera.

[corkboy]

Most religions have common characteristics and one is that their stories, their technology and details, are all firmly rooted in the time of their creation. Christianity was 2,000 years ago and it's full of donkeys and swords and burning bushes. Crucifixes and big rocks, for fuck's sake, nothing by way of an advancement or a clue as to how to modernise.

Then you take more modern religions like Scientology where their big story/creation myth has spaceships that look awfully like the kinds of airplanes they had in the US around then, but in space.

Maybe Darwin came from one of the gods?

[Tepid water]

Most religions have common characteristics and one is that their stories, their technology and details, are all firmly rooted in the time of their creation. Christianity was 2,000 years ago and it's full of donkeys and swords and burning bushes. Crucifixes and big rocks, for fuck's sake, nothing by way of an advancement or a clue as to how to modernise.

Then you take more modern religions like Scientology where their big story/creation myth has spaceships that look awfully like the kinds of airplanes they had in the US around then, but in space.

Maybe Darwin came from one of the gods?

Nah, he was born across the road from my school."...

No gods there, just bumpkins

[RojoLeón]

Nah, he was born across the road from my school."...

No gods there, just bumpkins

It would be a capricious and mischievous god that created bumpkins as part of his grand design

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Most religions have common characteristics and one is that their stories, their technology and details, are all firmly rooted in the time of their creation. Christianity was 2,000 years ago and it's full of donkeys and swords and burning bushes. Crucifixes and big rocks, for fuck's sake, nothing by way of an advancement or a clue as to how to modernise.

Then you take more modern religions like Scientology where their big story/creation myth has spaceships that look awfully like the kinds of airplanes they had in the US around then, but in space.

Maybe Darwin came from one of the gods?

Corky, I think the fact that you are reading these books with an eye for the technology, or even more generally, the period detail in which they were written is partly why you misunderstand them so. The story of the good Samaritan is the same whether he has an ass, a Prius or a jetpac.

[corkboy]

Corky, I think the fact that you are reading these books with an eye for the technology, or even more generally, the period detail in which they were written is partly why you misunderstand them so. The story of the good Samaritan is the same whether he has an ass, a Prius or a jetpac.

I know. It's just you'd think if it was coming from a Greater Being, it would include genuinely insightful stuff. Bread mould cures infection, women are actually equal to men, earth goes round sun. Useful sorts of things.

[Tepid water]

It would be a capricious and mischievous god that created bumpkins as part of his grand design

The ability to shag your sister is a top bumpkin talent, hardly biblical is it....


Now I've typed that I realise the utter folly of my statement

[macca888]

The ability to shag your sister is a top bumpkin talent, hardly biblical is it....


Now I've typed that I realise the utter folly of my statement

You leave Rojo's sister out of it.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I know. It's just you'd think if it was coming from a Greater Being, it would include genuinely insightful stuff. Bread mould cures infection, women are actually equal to men, earth goes round sun. Useful sorts of things.

I'd call the idea that there is good in all of us, even our enemies,  both insightful and useful.

[DaftKev]

I don't want to put words into corkboy's mouth but I thought his point was that these books don't offer anything insightful or useful that wasn't available to people at the time that they were written. What is there to suggest that there's any divine inspiration behind them?

[corkboy]

I'd call the idea that there is good in all of us, even our enemies,  both insightful and useful.

Yes. How helpful has that been, though?

Here's the Bible and the Jesus story, from the viewpoint of modern science. A God, who created everything, started the Big Bang, the expansion of the Universe, the formation of billions of planets and stars. In the midst of this cosmic ballet, it then chose Earth upon which to launch a vast biological experiment involving millions of life forms and spectacular and complex life systems developing over billions of years and iterations. All of this was specifically engineered and designed so that at a somewhat random point in the development of the most intelligent species at that time, the God would then reveal itself through the medium of a disparate collection of uncontemporaneous documents some time after the events, depicting a compendium of occasional wisdom but mostly self contradictory primitive tales of who did what cruelty to whom and some talking animals.

