An unexpected religious conversation...

09/23/2009 04:35:08 PM · #126

Originally posted by JH:

I do not believe that Jesus as a person existed.

Since I find this to be the craziest of alternate positions, I'm curious if you think Paul, as a person, existed?

Message edited by author 2009-09-23 16:41:20.

09/23/2009 04:41:10 PM · #127

Originally posted by scalvert:

How would anything exist or miracles occur in the real world without any physical interaction? "Let there be light" and "let there be locusts" require interaction with a physical universe. If there can be no contact with or detection of another realm, then that realm by definition cannot cause things to exist or happen in the real world.

Also, how exactly do the Ten Commandments fit in with the "deeds don't matter" premise? That other various directions for conduct would appear to be an irreconcilable contradiction of a "faith only" test.

The more important question would be how would you detect those interactions to your satisfaction? While the theist usually gets pegged as wiggling out of rational corners, the materialist would always be able to claim a lack of information. Look at it this way, there have been claims of hundreds of thousands of miracles in history. I'm sure if we wanted to we could come up with reasonable explanations for most of them, but there would be a handful that we just couldn't explain. The materialist will very likely fall back to a position of "not enough information". In other words, they would always assume there was a reasonable explanation but they just didn't have it. If only THIS test had been done or someone had looked for THIS. The problem is the materialist has to keep ALL miracles out. If only one slips through it wrecks the whole party.

The ten commandments have to do with our behavior on earth. They are very important and are good signposts for living a "good" or "successful" life, but have nothing to do with our salvation.

Message edited by author 2009-09-23 16:43:18.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/23/2009 04:49:44 PM · #128

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Look at it this way, there have been claims of hundreds of thousands of miracles in history. I'm sure if we wanted to we could come up with reasonable explanations for most of them, but there would be a handful that we just couldn't explain. The materialist will very likely fall back to a position of "not enough information".

More likely, a rational investigator would either go with "coincidence" or "hoax." An event with one-in-a-billion odds could happen naturally to 7 people just by chance, and while it would indeed be miraculous, there needn't be a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, events along the lines of talking animals or shrubbery are infinitely more likely to be delusions or hoaxes than real events.

Apple iPhone 5

09/23/2009 04:55:19 PM · #129

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by JH:
I do not believe that Jesus as a person existed.

Since I find this to be the craziest of alternate positions, I'm curious if you think Paul, as a person, existed.

Firstly, why should you consider this position crazy? - It seems to me that religious believers are so caught up in their faith that they don't stop to consider this fundamental question. We've discussed the existence or otherwise of god, but in a similar way I find there is an incredible lack of evidence to support the existence of Jesus as a person (regardless of whether he was actually sent to earth by god) - Much of the 'evidence' is biblical hearsay.

Regarding Paul, let us assume that he did exist. After all, he allegedly wrote all these biblical texts - (Incidentally, if Jesus's teachings were so important, why did neither he nor anyone he was preaching to decide to write it down at the time?) Anyway, Paul wrote his texts about 60AD, and of these that aren't considered forgeries, he makes no mention of meeting or seeing Jesus, he barely even talks about what Jesus did when he was on earth.

If I had known this guy who could perform miracles and raise himself from the dead, you can be sure that I wouldn't be waiting until 30 years after he died before making some passing reference to him in a letter!

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/23/2009 04:56:10 PM · #130

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Look at it this way, there have been claims of hundreds of thousands of miracles in history. I'm sure if we wanted to we could come up with reasonable explanations for most of them, but there would be a handful that we just couldn't explain. The materialist will very likely fall back to a position of "not enough information".

More likely, a rational investigator would either go with "coincidence" or "hoax." An event with one-in-a-billion odds could happen naturally to 7 people just by chance, and while it would indeed be miraculous, there needn't be a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, events along the lines of talking animals or shrubbery are infinitely more likely to be delusions or hoaxes than real events.

Which proves my point that there is no level of evidence at which you would be satisfied, so why do you ask? There is no use in answering a question which has a priori been answered.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/23/2009 04:56:38 PM · #131

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
True. I say something similar in my book, Unicorns exist, where I state in chapter 78 that the almighty hoof touches us in ways that can not be measured. This is due to volume.

Not to make light of your beliefs but as an agnostic when you remove the burden of proof then what I just said suddenly becomes just as plausible as what your suggesting.

I think you are just revealing you are a bit light in the intellectual loafers. Or you're just being annoying. You pick.

Come on Jason, if my argument is so light weight then you should easily knock it out of the park instead of questioning my intellect. Now granted, I'm not always serious in these threads so if you're annoyed by that (or something else) then just say so and leave the personal attacks out of it. Ok?

