Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: " , Jesus is no more a historical person than say Dumbledore or Sauron or Heracles ...".......... and your evidence for this is reading books like Nailed while ridiculing the Bible...."
I don't even imply he was a "run of the mill prophet". There is no evidence he existed, none. If you have some there a life time scholars in the field who'd love to have it.
Oh and I like to address the qualifications of the Author David Fitzgerald
David Fitzgerald is a writer and historical researcher who has been actively investigating the Historical Jesus question for over ten years. He has a degree in History and was an associate member of CSER, the former Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion.
David serves on the boards of San Francisco Atheists and Center For Inquiry-SF, and is founder and director of both the world's first Atheist Film Festival and Evolutionpalooza, San Francisco's oldest Darwin Day celebration. He lectures around the country at universities and national secular events and is best known for his popular multimedia presentations "The Ten Thousand Christs and the Evaporating Jesus" and "The Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion."
So not quite as unqualified as you, via the quote you supplied, would like to imply
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Give us some proof then..."http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist..."
I have this one, and coincidently enough it was next up on my non fiction reading list. I look forward to this one, Bart D. Ehrman is an excellent speaker, and I'm interested to read what he has to say. Have you read it, cs?
I'd like to point out that this book on Amazon has 3.3 star rating and here on goodreads a 3.8 stars...
I thought this quote pertinent
"I'm glad I read some of the reviews here because half way through this book I started to wonder when we were going to get to the crux of the claim made by Ehrman. It seems we don't. To claim that an historical character must have existed based on the few disjointed texts we have is tantamount to assuming the position of Erich Von Daniken drawing the conclusion that "what else could that pointy shaped cave painting be if not a rocket?" It's post hoc reasoning."
http://www.amazon.com/review/R15G9TH5...
Reem wrote: "Heather wrote: "I know this may seem a bit weird, but I believe that science and religion go have in hand. In my mind, science explains religion and they together form societal networks. It is when..."Science can exist without religion. Unexplained 'miracles' are just that, unexplained. Unexplained does not mean god did it.
Shanna wrote: have this one, and coincidently enough it was next up on my non fiction reading list. I look forward to this one, Bart D. Ehrman is an excellent speaker, and I'm interested to read what he has to say. Have you read it"No I have not read it, and probably would not read it, although I know about it.
As with Nailed, there are books for and against the Jesus debate.
For me the bible is enough proof that Jesus existed, but as I have said, I understand the view that some see him as no more that another prophet of that time.
I also understand the athiest who does not accept the bible as proof that Jesus was real, and then asks for other evidence, of which there is none. This then gives gives them more ammunition in the God debate.
Of course, disproving Jesus does not prove there is no God. Plenty of non Christians believe in a God. You are merely disproving a religion not a belief.
I am genuinely interested to know what interests you about reading these books. Had I not read your previous comments over the last few months and just read the previous couple, I would have thought that you were open to be convinced either way.
I am of the option that a lot has happened in the past that we have yet to discover, which in time may change our views. Evidence can only ever be, 'beyond reasonable doubt', and that is how I view the bibles view of Jesus. I have done Jury service in the past and although the person was found 'not guilty' on the evidence put forward, there was still a doubt about the verdict, but not a reasonable doubt.
I also think that some of what Erich Von Daniken propossed could have happened.
cHriS wrote: "I also think that some of what Erich Von Daniken propossed could have happened. ."Ah, suddenly it all starts to make sense....
Why wouldn't you read it? but offer it as proof of the existence of Jesus.The bible is no proof that Jesus existed, anymore than the Heracles myth is proof he existed. There are many prophets and Messiahs in a the proposed time period that have more contemporary and a multiplicity of documentary sources, where Jesus had none, not one. It seems people where willing to write about the prophets in their midst and there is not one for Jesus.
It not that Atheists get more ammunition it's that the Christians have no kevlar vests and have tied themselves to a tree in the evidence department. This is not the atheists fault.
Agreed it does not disprove God, but it's puts a massive hole in the christians arguments for god. But as it has been stated ad infinitum before the onus is still on the claimant for the existence of god, to prove it not the rejectors of the claim to disprove it. And if you've done jury duty you know how it works.
I enjoy them, and I am open to new evidence should it arise. I enjoy learning and I am eclectic in my books.
These books in particular, I don't like to be gullible, credulous and ignorant.
Of course, but that is absolutely no reason to accept an assumed authority, that does demonstrable harm to our fellow human beings, as true and right. It's no reason at all. It's pascal's wager, playing the odds (when you don't and can't know what the odds are) it's what if? and not, what is?
