http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/
Based on my conversations here, I definitely have an opinion on that score, but read the interview.
(Oh don't freak, theists are irrational too most of the time).
Read it.
Comments:
"But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism"
"If" evidence is lacking? Heh. What and if there is evidence for god is the very thing that people love to debate. Lack of evidence is enough to make anyone reject, or at the very least question, anything. Including god.
Now, before I continue I'll offer full disclosure: I'm an atheist. But I need to define my brand of atheism, for most people think of an atheist stomping around insisting that god, or gods, do not exist. That is true for some atheists, but my atheism is the decided opinion that god doesn't exist, but I would never state that god does not exist as a fact. Why? Because I could never prove it, any more than someone can prove that god does exist. Now I know the first thing that someone will most likely say to me at this point is "well, that makes you agnostic and not an atheist." I disagree, but I'll save that for another time.
"The so-called “problem of evil” would presumably be the strongest (and maybe the only) evidence against theism."
Wow. The only argument against theism. Maybe, he says. I think lack of evidence is the best argument myself. At least, it's the most reasonable reason to not come to a decided conclusion that any god exists. The problem of "good and evil" is only a problem if your god has a problem with the existence of evil.
"But of course there are also arguments for theism. Indeed, there are at least a couple of dozen good theistic arguments."
That makes 24 GOOD reasons for theism. Sure. Perhaps he should list them for us sometime and make everyone a believer.
But wait, if this is his best argument I don't need to hear the other 23:
"Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in the sensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances."
Belief in all manner of gods has obviously been a part of human history for some time now. It comes with imagination. Disbelief is also a part of human history. At some point in our evolution we began to question why things happened, what cuases things to happen. The things we could figure out we figured out. The big things we couldn't were often turned over to a force, a god or gods. I don't find this argument compelling in the least. Besides, none of us are born in a vacuum. It's hard not to be exposed to the idea of a god whether you have a religious upbringing or not. Calvin's assertion may or may not hold true most of the time, but I don't know that it's ever been put to the test. Not to mention, our inclinations can get us in trouble anyway, that's why so many counter intuitve things fascinate us when discovered.
"None is conclusive, but each, or at any rate the whole bunch taken together, is about as strong as philosophical arguments ordinarily get."
As far as phiolosphical arguments go maybe. But outside of testable evidence it's nothing more than mental gymnastics at the end of the day. You can't argue god into existence if he doesn't exist (and vice versa).
"One presently rather popular argument: fine-tuning. Scientists tell us that there are many properties our universe displays such that if they were even slightly different from what they are in fact, life, or at least our kind of life, would not be possible."
Ah yes, let's see what science can do for us. Well this is the same old argument from ignorance that is always presented. What we currently think we know is that the universe is fine tuned, so it had to have a tuner! No, not really. It just means that the universe is what it is and how it got that way is still unknown. One day science will discover the reason why fine tuning (if it's really the case) exists. Then the next statement from those like AP will be "ok, then how did THAT thing that led to fine tuning come to be?!"
"Think about it: The first being of the universe, perfect in goodness, power and knowledge, creates free creatures. These free creatures turn their backs on him, rebel against him and get involved in sin and evil. Rather than treat them as some ancient potentate might — e.g., having them boiled in oil — God responds by sending his son into the world to suffer and die so that human beings might once more be in a right relationship to God"
If that's what someone wants to believe in that's fine. I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I enjoy the debate. But I have to ask questions like why did god (I'm obviously addressing AP's god here) need to create a thing called the universe to begin with? Especially with the foreknowledge of what would happen. If I handed someone a gun knowing they would do harm I'm just as guilty as the person that does the damage in such a scenario. So why would god create beings he knew would fail? To suggest that a being that has always existed (!) decided one day to create a thing called the unvierse -- billions of galaxies with trillions of stars and planets -- simply in order to plop two naked people in a garden with a talking snake and some bad fruit doesn't abound with logical thinking in my book. Especially if this god knew they would fail and he wouldn't like it. Nor obsessing over a desert tribe, encouraging them go and kill their neighbors so they can claim the land "promised" to them. The biblical god is a manmade god. He is jealous, a man of war, someone obsessed with kingdoms and mansions. People projecting is all. God made in the image of man, not the other way around.
"I’d say a world in which this story is true would be a truly magnificent possible world. It would be so good that no world could be appreciably better. But then the best worlds contain sin and suffering."
I see. How to make the problem of sin and evil go away? Just assert that it must be the best kind of world if sin and evil exist in the world. There -- problem solved!
"But even a less monumental desire for autonomy can perhaps also motivate atheism"
So can a logical request for evidence for a fantastic belief. I think I'll consider gods existence when god starts talking to me instead of people speaking for him.