I know you well enough I feel comfortable busting on your a bit. I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation here and lately your posts on these threads need a rim shot .WAV attached.

The point of my post was to say that you cannot find a non-material phenomenon with a material test. You do not expect to find ultraviolet light with an infrared camera. The materialist's standard answer is, "but the only valid tests ARE material. I will accept no other." Rationally the answer makes a priori assumptions and is, therefore, not valid.

Perhaps another example, rather than looking for evidence of God intervening in the universe would be to ask how we would find evidence of Free Will? That is, if our mind is greater than the sum of its parts and there is a "ghost in the machine", how would you find it? At the least, the answer is "not with material tests".

You're not addressing my point though. I'm just saying my magical (non-material) unicorns are just as high up the mountain of truth as your god. Now I don't have any material proof of that either but I suspect you dismiss it outright, to which I say on what grounds? Lack of popular support? That changes over time. Perhaps this unicorn idea just needs a charismatic leader to champion it or an army to force indoctrination? How do you distinguish the difference between what you believe and all the things I can make up? What proof do you use to come to your conclusions if they are not based in the material?

Message edited by author 2009-09-23 16:59:42.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/23/2009 04:58:17 PM · #132

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JH:
Also, if you enter the afterlife with all the memories you retained while alive, then you face unhappiness - what if your loved ones aren't there as well?

There's an interesting point to ponder. Since most major religions, and even sub-denominations within them, hold that only their followers will enter heaven, it would mean that most people are stopped at the pearly gates by big bouncers in white robes and sunglasses. Chances are, you wouldn't be reunited with many friends or relatives. Not that you'd remember them anyway... no brain = no memories.

Reincarnation itself is a contradiction of eternal peace or suffering: if you go to heaven or hell forever, then your "spirit" obviously can't come back.

But the spirit must come back. How else do we know of this heaven if nobody has come back to spread the word of it to the living?

09/23/2009 05:04:32 PM · #133

Originally posted by JH:

Regarding Paul, let us assume that he did exist. After all, he allegedly wrote all these biblical texts - (Incidentally, if Jesus's teachings were so important, why did neither he nor anyone he was preaching to decide to write it down at the time?) Anyway, Paul wrote his texts about 60AD, and of these that aren't considered forgeries, he makes no mention of meeting or seeing Jesus, he barely even talks about what Jesus did when he was on earth.

Of the epistles which are undisputedly attributed to Paul, I Thessalonians is the earliest and the range for it's origin is around AD 49-52. This is 20 years after Jesus' supposed death. Paul does not claim to have met Jesus before his death, but he clearly claims to have persecuted his followers. Assuming he didn't overnight go from persecutor to expert of Christian theology, we can assume his persecuting days come some time before his first letter. In other words, if you accept the historicity of Paul, then you have to also claim that the people who Paul was persecuting made Jesus out of whole cloth within a few years and were willing to die for the lie. I find it highly preposterous that such a myth could have been created so quickly and so fervently that people were willing to die for their belief. It was based on something.
Secondarily, while Paul does not claim to have met Jesus before his death, he does claim to have met Jesus' disciples. Once again, to assume Paul is a real person while Jesus is purely a myth requires a logical dexterity I find to be highly unlikely.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/23/2009 05:23:37 PM · #134

Originally posted by yanko:

Pink unicorns and flying spagetti monsters are arguments designed to elicit an obvious answer from emotion. They are a clever creation of Dawkins. The adjectives only make sense in a material world and thus become absurd when applied to the non-material world. Pink is a color which is a product of the frequency of a light wave. A pink unicorn would not exist outside the universe. Immaterial things do not fly as that supposes an interaction between air and a wing. So, in fact, your examples are not as high on the mountain as an immaterial supreme being.

There are no rational arguments that result in a Pink Unicorn. There ARE rational arguments that result in a Supreme Being. (What is the origin of the universe? being an example that can result in the logical conclusion of a supreme being.

Apple iPhone 5

09/23/2009 05:28:28 PM · #135

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by JH:
Regarding Paul, let us assume that he did exist. After all, he allegedly wrote all these biblical texts - (Incidentally, if Jesus's teachings were so important, why did neither he nor anyone he was preaching to decide to write it down at the time?) Anyway, Paul wrote his texts about 60AD, and of these that aren't considered forgeries, he makes no mention of meeting or seeing Jesus, he barely even talks about what Jesus did when he was on earth.