Science also tells us that in or around the same time, give or take a few thousand years, there were hundreds of other societies around the planet coming up with their own, often wildly different versions of the same story, so you have to assume that the God chose that particular society in Arabia before which to reveal its True Self. By dint of which millions of Americans are now hateful creatures who fling dollars at homophobic sexist bastards, so they can sponsor idiots to spend their time dissecting the Chosen Stories for even more wisdom.

[Tepid water]

I'd call the idea that there is good in all of us, even our enemies,  both insightful and useful.

But, clearly some of it was supposed to be insightful and useful, not eating shellfish or pork for instance....

The level of useful information is at such a basic level that (for me) it's another reason why the bible is in no way a work of a deity

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Who is claiming divine inspiration? A radical new theory of ethics, absolutely, divinely inspired or just human genius I could not say.

[Tepid water]

Who is claiming divine inspiration?

Most Christians?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

So so easy.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Most Christians?

You quoted me not "most Christians" whoever he is. Point him out he needs the CT "get eaten by lions"

[DaftKev]

That, for me, is the root of the problems that religion can, and often does, bring.

The idea that there is an ultimate figure of authority and, perhaps more pertinently, that there are people with a hotline to this figure, opens the door to things that wouldn't pass muster through reason alone.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Corky. America is fucked up. They dissect anything and everything to justify their cranky existences, L Ron, the constitution, mises.org, the elders of Zion.  The problem is them not what they are picking the bones of.

[corkboy]

Corky. America is fucked up. They dissect anything and everything to justify their cranky existences, L Ron, the constitution, mises.org, the elders of Zion.  The problem is them not what they are picking the bones of.

Unfortunately, while that's true, it's not the whole truth. Iran just imprisoned a man for something his son wrote on facebook in the Netherlands about some minor prophet. Their creation story is the same bollocks, but they're even more serious about it.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Unfortunately, while that's true, it's not the whole truth. Iran just imprisoned a man for something his son wrote on facebook in the Netherlands about some minor prophet. Their creation story is the same bollocks, but they're even more serious about it.

And Western Europe has produced a model of democratic government and tolerance that has been copied all over the world despite all coming from societies based on that same book.  It's what you do with it that counts.

[The Bill Hicks Appreciation Society]

And Western Europe has produced a model of democratic government and tolerance that has been copied all over the world despite all coming from societies based on that same book.  It's what you do with it that counts.

You think that book has anything to do with 'good' aspects of western society? Democracy was conceived of in ancient Greece pre-dating Christianity and under the predominant belief in multiple gods... oh you just fishing?

I'd say modern western society has evolved the compassion it has today despite that book, if that book hadn't been around it's arguable that we'd have reached this point much sooner.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

You think that book has anything to do with 'good' aspects of western society? Democracy was conceived of in ancient Greece pre-dating Christianity and under the predominant belief in multiple gods... oh you just fishing?

I'd say modern western society has evolved the compassion it has today despite that book, if that book hadn't been around it's arguable that we'd have reached this point much sooner.

I am not fishing.  I think their were three drivers behind the movement of western europe to the political system we now have; the renaissance and the rediscovery of Greek texts (thanks to Islamic scholars), the industrial revolution and the translation of the Bible into the native tongue of the people.

As for your last point, I'd like to see you make that argument.  I really would.  It's fucking laughable to be honest mate.  It is clear that the Christianity was an improvement on the systems it replaced, for centuries during the dark ages the monasteries were the sole meritocracies, the main centres of learning and the main centres of charity and medecine.  We could speculate that their may have been better systems that could have taken it's place but you'd need to provide evidence of suppression of those systems and then somehow construct an alternative 1000 years of history.  Good luck.

[Tepid water]

I am not fishing.  I think their were three drivers behind the movement of western europe to the political system we now have; the renaissance and the rediscovery of Greek texts (thanks to Islamic scholars), the industrial revolution and the translation of the Bible into the native tongue of the people.

As for your last point, I'd like to see you make that argument.  I really would.  It's fucking laughable to be honest mate.  It is clear that the Christianity was an improvement on the systems it replaced, for centuries during the dark ages the monasteries were the sole meritocracies, the main centres of learning and the main centres of charity and medecine.  We could speculate that their may have been better systems that could have taken it's place but you'd need to provide evidence of suppression of those systems and then somehow construct an alternative 1000 years of history.  Good luck.