It's statistically unlikely that we are the only life in all of the universe, wether or not it has visited us, I don't know.
Shanna wrote: "These books in particular, I don't like to be gullible, credulous and ignorant. .."If, as we all do, take sides in a debate like this, you will be seen as those things by the other side.
It not that Atheists get more ammunition it's that the Christians have no kevlar vests and have tied themselves to a tree in the evidence department. This is not the atheists fault.
Not really. For example, there is enough written in the bible alone for me to beleive, beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person. If an athiest wants to dispute this then the debate can't move on until that point is resolved, but it is not in the athiest interest to resolve it. And if the athiest wants to convince others that Jesus was a myth, they really need to show how they arrived at that conclusion and how their evidence out weights the Bibles written words.
pascal's wager, playing the odds
You would only play the odds if there was something to gain. What is not so clear with pascal's wager is the 'gain'. Since athiests are convinced there is no gain to be had, playing the odds is not a concern to them; and those that do believe in a God do not need to play the odds. So that just leaves the ones in the middle.
But what will those in the middle gain from going along with Pascal or hedging their bets....nothing, or at least nothing other than what they can imagine.
Maybe they think that if they believe, it is a ticket to heaven. But would they not also think that this god would see what they were doing and void their ticket.
So while pascal's wager is a fun thing to contemplate, it does not add anything to this type of debate.
I'd rather live in a world without war. If people could learn to accept the opinions of others and either discuss them civilly without forcing their opinions on others I don't see why religion and science couldn't live hand in hand.
Not really. For example, there is enough written in the bible alone for me to beleive, beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person. If an athiest wants to dispute this then the debate can't move on until that point is resolved, but it is not in the athiest interest to resolve it. And if the athiest wants to convince others that Jesus was a myth, they really need to show how they arrived at that conclusion and how their evidence out weights the Bibles written words.Something that has happened numerous times in this debate, but pointing out the serious flaws the bible has as evidences to it's own veracity, and that of god and jesus.
You make this statement
there is enough written in the bible alone for me to beleive, beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person.
And the fact that even theologians concede that bible is not a eyewitness account, the various accounts all contradict each other on important points (the geneaolgy of a real Jesus should be consistent, whether or not he was stoic on the cross or felt betrayed and cried out to god,ect ect. If it a real account then these little elements should be consistant, after all, either they happened or they didn't, and that's leaving out the improbable fantasy parts), and that the bible(s) have all been altered, forged, mistranslated and even the initial bible was put together by vote to consolidate the power of a pagan roman emperor doesn't bother you at all.
Shanna wrote: "Not really. For example, there is enough written in the bible alone for me to beleive, beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person. If an athiest wants to dispute this then the debate can'..."Again we are back to the logic of 'religion must true, we've got a book'.
Yes I know. Frustrating isn't it.
Shanna wrote: ".." . If it a real account then these little elements should be consistant, after er they happened or they didn't, .......
And all this information is from your own research, or maybe from books others have written. and these others happen to be writing what you want to hear.
If all books written were only considered of value if they were eye witness accounts, we would not have much non fiction to read.
Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Not really. For example, there is enough written in the bible alone for me to beleive, beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person. If an athiest want to dispute this then ..."That logic can be applied to all of history before film was invented.
Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Not really. For example, there is enough written in the bible alone for me to beleive, beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person. If an athiest want to dispute this then ..."That logic can be applied to all of history before film was invented.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: ".." . If it a real account then these little elements should be consistant, after er they happened or they didn't, .......
And all this information is from your own research, or may..."
So unlike the bible tnen?
Eye witness accounts actually don't mean much the human mind is fallible and not particularly reliable as an eyewitness and it regarded as a low form of evidence regardless of how the tv shows like law and order portray it. But in the case of the bible and jesus it would be some evidence as opposed to nothing. In a time when we have bucket loads of eyewitness accounts of the other prophets running around so clearly there wasn't a dearth of chroniclers eager to document miracles, prophets, and as such all of them failed to write about jesus supposedly the only "real one" running around performing "actual" miracles
You believe a book because it exists and it has written in it that it is own proof of it's truth. The quran says the same thing, do you accord it the same faith, if that's the standard you apply, then you should believe every word of the Da Vinci Code because it claims to be based on real events too?
Shanna wrote... faith, if that's the standard you apply, then you should believe every word of the Da Vinci Code because it claims to be based on real events too? "The de Vinci code is based on a conspiracy theory, which may or may not have an element of truth in it.
That doesn't address my point at all.