Of the epistles which are undisputedly attributed to Paul, I Thessalonians is the earliest and the range for it's origin is around AD 49-52. This is 20 years after Jesus' supposed death. Paul does not claim to have met Jesus before his death, but he clearly claims to have persecuted his followers. Assuming he didn't overnight go from persecutor to expert of Christian theology, we can assume his persecuting days come some time before his first letter. In other words, if you accept the historicity of Paul, then you have to also claim that the people who Paul was persecuting made Jesus out of whole cloth within a few years and were willing to die for the lie. I find it highly preposterous that such a myth could have been created so quickly and so fervently that people were willing to die for their belief. It was based on something.
Secondarily, while Paul does not claim to have met Jesus before his death, he does claim to have met Jesus' disciples. Once again, to assume Paul is a real person while Jesus is purely a myth requires a logical dexterity I find to be highly unlikely.

I can assume that Bram Stoker was a real person, and that Mary Shelly was a real person. But I firmly believe that the people they wrote about were mythical.

Paul, who may or may not have written these letters himself, the letters themselves having been through multiple translations and editions over the course of 2000 years, and who doesn't directly reference any eyewitness accounts to any of Jesus's miracles. This is the weak foundation on which Christianity is based?

Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907]
"The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life."

09/23/2009 05:29:07 PM · #136

Originally posted by scalvert:

Reincarnation itself is a contradiction of eternal peace or suffering: if you go to heaven or hell forever, then your "spirit" obviously can't come back.

Reincarnation has no relation to christian belief. And, once you have obtained perfection through reincarnation, your spirit doesn't come back. There in no such thing as eternal suffering in religions that believe in reincarnation. You keep coming back until you get it right. Once you have it right, you're done. Of course, the coming back over and over could be considered the suffering part as one is imperfect if reincarnated...

09/23/2009 05:31:42 PM · #137

Originally posted by JH:

[quote=NikonJeb]
Occam's razor. You tread on an ant, it ceases to exist. You shoot a chimpanzee, it ceases to exist.

this is actually untrue. You step on an ant, it dies. The icky bits still exist, even if you scrape them up and put them in the trash. Same for the dead chimp. Nothing ceases to exist. It ceases to be alive, but the atoms and molecules persist. Its an ashes to ashes sort of thing...

09/23/2009 05:33:18 PM · #138

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Which proves my point that there is no level of evidence at which you would be satisfied, so why do you ask? There is no use in answering a question which has a priori been answered.

I could equally say there is no evidence that would sway you from pure belief since there is no purpose in questioning that which you define as unanswerable. The thing is, if someone today wrote that a man caused water to turn into wine or rose from the dead, would you believe it? You accept or reject written third party accounts on arbitrary belief alone. There is no more or less reason to believe a water>wine story now than there was then, but you make that distinction every day using only the story itself as self-referencing "evidence." You just did it again... assigning credibility to Paul's accounts because he switch from persecutor to believer, but we only have Paul's own claim that he ever persecuted anyone. For all we know, Paul may have been a "David Kouresh" believer who later claimed to have switched for the same reason you think it lends credibility. Or maybe really did become convinced later because the people he persecuted were willing to endure torture and death for their beliefs. Then again, so were Kouresh followers.

Message edited by author 2009-09-23 17:55:29.

09/23/2009 05:34:46 PM · #139

Originally posted by scalvert:

Also, how exactly do the Ten Commandments fit in with the "deeds don't matter" premise? That other various directions for conduct would appear to be an irreconcilable contradiction of a "faith only" test.

the ten commandments isn't a Jesus thing, its a God thing. And it was said to the Jews, not to the followers of Jesus. The true commandment of Jesus (I think there were two, but I could be wrong)was essentially, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." or Love thy neighbor if you prefer. Most of the commandments are entailed in that statement, except maybe using God's name in vain. And, Jesus preached it as a way to live, not a commandment.

09/23/2009 05:37:53 PM · #140

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

God creating man in his image, pearly gates, fires of hell, angel wings, etc. â�� all descriptions of material things that you claim should not apply to the non-material world.

09/23/2009 05:38:59 PM · #141

Originally posted by dahkota:

The true commandment of Jesus (I think there were two, but I could be wrong)was essentially, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." or Love thy neighbor if you prefer. Most of the commandments are entailed in that statement, except maybe using God's name in vain. And, Jesus preached it as a way to live, not a commandment.

Same problem. How you live is supposed to be irrelevant.

09/23/2009 05:43:50 PM · #142

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dahkota:
The true commandment of Jesus (I think there were two, but I could be wrong)was essentially, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." or Love thy neighbor if you prefer. Most of the commandments are entailed in that statement, except maybe using God's name in vain. And, Jesus preached it as a way to live, not a commandment.

Same problem. How you live is supposed to be irrelevant.