The translation of the bible into native tongues was about increased liteceracy and therefore education wasn't it?

I've always thought of it as an accidental revolution.

[The Bill Hicks Appreciation Society]

I am not fishing.  I think their were three drivers behind the movement of western europe to the political system we now have; the renaissance and the rediscovery of Greek texts (thanks to Islamic scholars), the industrial revolution and the translation of the Bible into the native tongue of the people.

As for your last point, I'd like to see you make that argument.  I really would.  It's fucking laughable to be honest mate.  It is clear that the Christianity was an improvement on the systems it replaced, for centuries during the dark ages the monasteries were the sole meritocracies, the main centres of learning and the main centres of charity and medecine.  We could speculate that their may have been better systems that could have taken it's place but you'd need to provide evidence of suppression of those systems and then somehow construct an alternative 1000 years of history.  Good luck.

I appreciate the well wishes, but don't really think they're necessary considering the history of bloodshed attributed to the abrahamic religions, and in particular Christianity and that book. What pre-dated volume one of the Bible? Egyptians, Romans (non monotheist era), Greeks, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Chinese - what did they ever do for us? no doubt they had their problems and still erroneous belief systems but in general they're civilisations that fascinate and amaze us with their technological advancements and perplex us with their architectural and societal achievements.

The only thing that has continually advances human civilisation on an increasingly global scale, the only driving force I think that is responsible for the way we are today is knowledge and sharing of that knowledge. Not 100 years ago homosexuality was illegal, other races were seen as inferior to the White Europeans, and we were going around the world 'spreading' civilisation in the name of the good book and the Queen. What's changed that except for a proliferation of knowledge with the increased ability to discuss said knowledge?

As for suppression of an alternative system, the very nature of Christianity and its zero tolerance of heretics ensured any alternative belief system didn't stand a chance. You could even say Origin of Species was the main catalyst for change, gradually giving people who actually had doubts about the biblical story the courage to hang their hat on something a little more tangible than an invisible man in the sky.

[RedinExile]

Many of these arguments seem to hinge on whether a book that has encouraged countless people to be good over the centuries outweighs the fact that too many have used it as an excuse to commit the most ungodly of acts. People will argue for the former, others the latter.

Personally I suspect that good people will be good anyway, or will have found another source of inspiration, and the bad people would be bad regardless and find another source of inspiration for them. In that sense it seems inconsequential, although that seems an unfair label on something that has been, and continues to be, an inspiration to good people everywhere.

[Nessy76]

Personally I suspect that good people will be good anyway, or will have found another source of inspiration, and the bad people would be bad regardless and find another source of inspiration for them.

Amen to that.

[Bob Sacamano]

Even the gospels weren't written by first-hand witnesses, were they?

A subject of much debate amongst New Testament scholars. Some argue that the Gospel of Mark was actually written by Mark (who worked under Peter, who was an eyewitness). Most argue that Matthew was not written by Matthew, but some say it was either Matthew or a close associate. The authorship of John is subject to much controversy, as his Gospel is a bit of an oddball compared to the other 3 Gospels. Again, some will argue it was authored by the Apostle John (an eyewitness), others by John of Patmos (who wrote Revelation much later). Witherington actually argues that Lazarus (yes, the guy raised from the dead) was the Beloved Discipline, and therefore the source of John's material which was probably edited at a later date. Sam basic story for Luke-Acts.

As Witherington says in What Have They Done with Jesus?:

“All twenty-seven of the New Testament documents can be traced back to the inner circle [of Jesus] or those connected to the inner circle (with the possible exception of Matthew’s gospel).” pg 284

There's no mention anywhere that I'm aware of even of the rumour of a resurrection until decades after it is supposed to have taken place.

The Gospels/Pauline letters were written years after the event, but their content is based on source material taken from eye-witnesses (according to some scholars at least)

So calling it a historically proven event really doesn't hold water, and treating it as one isn't history, it's theology, or literary studies.