It's amusing, people insist that an invisible being exits, some all powerful force or mind or whatever, then become agitated when someone doesn't just roll over and buy into it -- how dare people ask for a good reason to accept their faith based statements as fact! Now about autonomy, let's see . . . everyone deep down inside knows there is a god, they just want to be free of this god (whatever "free from this god" could possibly mean) simply for the sake of autonomy! There -- that's all those atheists are about!
"GG: Especially among today’s atheists, materialism seems to be a primary motive. They think there’s nothing beyond the material entities open to scientific inquiry, so there there’s no place for immaterial beings such as God.
AP: Well, if there are only material entities, then atheism certainly follows. But there is a really serious problem for materialism: It can’t be sensibly believed, at least if, like most materialists, you also believe that humans are the product of evolution."
I don't believe humans are a product of evolution: I accept it as fact based on the evidence. It's not a matter of faith. I would agree that god, as defined (and what else is god other than a definition?) would be outside the ability of science to address. I don't know that materialism is a primary motive for atheists, I can only speak for myself. What GS states is undoubtedly true for some atheists, but I would say that, for me, "nothing beyond the material can be tested by science, so that leaves open the question of god, but until there is evidence I find no reason to believe, so the question regarding god{s} existence remains open."
"Evolution will select for belief-producing processes that produce beliefs with adaptive neurophysiological properties, but not for belief-producing processes that produce true beliefs. Given materialism and evolution, any particular belief is as likely to be false as true."
Two cave men stand on a ledge. One thinks that if he jumps off he can flap his arms and fly. The other thinks that that won't work. The first guy tries it and plummets to his death. The second guy walks away. He survived. The belief of one cave man survived and the belief of the other did not. Selection at work.
"So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable."
Isn't that why the scientific method works so well? It gives us a way to get past just tossing up every idea to a 50/50 chance? It gives us a way of arriving at highly probable conclusions, even if they are subject to change when and if new evidence comes along?
These type of articles are fun to read and they certainly stir the pot. Thanks for sharing.
"If" evidence is lacking? Heh. What and if there is evidence for god is the very thing that people love to debate. Lack of evidence is enough to make anyone reject, or at the very least question, anything. Including god.
Now, before I continue I'll offer full disclosure: I'm an atheist.
But I need to define my brand of atheism, for most people think of an atheist stomping around insisting that god, or gods, do not exist.
That is true for some atheists, but my atheism is the decided opinion that god doesn't exist, but I would never state that god does not exist as a fact. Why? Because I could never prove it, any more than someone can prove that god does exist. Now I know the first thing that someone will most likely say to me at this point is "well, that makes you agnostic and not an atheist." I disagree, but I'll save that for another time.
Wow. The only argument against theism. Maybe, he says. I think lack of evidence is the best argument myself.
At least, it's the most reasonable reason to not come to a decided conclusion that any god exists. The problem of "good and evil" is only a problem if your god has a problem with the existence of evil.
Belief in all manner of gods has obviously been a part of human history for some time now. It comes with imagination. Disbelief is also a part of human history.
Ah yes, let's see what science can do for us. Well this is the same old argument from ignorance that is always presented. What we currently think we know is that the universe is fine tuned, so it had to have a tuner! No, not really. It just means that the universe is what it is and how it got that way is still unknown. One day science will discover the reason why fine tuning (if it's really the case) exists. Then the next statement from those like AP will be "ok, then how did THAT thing that led to fine tuning come to be?!"
If that's what someone wants to believe in that's fine. I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
I enjoy the debate.
But I have to ask questions like why did god (I'm obviously addressing AP's god here) need to create a thing called the universe to begin with?
Especially with the foreknowledge of what would happen. If I handed someone a gun knowing they would do harm I'm just as guilty as the person that does the damage in such a scenario.
So why would god create beings he knew would fail? To suggest that a being that has always existed (!)
decided one day to create a thing called the unvierse
-- billions of galaxies with trillions of stars and planets -- simply in order to plop two naked people in a garden with a talking snake and some bad fruit doesn't abound with logical thinking in my book.
Especially if this god knew they would fail and he wouldn't like it. Nor obsessing over a desert tribe, encouraging them go and kill their neighbors so they can claim the land "promised" to them. The biblical god is a manmade god. He is jealous, a man of war, someone obsessed with kingdoms and mansions. People projecting is all. God made in the image of man, not the other way around.
It's amusing, people insist that an invisible being exits,
I don't believe humans are a product of evolution: I accept it as fact based on the evidence.
Thanks as always for taking the time . . .
There could be nothing, and according to the most recent scientific opinions, there formerly was nothing.
Well, I always thought the consensus was that before the Big Bang occured science doesn't say whether or not anything existed because all we know is as far back as we can trace at the moment (Lawrence Krauss "A Universe From Nothing" notwithstanding), so we simply don't know, at the moment we can't say that something existed before the BB, but we can't say it didn't. I'm comfortable with leaving it at "I don't know" until when and if we have something to inform us.