As Achoo pointed out, in christianity it is. They provide a guidebook for how you SHOULD live, but do not require adherence to it (like the Jews tried to). Put it this way: Ted Bundy, if he felt so inclined, could have been converted right before he went to the electric chair. If he actually believed that Jesus existed and was the one and only begotten son of God, and that he died for our sins so we could gain entry into heaven, then he too will be in heaven when you get there. Regardless of what he did in this life.

That was my point about absolution, confession, dispensation and indulgences earlier, down (or up) there somewhere...

09/23/2009 05:53:11 PM · #143

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There are no rational arguments that result in a Pink Unicorn. There ARE rational arguments that result in a Supreme Being. (What is the origin of the universe? being an example that can result in the logical conclusion of a supreme being.

I think you need to re-choose your words here. There can be rational arguments for pink unicorns, too. Rational arguments are not necessarily sound arguments, which completely goes against the point I think you are trying to make.

09/23/2009 06:05:25 PM · #144

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by scalvert:
How you live is supposed to be irrelevant.

As Achoo pointed out, in christianity it is. They provide a guidebook for how you SHOULD live, but do not require adherence to it (like the Jews tried to). Put it this way: Ted Bundy, if he felt so inclined, could have been converted right before he went to the electric chair. If he actually believed that Jesus existed and was the one and only begotten son of God, and that he died for our sins so we could gain entry into heaven, then he too will be in heaven when you get there. Regardless of what he did in this life.

Ah, but that's still a contradiction. Absolution, confession, dispensation and indulgences would be rendered moot since mortal sins would be limited to the lone crime of not believing. Any other crime, commandment or abhorrence could be completely ignored without ultimate penalty.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/23/2009 06:11:56 PM · #145

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by scalvert:
How you live is supposed to be irrelevant.

As Achoo pointed out, in christianity it is. They provide a guidebook for how you SHOULD live, but do not require adherence to it (like the Jews tried to). Put it this way: Ted Bundy, if he felt so inclined, could have been converted right before he went to the electric chair. If he actually believed that Jesus existed and was the one and only begotten son of God, and that he died for our sins so we could gain entry into heaven, then he too will be in heaven when you get there. Regardless of what he did in this life.

Ah, but that's still a contradiction. Absolution, confession, dispensation and indulgences would be rendered moot since mortal sins would be limited to the lone crime of not believing. Any other crime, commandment or abhorrence could be completely ignored without ultimate penalty.

Yes, but the bishops needed to make money somehow. And confession/absolution is not only good for your soul, it is a good way to get people in the pews and tithing.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/23/2009 07:02:42 PM · #146

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Pink unicorns and flying spagetti monsters are arguments designed to elicit an obvious answer from emotion. They are a clever creation of Dawkins. The adjectives only make sense in a material world and thus become absurd when applied to the non-material world.

But your supreme being has been given many adjectives to describe its nature has it not? We seem to know what God looks like (i.e. he created man in his own image and by that I mean white male, of course). We seem to know that God is good and that he had a son and that God will give people eternal life if they only announce he is their lord and savior. How do you explain all these details? Where do they come from if not from the material? Are these philosophical conclusions?

Message edited by author 2009-09-23 19:05:41.

09/23/2009 07:16:01 PM · #147

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Which proves my point that there is no level of evidence at which you would be satisfied, so why do you ask? There is no use in answering a question which has a priori been answered.

I could equally say there is no evidence that would sway you from pure belief since there is no purpose in questioning that which you define as unanswerable.

I am quite comfortable with being on equal ground.

09/23/2009 07:21:05 PM · #148

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Pink unicorns and flying spagetti monsters are arguments designed to elicit an obvious answer from emotion. They are a clever creation of Dawkins. The adjectives only make sense in a material world and thus become absurd when applied to the non-material world.

But your supreme being has been given many adjectives to describe its nature has it not? We seem to know what God looks like (i.e. he created man in his own image and by that I mean white male, of course). We seem to know that God is good and that he had a son and that God will give people eternal life if they only announce he is their lord and savior. How do you explain all these details? Where do they come from if not from the material? Are these philosophical conclusions?

Let me put it this way. What question is "a pink unicorn" answering? What rational need is there for one? There are raional uses for a Supreme Being and even further rational uses for that supreme being having certain characteristics (ie. moral, powerful, etc).

The only way a Pink Unicorn and a Supreme Being are on equal ground is the argument "I can't prove either does not exist". The equality ends there. If there was no obvious philosophical utility to God, the idea would have died out millenia ago. It has not. Nobody is making an argument for a Pink Unicorn.

09/23/2009 07:29:14 PM · #149

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If there was no obvious philosophical utility to God, the idea would have died out millenia ago. It has not. Nobody is making an argument for a Pink Unicorn.

True, the need for money and power remains to this day. Nobody is intimidated by a pink unicorn.