I doubt any scholar argues that the Resurrection is historically "proven" at least in an objective sense. They may say that the historicity of the Resurrection is the best explanation given the information we have, or they may say that it is reasonable to conclude the Resurrection literally happened. The plausibility or reasonableness can be defended, but the event itself cannot be objectively "proven" at least in my opinion.

[Bob Sacamano]

Oh no. I'm not falling for that. As soon as I make the statement that it is then you'll just point out that the statement is a metaphysical statement. Not happening.

Wise man.

Anyway, this all came from my observation that all people that believe in God must be superstitious. The definition of superstiton is the belief of supernatural causality (duh!), and if God exists he must be this supernatural causality, because if he is not then he is, by definition, a natural causality. From this I observed that the only way we could possibly verify his existence would be through empirical evidence. No other form of evidence would be sufficent because they would all be true and false simultaneously. (Any argument put forth by those forms of evidence would have a counter-argument using the same reasoning).  Which leaves us with no definitive answer. Only empirical evidence could give us the proof that God existed within this natural world. Since there is no evidence, at all, in the natural world for his existence he must exist, if he does exist, in a supernatural existence hence making all those that believe in him superstitious.

Again, you seem to be saying only empirical methodology suffices when investigating the existence of God.

But in answer to your question: no, empirical evidence is not the only way to obtain true knowledge, except in this specific case.

This would seem to contradict everything you just said, but maybe I'm still misunderstanding you. Perhaps you could give me an example of "true" or "real" or "verifiable" (all terms you have used) knowledge which is not of an empirical nature, and explain why exactly this non-empirical epistemology cannot be applied to questions pertaining to God.

Fine. As stated though, faith is not a Christian concept, so why you are using a Christian text to define it is beyond me.
I'm going to presume that this is a definiton of faith in a purely Christian framework. No other religion before Christianity used faith like this.

I can't speak for Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus, so how about when we talk about Christian faith we just use the term pistis to avoid confusion?

You'd have to admit that your definiton is not shared by many people though. Whatever it's etymology is, it most certainly has a different common meaning now.

 
Irrelevant to the discussion. Pistis has a specific meaning, and it doesn't change just because many people don't use it correctly.

A person debating faith with some one of faith can only debate them on the definition provided.

I certainly don't expect non-Christians to know this. But I do expect them to accept being corrected.

This is the first time in 27 years that I've heard this argument for the definition of faith.

An indictment of western Christianity. Although with all-due respect, this also demonstrates a lack of familiarity with New Testament scholarship. The "argument" (and its more of a fact than an argument) is certainly not novel.

I know plenty of people who have abandoned their faith, strict ones too, that would define it as "belief in spite of evidence."

Well I suppose they can define it anyway they want. But that's not what Jesus and Paul meant when they spoke of pistis. I too would leave any religion which preached "belief in spite of evidence."

So lets move on: Why do Christians have a "loyalty" to or "trust" in God?

The Resurrection, to be concise.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort

Good, because it's a crackpot theory.

I have no evidence for it one way or the other. A distinct lack of historical evidence would suggest he might not of, but that doesn't mean that the "movement" he is said to have started didn't. Ergo; someone did.

Actually, the historical evidence is overwhelming that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD. Unlike the Resurrection, this isn't really up for debate, except amongst the kookiest of New Atheist neanderthals.

1. Is this statement true?:
"Faith in Christianity is primarily based on the faith that Jesus is the son of God".

I suppose, but the Nicene Creed is probably a better summation of what constitutes Christian faith.

2. If it is then:
"Faith in Christianity is ultimately based in the existence of God".

Where does this loyalty, trust or faithfulness come from?

By that do you mean "in order for one to be a Christian, one must believe that God exists in the first place? So what exactly is the basis for trusting that God exists?"

If so, again I would say the Resurrection is the concise answer.

If you're not interested in Resurrection mumbo-jumbo, then you can try your hand at the various cosmological arguments (see Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz) or Anselm's ontological argument (I still can't wrap my head around that one to be honest!)

