Shawn Patrick’s Comments (group member since Dec 22, 2007)

Shawn Patrick’s comments from the Atheists and Skeptics group.

That has actually been on my list of things to watch for quite some time. I should just go ahead and watch it already, huh? ;)

I actually know painfully little about the arguments for and against the reality of a historical Jesus, so my introduction to this topic will be necessarily short. I am of the opinion, based on what little I've heard, that Jesus did exist, at least as a normal human. This man was one of three things: 1) divine 2) insane 3) a con-man. (My personal belief is No. 3.)

I have heard that there have been non-religious accounts of Jesus' existence dating from the time period, and this is my only basis for believing in a historical Jesus.

Can anyone give me specific examples of the above accounts? Or can anyone give me the opposing viewpoint?

Off topic, but strongly on my mind...Thank you, thank you all for renewing my, uh, faith in the concept of civilized discourse. Every other post area I have ever read can unbelievably quickly degenerate into name-calling and insults. Not here. Thank --, uh, well, thanks.

It's probably because of my disclaimer in the group description: "What is restricted, however, is namecalling or truly mean-spirited comments with no constructive purpose."

I claim 100% credit for everyone's civility. Thanks, me. ;)


(In actuality, I'm extremely happy with how this discussion group is panning out. People on both sides are intelligent and understanding. I agree that this is the only place that I've seen a discussion like this take such a form.)

I agree with you, Rui, and if anyone "really really" wants to find a reason for something, they will, even something that is incorrect. That seems to be the worst way to come to believe something, especially something as important as religion. It basically means you search for justification wherever you can, and that seems contrary to what a loving God would want his intelligent creation to have to do.

I'm truly looking for the spark of the divine. To me, however, that spark will come in a creator loving enough to allow me to use my God-given intellect and logic to believe in him, rather than telling me to eschew what makes me human.

As for "Why would God talk about technology to those primitives?" Why wouldn't he? Of course he wouldn't use formulas or something as much of a turn-off as that, but God's a smart guy, I'd think. Why wouldn't he inspire someone to write about electricity in a way that the primitives could marvel at and future generations could point to as an unknowable prophecy that gives a helluva lot of credence to His existence? Something as simple as, "And in the future, cities will be lit throughout the night not by fires but by a man-made flow of power," or "in the future, man will talk to his fellow man from across the Earth." Very simple, very digestible, and it works for any reader of any time period. If would serve to inspire awe in the primitives of the future to come that God has foreknowledge of, and it would give modern man a true reason think, "Wow, these books actually seem to be divinely inspired rather than simply works of fiction written by fallible, primitive humans."

I don't know, the God of the Bible just very much confuses me, as written. If he were described as a sadist or unloving or as not caring whether or not we go to heaven or an eternal hell, I would actually have less reason to not believe in him, because all of the evidence would agree with that kind of God.

The "all knowing" and "all powerful" descriptions don't make sense, either, because if he is both of those, you'd think he'd have a better success rate for getting believers. As it stands, only 1/3 of humans believe in Christianity, and that is the largest percentage of any religion (at least, as per this website, which easily could be wrong, I admit: www.adherents.com). So, if Christianity is right, God's only going to save 1/3 of his children, whom he allegedly loves so much? Doesn't make sense to me. And even within Christianity, there are so many divisions; which of those is he going to turn his back on for not believing him in exactly the right way?

And the "free will" argument is a cop-out. It's a reason to justify why a supposedly all-powerful God would not use his powers to help something he loves. How does free will help us in any way? He could create us to believe in him and not know that we aren't using free will to do so. We wouldn't be any less happy because of it, because we wouldn't know any better. We'd all go to heaven, we'd all be exactly the same except we'd all believe in God, and we'd all be happy. Seems very sadistic to toy with someone's eternal life like that.

Sally, thank you very much for posting on this board. I'm glad to see that, as I had hoped, we'd get some diversified opinions here expressed in a non-confrontational, intelligent manner.

As far as Life of Pi, that book is definitely on my "to read" list. I've heard very good things about it. I have to admit that I don't completely understand that quote. I see how it applies to religious people, but what is the leap that atheists make? Is it meant to mean that an atheist's UNbelief is somehow a leap equivalent to a religious person's belief? If that is the case, then I strongly disagree with that point.

Given that, I still do now see why you disagree that faith is the neglect of reason. The very definition of faith (according to Merriam-Webster) is: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Is there is no true proof for something, and yet one decides to believe it, they are neglecting reason (which would dictate that they look for alternate answers for which there are proof) as a necessity in order to continue having faith.

As for your last paragraph, this once again brings up one of my major problems with religion, which is words like "perfect," "omnipotent," "omniscient," etc. I admit that my limited human might cannot truly grasp a concept like infinity, and thus it likely cannot fully grasp something like perfection, but there seem to be some inherent flaws in claiming deities as perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient.

In your example, for instance, why doesn't God just make us feel happy all of the time and make the world right the first time instead of having to continuously change it? As far as the first point, you could say that if we were happy all of the time, how would we know what happy is if we'd never been sad; to have one extreme, you must have the other. That's simply not true, though, in a world with an omnipotent being. He could make us happy all of the time and make us never grow tired of the feeling. If he couldn't do that, he's not all powerful. If he could do that but he doesn't, he's not very loving.

Here's another one to chew on. God is all-knowing, and holy books (on the Christian side of things, at least) are meant to be (correct me if I'm wrong, which I could be) the Word of God or, in the very least, words inspired by and approved by God.

OK, if no one has a problem with that, so far ... how does one explain that emergent technology is not mentioned in the Bible, a book from the mind of an omniscient (all-knowing) being? There is nothing in the Bible that couldn't have been thought of by someone with an all-encompassing knowledge of the future. In fact, a large portion of what is in the Bible is outdated and not really taken seriously nowadays (sanctioned stonings, sanctioned slavery, etc.).

Was God just trying to convince the people of that moment while not giving two s---- about people of the future? A mention of electricity, the true nature of the universe, evolution, the automobile, the Internet, television, the theory of gravity, or ANYTHING of that nature would have been warranted and would likely be enough to convince me that the books were divinely inspired. As it stands, however, the books are simply literature of their time and age, some written well, some written poorly, and all full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

Any thoughts or counterpoints? Especially with regard to whether or not the Bible truly predicted any emergent technology? (And not in some stupid metaphoric way, that would be unnecessary and unproductive of God.)

That's a good point, Rick. Often find myself referring to the Christian God when I say God, which is presumptuous and should be avoided. I'd say a large number of religions worship an allegedly loving, merciful creator who does everything for His creations' betterment.

Amputees (and both deaf and blind people, as Gin rightly pointed out) stand in stark betrayal of such an all-loving, all-powerful diety.

As per Gin's point about how you have to suspect analytical skills, logic, and rational thinking to believe in the gods of major religions, I think there's another point to be made, here. I doubt many would argue that our superior brains are not a God-given GIFT, as opposed to a God-given curse. Given that, why would God give us such intellects and then tell us not to use it in what should be the most important part of our lives (if true)? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I'm sure many of you have heard of the argument against faith healers or praying for healing purposes that asks, "If it (they) works, then what does God, an omnipotent being, have against amputees that he won't re-grow their limbs?"

That seems like a damn good trump card for God, in general. The only argument that I can see being made against it (fallaciously) is the old, "God works in mysterious ways," or "we can't know the ways of God," and other such cop-outs.

Any Christians want to weigh in here?