You have to assert something, and atheism, effectively speaking, asserts nothing--so it looks around for projects--like denying the existence of a historical Jesus.
Well, that is your mantra about atheists. I don't deny a historical Jesus and I personally have yet to meet a fellow atheist that does in real life anyway. Perhaps you're refering to the sampling of atheists that you've met on boards such as these? I frequent chat rooms and it's always a minority of atheists with an opinion that Jesus didn't exist in my experience nearing 20 years of chat.
Okay, but I'm going to have to conclude that you're saving it until you've thought of a good argument in favor of it--beyond "Agnostic sounds wishy-washy."
Nope. This is how I've come to think of it, agnosticism breaks down like this, "a" meaning without and gnostic meaning "knowledge," typically referring to knowledge about god. So to me agnosticism is not a neutral position between theism and atheism, but a statement of uncertainty. I think there can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Someone with the decided thought that god exists, but does not claim certainty would be the former and someone who doesn't believe in god but doesn't claim certainty would be the latter. I dont' find either position wishy-washy, but honest. Much more so than people who claim certainty on either side of the aisle.
Because atheism has contributed very little to world culture.
Perhaps promoting logic and critical thinking will be it's contribution in the long run, as long as the militant atheists don't get in the way.
Science frequently posits the existence of things for which it has no proof, and may never have any proof. Again, it doesn't seem like you know enough about science to be defending it. It seems to be more of a faith thing for you.
Science can use indirect evidence too. But to your point (maybe), I will use String Theory as an example. Positing something that is not proven is a part of science, yes, but your statement about proof doesn't work. Science never proves anything in an ultimate sense, that's not how it works. Some things are so well established however that for all practical purposes it's thought of as proven in a practical sense. I'll assume that is what you meant.
Dude--do you REALLY think we're all going to be around long enough for science to figure that out?
Dude -- do you mean you and I or the human race in general? You and I probably not. Mankind in general I don't know. But I don't underestimate what we're capable of learning given how far we've come.
If we exist for another billion years--and there is pretty much no chance of that--we'll never figure it all out. This I believe. There will always be questions, there will always be doubts--and there will always be God, in one form or another. And those who try to find absolute certainty--whether in God or something else--will always be making it harder for the rest of us to just enjoy life.
Well that's your belief so that's a faith statment as well. When you say "there will always be god" do you mean the belief in god or a god that you believe in? As for me, I am not looking for absolute certainty, I have used the word "evidence" over and over. If someone tells me that they had a vision that purple rhinos lived on a planet 12 billion light years from earth and they know it's a fact can I prove them wrong? No. But I can explain to them that I can't just believe it simply because they say so, I can and should ask if they have any evidence. If not, they can continue to believe what they think they know and I can continue to not beleve and get on just fine. That's how I view the god question. Now people disagree on what is evidence and what is not, I've yet to find any compelling evidence for myself (feel free to faint again). You believe in your God, it adds to your life, then enjoy.
That's a whole lot of typing for somebody who isn't trying to persuade anybody
lol, well this is a discussion board not necessarily a persuasion board. You posted a link, why? To get feedback and stimulate a dialogue or to proselytize or just to be agreed with? By constantly making blanket statements about atheists and pushing your opinion incessantly as well as starting threads makes it look like you are in the business of persuasion if you ask me.
Okay, this is a weak argument. You might as well say that knowing what men have done, and will do, every woman who willingly gives birth is a criminal and a murderer
No, because we deal in probabilities and not absolute knowledge like the hypothetical god. Most women do not give birth to murderers.
Why do you feel the need to debate questions that can't be answered, without any desire to change the way anybody else believes?
It's a hypothetical question for the people who posit a god for whom all manner of claims are made. The proponents of god that I've spoken with always explain what god is about, but when logical questions are posed the bail-out typically becomes "well don't know -- his thoughts are above ours." I don't know how an eternal god could have an original thought anyway, if the definition of god is one who has always existed and is all-knowing. What it would imply is that this god always knew the universe, etc would be created and everything that happened would happen. Sounds like a bad episode of LOST. One more thing, why is it when I discuss this topic I'm automatically out to change someone's ideas and you're not? Funny how that works.
(no such thing as a 'day' before there's any earth rotating on its axis, of course--sorry, go on)
Dispite what you probably think I am well aware of that, it just rolls off the tongue easier.
Okay, I call straw man--did you really think the man whose ideas you were reading just now was talking about a literal interpretation of Genesis? "
Fair enough, I was disgressing from AP and making a reference to those that hold to a literal interpretation.
I don't think they're saying God is invisible, so much as that our perceptions are inadequate. Actually, the scriptures you were just mocking seem to indicate he can be seen, but that seeing him would blast the senses. Honestly, you don't seem to know the subject you're discussing all that well. Which I've noticed a LOT with atheists. You'd make much stronger arguments against religion if you actually studied it.