[Tepid water]

Actually, the historical evidence is overwhelming that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD. Unlike the Resurrection, this isn't really up for debate, except amongst the kookiest of New Atheist neanderthals.

Evidence such as?

[KeithK83]

I appreciate the well wishes, but don't really think they're necessary considering the history of bloodshed attributed to the abrahamic religions, and in particular Christianity and that book. What pre-dated volume one of the Bible? Egyptians, Romans (non monotheist era), Greeks, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Chinese - what did they ever do for us? no doubt they had their problems and still erroneous belief systems but in general they're civilisations that fascinate and amaze us with their technological advancements and perplex us with their architectural and societal achievements.

The only thing that has continually advances human civilisation on an increasingly global scale, the only driving force I think that is responsible for the way we are today is knowledge and sharing of that knowledge. Not 100 years ago homosexuality was illegal, other races were seen as inferior to the White Europeans, and we were going around the world 'spreading' civilisation in the name of the good book and the Queen. What's changed that except for a proliferation of knowledge with the increased ability to discuss said knowledge?

As for suppression of an alternative system, the very nature of Christianity and its zero tolerance of heretics ensured any alternative belief system didn't stand a chance. You could even say Origin of Species was the main catalyst for change, gradually giving people who actually had doubts about the biblical story the courage to hang their hat on something a little more tangible than an invisible man in the sky.

Firstly, sorry to interrupt and love your profile name by the way. Hicks is a hero of mine.  I agree that the driving force for the advancement of civilizations has been the diffusion of knowledge.  It is however a little bit revisionist to say that religion and certainly Christianity has had no part to play or even just a negative part to play in the spread of both knowledge and culture which has contributed to the advancement of society. Your example of Darwin is apt here in terms of a negative 'contribution'. If he had not railed the institutionalized orthodoxy, we may never have had 'Origins'. Its worth remembering that it was not that case that no atheists or serious dissenters existed until Darwin.

As for the nature of Christianity, that's just a meaningless statement in my opinion. Christianity is an idea, a philosophy it has no neutral nature. There are quite a lot of good things there within the text if we are inclined to see them. But that's the point, individually and collectively people have decided what to focus on, mainly those seeking to institutionalize power for their own benefit. Its not the idea or philosophy which is inherently bad or intolerant, its the subsequent rigid and violent interpretations of that idea or philosophy imposed by people and institutions of power. Can we say with any certainty that the same would not happen to a philosophy which was rooted in something else? pure logic and reason? again who defines these concepts? even science?  I'm not so sure, in fact I think its pretty obvious that the 'philosophies' of accepted mainstream science (just look at the history of physics and examples of resistance to new ideas there) and hardcore atheism can be just as rigid and uncompromising, the difference is they haven't had the same time to develop those destructive and ugly tendencies attributed to older institutionalized philosophies. Sorry to barge in on the discussion, its just a very interesting one. I just think its helpful to distinguish between the idea and what people have created by utilizing that idea.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I appreciate the well wishes, but don't really think they're necessary considering the history of bloodshed attributed to the abrahamic religions, and in particular Christianity and that book.

Dave as I like you I will save you the systematic demolition of that point.  I've done it before. It is on RAWK. 

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The translation of the bible into native tongues was about increased liteceracy and therefore education wasn't it?

I've always thought of it as an accidental revolution.

Not a chance, they never strangled Tyndale and then burnt his body at the stake for something as innocuous as that.  The translation was all about removing the teachings of the bible from the control of the church.  In northern europe it was game changing and it lead to the rapid spread of non-conformist religious groups that based their thinking on the gospels and were broadly socialist in outlook as a result.

[Tepid water]

Not a chance, they never strangled Tyndale and then burnt his body at the stake for something as innocuous as that.  The translation was all about removing the teachings of the bible from the control of the church.  In northern europe it was game changing and it lead to the rapid spread of non-conformist religious groups that based their thinking on the gospels and were broadly socialist in outlook as a result.

Agreed, but the result of this was a flourishing of adult literacy, it was purely serendipitous but immensely important in the development of western civilisation.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Agreed, but the result of this was a flourishing of adult literacy, it was purely serendipitous but immensely important in the development of western civilisation.