I think in the choice between religon and science, I would rather live in a world without religon. Religon has created wars, violence, hatered, it's turned people aggainst eachother, beleived people need to be "cured" if being gay, womens rights, who would want to live in a world where this happens? Science has given us so much, granted not everything is good and pure, nuclear, guns, ectra.. but it's also given medication, cars, light, tecnology, airplanes, growing food. I dont think a world without religon would be cold, I think it would become more accepting. religon I beleive seprates people.
Shanna wrote: "That doesn't address my point at all.It addressed some of it. I do not agree with your point about Jesus and the Bible. Or rather the view you portray as you will have read it somewhere.
Where did you get this information, and how did you validate it.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote... faith, if that's the standard you apply, then you should believe every word of the Da Vinci Code because it claims to be based on real events too? "The de Vinci code is based on a..."
Much like the bible.
Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote... faith, if that's the standard you apply, then you should believe every word of the Da Vinci Code because it claims to be based on real events too? "The de Vinci code..."
Very constructive comments.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote... faith, if that's the standard you apply, then you should believe every word of the Da Vinci Code because it claims to be based on real events too? "The..."
Just an observation.
I have just watched a BBC programme showing how cosmologists are measuring the universe, one conclusion they reached is that there is no end to the universe, it goes on forever. Another cosmologist thinks that our universe is just one of trillions of other universes. This is seen as rational thinking even though they can' t prove it, but to suggest there is a creator is viewed by some as ridiculous.
The mind boggles.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: "That doesn't address my point at all.It addressed some of it. I do not agree with your point about Jesus and the Bible. Or rather the view you portray as you will have read it somew..."
You addressed the throw-away comment of the bottom and ignored the rest, you know, the actual conversation.
And of course you have first hand knowledge of your assertion that Jesus existed, not just that you read somewhere, oh I dunno, like the bible. How about addressing the points rather than attempting to dissmiss, because I, like you, am not a biblical scholar or theologian, and must source my information from books.
I've read the bible and seen the evidence for myslf that the accounts of Jesus's "life" are decidedly inconsistant. I had a religious education until university.
Shanna wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: "That doesn't address my point at all.It addressed some of it. I do not agree with your point about Jesus and the Bible. Or rather the view you portray as you will have..."
......... then the debate is not about anything other than interpretation.
And here I thought we were actually going to have discourse but the question avoiding cs returns.
without religon.....but i must have spirituality....as a great pastor once told me"RELIGON IS MANMADE, SPIRITUALITY IS GOD GIVEN''
what is spirituality? I still don't understand this term.
cHriS wrote: "This is seen as rational thinking even though they can' t prove it, but to suggest there is a creator is viewed by some as ridiculous. "And neither will be accepted scientifically until evidence builds up. There's nothing wrong with speculating, proposing new ideas, but that is all it is, speculation, until evidence is provided. For either of these ideas to be accepted scientifically the proponents will need to make testable claims of their hypotheses. It may take a long time before they can be tested, and until then they will remain hypotheses...Religion however says "god did it" and demands no evidence, no testable predictions, and ignores any evidence which contradicts this hypothesis.
So to compare the two as you have is wrong, and whilst you are free to suggest there is a creator, it is merely a hypothesis with no supporting evidence, and can therefore be ignored until there is.
Glorianne wrote: "without religon.....but i must have spirituality....as a great pastor once told me"RELIGON IS MANMADE, SPIRITUALITY IS GOD GIVEN''"Which god is that then?
Shanna wrote: "And here I thought we were actually going to have discourse but the question avoiding cs returns."I admire your optimism :)
cHriS wrote: "......... then the debate is not about anything other than interpretation"Are you suggesting what you do is 'debating'?
Cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "And here I thought we were actually going to have discourse but the question avoiding cs returns."I admire your optimism :)"
I was impressed with Shanna's positive view, but I made money in the betting pool that she wouldn't get an answer.
cHriS wrote: "I have just watched a BBC programme showing how cosmologists are measuring the universe, one conclusion they reached is that there is no end to the universe, it goes on forever. Another cosmologis..."It is pretty mind-boggling that people think their imaginary creator/friend should get equal consideration as actual science.
Travis, Cerebus, we had a good start, didn't we? I mean actual to and fro... for a little while...Travis, glad to put some in the piggy bank :)
Shanna wrote: "And here I thought we were actually going to have discourse but the question avoiding cs returns."You in the last two weeks have avoided two questions, remember Hazel coming to your rescue and just a few post ago you avoided another question. So pot and kettle come to mind here.
But you will be ok because Travis and Cerebus will always be available to detract from your avoidance with their glib remarks. Travis is not quite up to Cerebus's standard but then neither are as knowledgeable as Hazel or Gary so they have to rely on glib remarks.