Who are "they?" Now you're referencing what the bible says about the ability to see god. So are we talking about you or 'them?' The bible does say that men have spoken face-to-face with god. It also says that no man has seen god at any time. Which is it? Never mind, I don't really care because I don't believe in the bible. But you must or you wouldn't be referencing it, anyway, we can't see a god as far as I can tell, so in effect, he's invisible to us. It would be different if he poked his head through a cloud and said "good morning" now and again, or zapped me up to the throne room for a visit, or popped up in my living room. But not seeing any god he's a lot like that purple rhino, out of sight and highly questionable.
I've read Ehrman and enjoy his books. Back when I was a Christian I read several Christian authors and studied biblical topics, not on a scholarly level of course. I've read Ehrman and Pagels both comment that once they learned the orginal language of the New Testament it was like reading it for the first time. I envy them. Are you able to read the NT in it's original language? If so, bravo.
I think we're getting to the heart of our disagreement--you need to believe in things absolutely. You are much more religious than I am. That's why you need to call yourself an atheist.
No, I don't need to believe in things absolutely. I think that's why I have to keep repeating myself. Asking for evidence, citing repeatedly that we DON'T know things with absolute certainty but that science gives us the best approximation, etc. is the very opposite of stating that I need to believe in things absolutely. I don't believe in god, you do, yet I'm the religious one eh?
Ok, if you say so. Cheers!
Thanks as always for taking the time . . .
Well, I always thought the consensus was that before the Big Bang occured science doesn't say whether or not anything existed because all we know is as far back as we can trace at the moment (Lawrence Krauss "A Universe From Nothing" notwithstanding), so we simply don't know, at the moment we can't say that something existed before the BB, but we can't say it didn't. I'm comfortable with leaving it at "I don't know" until when and if we have something to inform us.
Well, that is your mantra about atheists.
I don't deny a historical Jesus
and I personally have yet to meet a fellow atheist that does in real life anyway. Perhaps you're refering to the sampling of atheists that you've met on boards such as these? I frequent chat rooms and it's always a minority of atheists with an opinion that Jesus didn't exist in my experience nearing 20 years of chat.
Nope. This is how I've come to think of it, agnosticism breaks down like this, "a" meaning without and gnostic meaning "knowledge," typically referring to knowledge about god. So to me agnosticism is not a neutral position between theism and atheism, but a statement of uncertainty. I think there can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Someone with the decided thought that god exists, but does not claim certainty would be the former and someone who doesn't believe in god but doesn't claim certainty would be the latter. I dont' find either position wishy-washy, but honest. Much more so than people who claim certainty on either side of the aisle.
Perhaps promoting logic and critical thinking will be it's contribution in the long run, as long as the militant atheists don't get in the way.
Science can use indirect evidence too. But to your point (maybe), I will use String Theory as an example. Positing something that is not proven is a part of science, yes, but your statement about proof doesn't work. Science never proves anything in an ultimate sense, that's not how it works. Some things are so well established however that for all practical purposes it's thought of as proven in a practical sense. I'll assume that is what you meant.
Dude -- do you mean you and I or the human race in general?
Well that's your belief so that's a faith statment as well.
When you say "there will always be god" do you mean the belief in god or a god that you believe in?
lol, well this is a discussion board not necessarily a persuasion board. You posted a link, why? To get feedback and stimulate a dialogue or to proselytize or just to be agreed with? By constantly making blanket statements about atheists and pushing your opinion incessantly as well as starting threads makes it look like you are in the business of persuasion if you ask me.
No, because we deal in probabilities and not absolute knowledge like the hypothetical god. Most women do not give birth to murderers.
It's a hypothetical question for the people who posit a god for whom all manner of claims are made. The proponents of god that I've spoken with always explain what god is about, but when logical questions are posed the bail-out typically becomes "well don't know -- his thoughts are above ours."
I don't know how an eternal god could have an original thought anyway,
if the definition of god is one who has always existed and is all-knowing. What it would imply is that this god always knew the universe, etc would be created and everything that happened would happen. Sounds like a bad episode of LOST.
One more thing, why is it when I discuss this topic I'm automatically out to change someone's ideas and you're not? Funny how that works.
In spite what you probably think I am well aware of that, it just rolls off the tongue easier.
Fair enough, I was disgressing from AP and making a reference to those that hold to a literal interpretation.
Who are "they?" Now you're referencing what the bible says about the ability to see god. So are we talking about you or 'them?' The bible does say that men have spoken face-to-face with god. It also says that no man has seen god at any time.
Which is it? Never mind, I don't really care because I don't believe in the bible.