Agreed.

Again in northern Europe, church schools at the same time were immensely important.  Just look at the Scottish Enlightenment and their huge role in scientific development and the industrial revolution.  Pretty much all attributable to the lead Scotland had in universal education due to the pioneering work of the Church of Scotland.

There are lots of small things that set us on the path, even bizarre things like the black death claiming so many Latin trained priests that the church were forced to let lay preachers take services in English.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Many of these arguments seem to hinge on whether a book that has encouraged countless people to be good over the centuries outweighs the fact that too many have used it as an excuse to commit the most ungodly of acts. People will argue for the former, others the latter.

Personally I suspect that good people will be good anyway, or will have found another source of inspiration, and the bad people would be bad regardless and find another source of inspiration for them. In that sense it seems inconsequential, although that seems an unfair label on something that has been, and continues to be, an inspiration to good people everywhere.

Well, going back to one of the very beginning, Gibbons in his epic history of the Roman Empires cites conversion to Christianity as one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.  The reason being that it made the romans less ruthless, less martial, more prone to "turn the other cheek". 

Other than that I think history teaches predominantly that we have the capacity to be a right gang of c*nts and that is irrespective of which religion or belief system you are following.  Societies with no contact with the three Abrahamic religions were every bit as bloodthirsty, if not more so. 

[Nessy76]

Well, going back to one of the very beginning, Gibbons in his epic history of the Roman Empires cites conversion to Christianity as one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.  The reason being that it made the romans less ruthless, less martial, more prone to "turn the other cheek". 

Other than that I think history teaches predominantly that we have the capacity to be a right gang of c*nts and that is irrespective of which religion or belief system you are following.  Societies with no contact with the three Abrahamic religions were every bit as bloodthirsty, if not more so.

And even if they weren't, lumping the Jews in there seems harsh, modern-day Israel may not be a beacon for tolerance and good neighbourly behaviour, but prior to that they've generally been on the receiving end.

[Bob Sacamano]

Evidence such as?

The Jewish historian Josephus states that Jesus was crucified under Pilate in Antiquities. The Roman historian Tacitus says the same in Annals. Likewise Lucian in the Passing of Peregrinus. None of those 3 were Christian, and if anything were hostile to Christianity.

Then of course you have the abundance of New Testament testimony...(cue shouts of "but they were biased!!!)

A few quotes from scholars:

“…no serious academic—of any ideological, religious or nonreligious stripe—doubts that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived some time in the first century and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea. The evidence for the existence of Jesus—literary, archaeological, and circumstantial—is overwhelming.” Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus pg 220

“Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” John Dominic Crossan (a scholar who asserts that roughly 80% of the New Testament amounts to mythology rather than history, who dates some Gnostic gospels before the canonical Gospels, who believes Jesus' body was probably eaten by birds and dogs rather than buried, lest you accuse him of bias) Who Killed Jesus? pg 5

Bart Ehrman (an atheist convert and prominent critic of Christian orthodoxy) just wrote a book Did Jesus Exist? in which his answer is a rather resounding "yes." (Scroll down here: http://ehrmanblog.org/2012/04/ for his reply to Richard Carrier on the subject).

See here also for a scathing, Atheist critique of the notion Jesus never existed: http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

Richard Carrier is the only legitimate historian I know of who publicly advances the Christ Myth theory.

[Tepid water]

Interesting thanks


The trouble is that who comes first, the gospels or the historical records ....

Does one influence the other?  It's certainly the case in Islam.


Probably likely that Jesus existed and that he was a preacher, in the same way it was likely Mohamed existed.

[RedRabbit]

Again, you seem to be saying only empirical methodology suffices to give a verifiable result when investigating the existence of God.....

....if God exists in the natural world. If God exists in the supernatural world, as most tend to believe, then anybody who believes in God believes in a supernatural entity and is therefore superstitious.

Which funnily enough was my original point before you tried to warp what I meant.

Instead of me saying this over and over and over again and then you taking my position out of context and I post again trying to clarify my position so that you can again take it out of context, why don't you point out where this argument might be wrong? Otherwise we're going in circles, you're just not going to 'get it' and this line of discussion is pointless.