Travis wrote: It is pretty mind-boggling that people think their imaginary creator/friend should get equal consideration as actual science. ."
You and others here seem unable to get past this 'glib' response when someone joins in this thread and suggests that they believe a creator of some kind may be possible.
The original question was about religion and science, so by it's nature the question invites a response that may involve someone believing that a creator could be possible. At least Gary and Hazel did try and respond, for most of the time, in a debating way, although sometimes rather long winded.
But you and Cerebus act like children, that is when you are not sucking up to others here.
Ad hominem attacks hooooooo!!
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: "And here I thought we were actually going to have discourse but the question avoiding cs returns."You in the last two weeks have avoided two questions, remember Hazel coming to you..."
Which questions, Pot? Please reiterate what I missed.
And cut the crap with Hazel defending me, she has not addressed you directly for months let alone "come to my defence" with you.
Do you think I have any or would want any control over any "glib" comments anyone else might make? You keep throwing this one and the Hazel one up like an accusation...
cHriS/cs wrote: "Travis is not quite up to Cerebus's standard but then neither are as knowledgeable as Hazel or Gary so they have to rely on glib remarks. "Troll.
cHriS/cs wrote: "But you and Cerebus act like children, that is when you are not sucking up to others here. ."Troll.
cHriS/cs wrote: "At least Gary and Hazel did try and respond, for most of the time, in a debating way, although sometimes rather long winded.."Debating is something you have ducked and avoided for much of this thread....
Did you mean the "How did I get the information and validate it(?)" If so I thought that rhetorical as it was what we'd actually been discussing. Well I read the book and check out the references, citations and websites mentioned. How do you validate yours ? Gut feelings, warm fuzzies, I feel it's so so it must be... seeing as you admitted you hadn't even read the book you offered up as proof.
Sarah wrote: "I think some of the wrong questions are being asked here: 'why was it me who was bitten by a dog?' Why do things happen to anyone? Why did I get waved to this morning? Why did a fly land on my arm?..."well i think you're only right to certainlimits. things like philosophy can't keep you off Adultry and STDs for example. there are things that can, i'm not meaning to say otherwise- like huge social and sychological awareness and a good piece of responsiblity that we aught to take for our actions. but you gotta admit that after -like you yourself had indicated- a really long time since start of philosophy, we hadn't quite figured out a final solution for these problems even with the help of law.
law you can easily break if you can handle punishment, even if you believed that the rules were there for your own good. but religion, well even if you don't believe in any religion whatsoever, i doubt you can deny that when you truly believe in God, you can't disobey him because you would also believe of how much good thing would happen to you if you didn't, and bad things if you did..
can you?
Sarah wrote: "I think some of the wrong questions are being asked here: 'why was it me who was bitten by a dog?' Why do things happen to anyone? Why did I get waved to this morning? Why did a fly land on my arm?..."it's NOT cold. it's actually very supported by some religions, or at least i can only be sure of mine- Islam is very much incouraging of science and exploring the Universe. and it also can be proven to be THE right religion wether or not you believed in God to start with, of course by proffessional scientists of Islam.
Sarah wrote: "I'm glad that you don't feel this way and I'm sure there are those who share your views. Unfortunately this is an issue that comes up an awful lot in my own experience as an atheist, the most commo..."i have to admit, as silly as you would appearantly think of me after saying saying this, but i do agree with that comment. like i said, these sciences and culturals you are speaking of stand for freedom of art, opinion, and thought. BUT, they're not spirital in their overall -although again, Islam's spiritality is almost too obvious in most sciences. they do have fine and noble meanings a lot of time. but i don't think they're noble enough meanings to live for without religion, devinity and spiritality.
Caitlin wrote: "Personally, I would pick science over religion. Science makes sense to me, in addition to providing me answers that I care to know about. I don't believe a world without religion would be colder, I..."no it can't. now you guys are mixing things up. Spiritulity IS religion.
Travis wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Caitlin wrote: "...thats critical, not cynical..."You know I think that's a very important point, one that I've failed to highlight in the past when extolling the virtues of critic..."
wait a minute, religion is not against questioning. as long as you're respectful of it (for example, not say "this is all just jebberesh" if you're not persuaded) or sth equally as or more offensive to it, you can question all you want until you have deep profound unquestionable faith in your religion, because then i think it would be much easier to obey the rules of your religion. but even then you are still "allowed" to seek the reasons behind evereything you're told to do. but again, i'm only speaking for My religion, islam.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
.......... and your evidence for this is reading books like Nailed while ridiculing the Bible...."
Give us some proof then.