I've read Ehrman and enjoy his books. Back when I was a Christian I read several Christian authors and studied biblical topics, not on a scholarly level of course. I've read Ehrman and Pagels both comment that once they learned the orginal language of the New Testament it was like reading it for the first time. I envy them. Are you able to read the NT in it's original language? If so, bravo.
No, I don't need to believe in things absolutely.
I think that's why I have to keep repeating myself. Asking for evidence, citing repeatedly that we DON'T know things with absolute certainty but that science gives us the best approximation, etc. is the very opposite of stating that I need to believe in things absolutely. I don't believe in god, you do, yet I'm the religious one eh?
clyons wrote:
"some people in the majority ... still believe nonsensical things like 'Jesus probably existed, but the gospels are heavily plagiarized from pagan mythology.' That simply does not hold up to serious scrutiny. There's no there there."
Glad you brought that up - it needs to be said from time to time. There is plenty of myth and mysticism in the NT - but it consists mainly of Jewish, not pagan, categories. As radically divergent as Paul was from "the Judean disciples in Jerusalem" (and from Jesus' apparent original message), still Paul framed his Gospel in Jewish terms, even to the extent of scolding Gentile converts for being arrogant about their salvation, because God had not made a new, original covenant with them. Rather it was they who were being "grafted onto" the "branch of Israel". ... And the Infancy Narratives with their Virginal Conception, too, have strictly Jewish, prophetic themes and precedents. Their Mary is a faithful Jewish girl, not some gleaming pagan Queen of Heaven. Etc.
:)
Yes, but the Old Testament prophecy of Isaiah makes no mention of a virgin giving birth--that was a mistranslation. A Hebrew word meaning "young woman who has reached puberty" was changed by the author of Matthew into a Greek word meaning "young woman who has reached puberty and is still a virgin." That was a Christian interpolation--the virgin birth--but one we see in so many mythic narratives all over the world--from cultures that had no contact with each other--that we have no basis to say they were borrowing it.
Here's my own guess at what happened--Mary was betrothed young, and as was the custom, she lived apart from Joseph for a year or two before their marriage--she could have had relations with somebody other than Joseph, but given that many betrothed couples must have jumped the gun--betrothal being a state so akin to marriage that a girl had to get a divorce to marry anyone else if the first marriage didn't come off. My own suspicion is that Joseph's foot slipped (an old Irish euphemism), but it could have been another man--harder then to believe Joseph would have married her--this had to be explained in the birth narrative by Joseph having his own revelation. He also kept getting older in the story--so people would believe he'd be okay with a married life of total abstinence--but the gospels don't ask us to believe that at least.
She got pregnant out of wedlock, and it was a minor scandal in her tiny tight-knit community, that the families hushed up. Mary could have had a strong religious imagination, as did her son--maybe she made some mention of visions--which she could have genuinely believed in, but which also might have been conveniently timed to justify her situation. It seems unlikely that she said God had gotten her pregnant directly--this would have smacked of pagan stories, and would have made the situation worse. The details were confused to start with, and got more so with the passage of time. But there could have been some memories of the scandal in Nazareth. Which got even more imaginative in Matthew and Luke.
Basically, the virgin birth narrative doesn't seem to take hold in the Christian community until that community has started to decisively move away from its Jewish origins. Paul makes no mention of it--neither does Mark. It does not seem Jesus ever spoke about it--if he'd said anything about it, that would have been preserved, as was "Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani."
I have a niggling suspicion that it was aimed in part at diminishing the influence of Jesus' blood family--who we have reason to think were trying to guide the direction of their brothers' cult--James certainly was an important name in early Christianity, as Josephus and Paul both attest. But to them, he could never be the radiant unearthly being he was to Paul (even though Paul met James). Once Jesus was gone, the tendency was to emphasize the otherworldly, more and more. The man became less and less important. So just detach him from his family--Joseph wasn't his blood father (even though he's purported to be descended from David through Joseph--it's confusing)--his siblings must have been from a previous marriage (that is never referred to in the gospels, and you'd think it would be). Mary is revered, but of course not in any position as a woman (who had probably died by the time Paul was writing) to impact the direction the new cult is taking.
It's so fundamentally different from any other virgin birth story. I've yet to ever see one that remotely resembles it. And that's because the culture and circumstances that produced it were unique to that time and place, and to the bizarre origins of a religion based around the memory of a man who was crucified as a criminal, and left no written testament. You can see each new storyteller adding to it, trying to make it all hang together, but being impeded by the things that can't be gotten away from--Jesus being from Nazareth, for example--such an unsuitable place for the Messiah to be born. Nobody is intentionally lying--but untruths keep piling up, getting in the way of the real story--but also making it more palatable to a mass audience, particularly as more and more pagans keep joining up.
Believe any part of the story, or none of it, but original it is, and based, however loosely and imaginatively, on things that really happened.
That being said, virgins don't have babies.
It seems unlikely that she said God had gotten her pregnant directly--this would have smacked of pagan stories, and would have made the situation worse.