This would seem to contradict everything you just said, but maybe I'm still misunderstanding you. Perhaps you could give me an example of "true" or "real" or "verifiable" (all terms you have used) knowledge which is not of an empirical nature, and explain why exactly this non-empirical epistemology cannot be applied to questions pertaining to God.

I've never used the word "verifiable" in relation to any other method besides that of an empirical nature. That was my point.

I'll give you an example of what can only be "true", and therfore cannot be false, using only logic if you like: "God cannot be omnipotent". Logically that statement is true and I've used no empirical methodology at all.

The problem with using logic when applied to questions of God is that logic is limited, (as evidenced above), and that any logical arguments for God fall into an infinite regress which can never be answered and always end up as a paradox. In the end we don't get an answer and if you don't get an answer it can hardly be verifiable.

Since you've asked me the question I'll ask you the same one (sort of): Can you give me an example using philosophy, logic, reason, etc. that gets us to the "truth" as to whether or not God exists that I can not refute using the same method?

I can't speak for Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus, so how about when we talk about Christian faith we just use the term pistis to avoid confusion?

I've no problem with that. In fact after thinking about it I kind of wish everyone did use it in that sense. Trying to discuss something with someone who believes it despite/without the evidence is frustrating and ultimately pointless. Contrary to what you think, I'd say using the commonly used "faith" definiton in a discussion with a believer is harder.

 

Irrelevant to the discussion. Pistis has a specific meaning, and it doesn't change just because many people don't use it correctly.

Your original claim that "New Atheists" always get the definiton wrong when arguing with believers is hardly surprising as they are arguing the same definiton. It's hardly irrelevant. You brought it up.

Would you mind giving us this specific definition? "Loyalty", "faithfulness" and "trust" are a pretty vague to be called a "specific" definition.

I certainly don't expect non-Christians to know this. But I do expect them to accept being corrected.

I'm sure they would. Seeing as the majority of them would probably be scientists they'd be used to people bringing new evidence to the table to challenge their ideas and preconceptions. The problem lies with those they are arguing with. They can only argue the definition that's put in front of them.

Well I suppose they can define it anyway they want. But that's not what Jesus and Paul meant when they spoke of pistis. I too would leave any religion which preached "belief in spite of evidence."

Wise man. And yet....

The Resurrection, to be concise.

You have a "trust" in God because somebody is claimed to have risen from the dead after 3 days? But you don't require any evidence of this claim?

Good, because it's a crackpot theory.

It depends which Jesus you mean.

Actually, the historical evidence is overwhelming that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD. Unlike the Resurrection, this isn't really up for debate, except amongst the kookiest of New Atheist neanderthals.

I'd debate you on it, particularly the "...of Nazareth" claim, but that would only prove my New Atheist neanderthal credentials. You being an Old Age bible humper probably wouldn't judge my arguments valid because...well, because you don't want to.

But let me make myself clearer. I'm not suggesting that a man named Jesus wasn't walking around Judea 2,000 years ago and that this man wasn't one of hundreds of other self-proclaimed messiahs doing likewise. What I am saying is that just because there are a couple of references, some vague, made about this man by a few historians at the time, (Tacitus, Pliny, etc.), does not mean he is the son of God as he is depicted in the Bible.

The historical evidence will show that George Washington existed, it does not mean he chopped down a fucking cherry tree.

I suppose, but the Nicene Creed is probably a better summation of what constitutes Christian faith.

We believe in one God, who sent his son, who died, who rose and sits on his right hand and also in the holy spirit? [parapharsed]

That's kind of it, no? That let's me skip a step if true.

By that do you mean "in order for one to be a Christian, one must believe that God exists in the first place? So what exactly is the basis for trusting that God exists?"

If so, again I would say the Resurrection is the concise answer.

I find that answer to be intellectually unsatisfying. That's akin to me saying I believe in magic because it says it in Harry Potter.

Btw, the whole "Jesus died for our sins" thing...isn't that a little tarnished because he came back again?