Please clarify. If she was aware of the pagan stories of virgin birth, then so were the gospel authors one would imagine. If the gospel authors were aware of the pagan stories of virgin birth, can the idea be ruled out entirely that they may have borrowed the idea and reshaped it into something new?
I'm sure many educated Jews of that era were aware of pagan stories about Zeus and other pagan gods knocking girls up.
How likely is it that an extremely poor illiterate girl in her early teens, living in a tiny village in the most desolate backwater in Palestine would be among them?
Paul never mentions the virgin birth, though he mentions Jesus being born of a woman. Mark's gospel begins with him as a grown man. Matthew's gospel is the first known mention of the virgin birth, and now we're at least 70 years away from the actual birth--scholars think it was probably more like 80.
Point is, the main body of Jesus' story was there before the virgin birth became part of that story. When you compare the stories Matthew and Luke told to pagan myths, you find that they differ tremendously. If the ONLY thing you can point to is the virgin birth, and you can't find that the story being told resembles any earlier story to any great extent, what do you have, really? Why do you want to believe this so much?
Why did they say Jesus was born of a virgin?
1)Because it was a matter of some embarrassment to early Christians (who were trying to convince their fellow Jews) that he was born in Nazareth--the Messiah was supposed to be born in Judea--hence the very unlikely story about Joseph having to go to Bethlehem as part of a census that doesn't seem to have ever happened. Matthew actually has it the other way around--the family is from Bethlehem, then moves to Nazareth after the birth. Meaning that there really was a guy named Jesus from Nazareth, because otherwise why would Nazareth be in ANY version of the story? Because people knew that's where he was from, because he never made any secret of it, and he clearly went back there (and according to the gospels, was rejected by his own people).
2)Because they needed to justify Jesus being without sin--why? Because he had (as Mark begins his gospel by telling us) asked to be baptized by John--baptism is for forgiveness of sin--that story is too well known to get away from, so they have to establish that he had some other reason, because he was not conceived through sex, and is therefore not heir to the sin of Adam and Eve.
How hard is it to imagine a virgin birth? It's a universal idea. Nobody had to 'steal' it. The details of a given virgin birth story are what matters--show me a story in pre-existing pagan mythology that follows the same outlines as the story in Luke. Just one. If all you've got is "Woman has baby without having sex with a guy" you've got nothing.
"How do we know it isn't something else? I don't have to prove anything, or provide any evidence, or even make any direct comparisons of relevant material. I jus have to keep repeating it, and it becomes a controversy, which can then be taught."
I just saw Bill Nye this morning, trying to reason with a Republican politician who insisted there's all this controversy over how bad climate change is, and how much people are causing it. She quoted scientists to prove her point--far as she was concerned, if there was any disagreement, that meant the question was wide open. Nye couldn't make her budge an inch.
I feel his pain.
PS: Could I make a suggestion here? You say you admire Bart Ehrman's work. You know he, like you, is an agnostic leaning towards atheism (having begun, like you, as a Christian). Have you read his book "Did Jesus Exist?" If not, why don't you do so, and then decide if you still buy into this notion that the gospels are just plagiarized material thrown around the vague memory of an unimportant rabbi. Ehrman says some things I don't agree with myself--but his knowledge of actual historical sources is just about as good as it gets. And the great thing about reading him is that he's not trying to serve either side of this idiotic debate--he wants the truth--whatever it is.
Do you?
then decide if you still buy into this notion that the gospels are just plagiarized material thrown around the vague memory of an unimportant rabbi.
I'm not sure why you continue to insist that I'm claiming plagiarism when in an earlier thread I stated:
My impression of those who are adamant that Jesus never existed are akin to those who try too hard to make the comparisons of Jesus to Krishna, Horus and Mithra, in the hopes (I suspect) of being able to claim overt plagiarism and then proceed to flush Jesus down the drain in one fell swoop. I find influences on the Jesus story from earlier sources all but certain, but I think there is an over zealous attempt by skeptics to try too hard in this area. Much the same as you've pointed out with those who insist Jesus never existed.
I'm sorry, but saying the gospels were influenced by other sources--without any evidence at all--is akin to claiming Jesus didn't exist. It's just a scaled-down version of the same tall story. CHRISTIANITY has certainly, in its long history, been influenced by other religions. But there just isn't much scholarly evidence out there that the gospel authors were borrowing from other myths. That story was being shaped by internal pressures--if you want to say the ever-growing number of converted pagans made it easier for the virgin birth story to be accepted, fine. That's a reasonable supposition, but that's still all it is, thus far.
'Plagiarism' isn't really the right word, but again--show me a pagan virgin birth myth that bears any strong resemblance to the stories in Matthew and Luke. If you want to prove influence, you have to closely study the other myths--PLEASE tell me you don't mean Mithras, because I guarantee you 90% of what you've read about that Mystery Religion we know almost nothing about was made up by some modern writer with little in the way of qualifications, but way too much spare time. You know, like us.
clyons wrote, "It's so fundamentally different from any other virgin birth story. I've yet to ever see one that remotely resembles it. And that's because the culture and circumstances that produced it were unique to that time and place"
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Its Jewish provenance is, well, Jewish, not pagan. Even though Luke used the Septuagint parthenos instead of neanis or the Hebrew betuleh, still he frames the virginal conception in a Jewish, rather than a pagan context. That's what makes the virginal conception unique to Luke, as it is, as you mentioned, not prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, and it certainly does not stand in for pagan virgin birth stories.
"But to them, he could never be the radiant unearthly being he was to Paul"
I'm not so sure about that. The oldest tradition is that they experienced the risen Jesus and had an idea that God raised him up to a heavenly throne/gave him a divine name and a divine function (future world-judge). Some of them identified him with Yahoel, Yahweh's chief assisting angel. And the Ebionites maintained that even during his life, Adam Kadmon or the heavenly Christ descended on him, probably at the baptism, so that there was always a tension between Jesus the human mystic and Jesus as vessel of the Spirit, Adam Kadmon, etc. So high christology is not foreign to original Jewish-sectarian belief in Jesus. A similar thing has happened in modern times with the Chabad congregation, who sees the Messiah, and God, in their deceased rabbi, and who wait for his second coming. Seems a repeated theme in sectarian Judaism.
You're referring to material I'm not very familiar with, though I do know about the notion that Jesus and The Christ were two beings inhabiting the same body--I tend to think that was not part of the earliest form of Christianity--Paul certainly did not subscribe to that notion. I think he just tended to overlook the contradictions--he knew Jesus had been a flesh nd blood person, who had been born in the normal manner, and had siblings (one of whom Paul met), and yet his only experience of Jesus (as he thought) was of a blinding light and a voice. A vision. That's why he writes so differently about Jesus than Peter and James (assuming the texts ascribed to them were written by them)--he never experienced the man. Only the vision. I don't think he believed Jesus was God--but he couldn't help moving in that direction, even while his monotheistic upbringing kept him from making the final jump--that others made later.
shareIf science never proves anything in an 'ultimate sense', then you've just contradicted your own statement that you 'know' evolution happened. And again, I believe very strongly it did--I'm anything but neutral on that subject. But I don't like bandying words about.
And yet you KNOW evolution by natural selection happened? As opposed to simply finding it a beautiful and persuasive argument that helps illumine the world around us? Sorry, not letting that go.
I referenced on another thread how the National Academy of Science defines the terms 'fact' and 'theory.' Evolution is a fact because it is an observable phenomena. Evolution is change, specifically in this context the change that takes place regarding living organisms over time. We can observe this change in the lab by flipping genes on and off, we can observe speciation taking place in the field, and we can observe how this change has occured over long periods of time via the fossil record. This evolution, this change, is fact. Back in Darwin's time the prevailing thought was that all animals were made a few thousand years ago and no change had ever taken place, things are as they were created. Darwin observed differently, pointed it out, then went on to propose natural selection.
Natural selection is part of the Theory of Evolution. The explanation for how evolution works. Theories prove nothing in an absolute sense and that's what I was refering to. The theory can be modified or discarded as new information becomes available so in that sense it's not certain -- absolute -- knowledge. But of course Theories can become so well established that the likelihood of overturning a given theory may be all but nonexistant. Still, technically, it's a possibility.
I referenced on another thread how the National Academy of Science defines the terms 'fact' and 'theory.' Evolution is a fact because it is an observable phenomena.
Evolution is change, specifically in this context the change that takes place regarding living organisms over time. We can observe this change in the lab by flipping genes on and off, we can observe speciation taking place in the field, and we can observe how this change has occured over long periods of time via the fossil record.
This evolution, this change, is fact. Back in Darwin's time the prevailing thought was that all animals were made a few thousand years ago and no change had ever taken place, things are as they were created. Darwin observed differently, pointed it out, then went on to propose natural selection.
Natural selection is part of the Theory of Evolution. The explanation for how evolution works.
Theories prove nothing in an absolute sense and that's what I was refering to. The theory can be modified or discarded as new information becomes available so in that sense it's not certain -- absolute -- knowledge. But of course Theories can become so well established that the likelihood of overturning a given theory may be all but nonexistant. Still, technically, it's a possibility.
It was observed well before Darwin--however, that doesn't prove it's the origin of all life--we just don't have a better explanation-- .. .
Yikes.
Darwins theory has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather, the diversification of life.
Abiogenesis is the area of study that focuses on the origin of life.
::sigh:: You just forgot all about sexual selection. AGAIN.