If you're not interested in Resurrection mumbo-jumbo, then you can try your hand at the various cosmological arguments (see Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz) or Anselm's ontological argument (I still can't wrap my head around that one to be honest!)

Both are crap.

Cosmological: An uncaused cause (lol) does not = God as defined by religion. It merely states that there must logically be one. It does not mean there was one.

You can't wrap your head around the ontological argument because it's bollocks.

[Bob Sacamano]

....if God exists in the natural world. If God exists in the supernatural world, as most tend to believe, then anybody who believes in God believes in a supernatural entity and is therefore superstitious.

Which funnily enough was my original point before you tried to warp what I meant.

I haven't tried to warp anything. I've given responses based on my interpretation of your assertions and asked for clarification. I've genuinely had a tough time discerning what you mean.

Instead of me saying this over and over and over again and then you taking my position out of context and I post again trying to clarify my position so that you can again take it out of context, why don't you point out where this argument might be wrong?

Again, I can't point out where you're wrong if I don't know what you're saying.

I'll give you an example of what can only be "true", and therfore cannot be false, using only logic if you like: "God cannot be omnipotent". Logically that statement is true and I've used no empirical methodology at all.

Why can't God be omnipotent?

The problem with using logic when applied to questions of God is that logic is limited, (as evidenced above), and that any logical arguments for God fall into an infinite regress which can never be answered and always end up as a paradox. In the end we don't get an answer and if you don't get an answer it can hardly be verifiable.

And here is where we disagree. I consider this claim to be false. (see below)

Trying to discuss something with someone who believes it despite/without the evidence is frustrating and ultimately pointless

Yup.

 

Your original claim that "New Atheists" always get the definiton wrong when arguing with believers is hardly surprising as they are arguing the same definiton. It's hardly irrelevant. You brought it up.

Eh? The definition is relevant. That people use the word contrary to its proper definition is irrelevant with regard to what the word actually means. And New Atheist can't simply say "well this is how my catholic neighbor defines it!!" because if they are going to critique Christianity, then they need to get it right. That so many Christians are ignorant is no excuse to be ignorant themselves.

Would you mind giving us this specific definition? "Loyalty", "faithfulness" and "trust" are a pretty vague to be called a "specific" definition.

What is vague about those words? They clearly mean something drastically different from "belief in spite of evidence" and that's the only point I was trying to make.

You have a "trust" in God because somebody is claimed to have risen from the dead after 3 days? But you don't require any evidence of this claim?

Of course I do. As did the earliest Christians.

But let me make myself clearer. I'm not suggesting that a man named Jesus wasn't walking around Judea 2,000 years ago and that this man wasn't one of hundreds of other self-proclaimed messiahs doing likewise.

Good. That makes you more reasonable than many of your fellow New Atheists.

What I am saying is that just because there are a couple of references, some vague, made about this man by a few historians at the time, (Tacitus, Pliny, etc.), does not mean he is the son of God as he is depicted in the Bible.

Of course not. Arguing for the accuracy of the Jesus depicted in the New Testament is an entirely different discussion.

The historical evidence will show that George Washington existed, it does not mean he chopped down a fucking cherry tree.

Right. Again, I've never said otherwise.

I find that answer to be intellectually unsatisfying. That's akin to me saying I believe in magic because it says it in Harry Potter.

Well if you don't find the evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection to be satisfying then of course you won't like that answer.

Btw, the whole "Jesus died for our sins" thing...isn't that a little tarnished because he came back again?

Eh?

Both are crap.

Cosmological: An uncaused cause (lol) does not = God as defined by religion

.
Why do you keep arguing against points I never actually made? In fact I've said exactly what you just said here in this very thread.

It merely states that there must logically be one. It does not mean there was one.

Unless you want to make the groundbreaking argument that it's possible for God to necessarily exist NOW, while not necessarily having existed in the past, then your point here is meaningless.

You can't wrap your head around the ontological argument because it's bollocks.

LOL. Like I said I can barely understand it what it says, so I don't know if it's bollocks or not. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what it means and why it's so obviously false?

I'd also like to know why you think the cosmological arguments (which I DO think are actually very very strong) are "crap."