::double sigh:: No, I only mentioned natural selection because that's all YOU referenced. I was addressing you, not giving a lecture on the complete theory of Darwin's brand of evolution.
Darwins theory has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather, the diversification of life.
Abiogenesis is the area of study that focuses on the origin of life.
::double sigh:: No, I only mentioned natural selection because that's all YOU referenced. I was addressing you, not giving a lecture on the complete theory of Darwin's brand of evolution.
And it's good you're not giving a lecture, because you don't know enough about the subject to do so.
Well, you are articulate and well read but I'm going to bow out at this point.
You are undoubtedly one of the most snarky, self-absorbed, boorish and condescending Fundamentalists I've ever ran into. So I'm done.
You can't resist an insult with any of your posts. You've obviously decided you're going to plant your flag here, on this particular Imdb board, a board that exists to discuss a film you absolutely abhor, and flood it with threads so you can preach your own gospel.
How many times does this make that you've 'bowed out' now? I'm losing count.
I started this thread by posting a link to a NY Times interview with a noted philosopher making some theoretical arguments for the existence of God, and you responded by making fun of people who believe literally in Genesis. You are graciously willing to acknowledge that Jesus probably existed, but you hold the almost as ludicrous belief that there's strong evidence the gospels are heavily influenced by pagan myth--when asked--repeatedly--to provide some of this evidence, you ignore me, or get huffy.
Snarky I am. Self-absorbed? Look in the mirror. Boorish? That's what people say when they're losing the argument. And fundamentalist? Seriously? I'm tempted to say "Bwah-hah-hah", but that's so 90's.
I think the problem here is that you're the one who can't stand having his beliefs questioned. You are, in fact, a fundamentalist atheist, who has read some pseudo-scholarship, fancied himself to know the real story those poor dumb theists can't grasp, and now you've been forced to deal with the fact that you really don't understand any subject we've discussed--including science--with any real depth.
You're just another half-educated snob who never learned how to think--or to argue. You thought you wanted a lively discussion, but the moment things actually GET lively, you get sulky. Because you can't hold up your end of the debate, and that revelation hurts, doesn't it?
Is atheism irrational? To some extent, believing in anything you can't prove is irrational. And we're all guilty--all of us--no exceptions. You can't get away from the innate human need to believe in things by saying "I'm an atheist." And by pretending you have, you just make yourself more irrational than the average human being--even the average theist.
Learn. To. THINK.
How many times does this make that you've 'bowed out' now? I'm losing count.
Gee, Magic, it seems that this is your first post, or at least the first in a long time. So you pop up here apparently to suggest a miscount of "bowing outs" on clyon's part. But you have not contributed to the actual debate. Is this kind of thing a habit with you, or are you actually intending to put some ideas on the table?
shareIs this kind of thing a habit with you . . . ?
I said "seems" and "apparently", because otherwise your years as a lurker look anomalous indeed, and I wanted to confirm that your profile was accurate.
And the question about your habits was an obvious reference to your general online activity, the imdb boards being only one forum out of hundreds if not thousands.
But you missed both points. Goodbye, "genius".
Nope, he bowed out once earlier--on this same thread--and this isn't the only thread here he posted on.
Learn. To. COUNT.
Turns out that he's a greater fool than I imagined then. I hadn't noticed a posting history other than the one msg in this thread. Maybe I was bleary-eyed when I looked at his profile ;)
shareIt's funny how people do that. They don't want to get into the argument themselves, but suddenly they want to referee. And they never do a good job of it.
shareYeah, especially mythicists and new atheists...
shareI've seen it happen elsewhere, in discussions that aren't remotely related to the subjects we discuss here.
Let's bear in mind, what we're getting here is hardly the cream of the atheist crop.
I'm not sure there the mythicist crop has any cream--skim milk, perhaps. And sour.
Yeah, I used to listen to Robert M. Price's The Bible Geek but his views were so extremist and occasionally blind that I gave up. He can still do a fair critique of HP Lovecraft, so I continue to listen to his Lovecraft Geek show. As an ex-evangelical himself, Price seems to be projecting his "former" fundamentalism into mythicist thinking. Just as when Price was an evangelical, there "HAD" to be one Lord and Savior, Jesus, now there "MUST NOT BE" any Jesus at all, but only a mythic phantasm...
shareYou see the same thing, over and over--the Trotskyites who became Neo-Cons, pushing the same extremes from a different direction--the founder of the Russian Cheka, formerly a devout Catholic, creating the 20th Century's Inquisition--people change their beliefs, but their personalities remain the same--and personality is what matters most of all.
If you're a smart person as an atheist, you'd be just as smart as a theist. If you're a good person as a theist, you'd be jus as good as an atheist.
As Mary McCarthy said "Religion is a good thing for people who are good already." But for some people, any belief system--theistic or otherwise--simply serves as a focal point for the worst in them. It's what you do with it.
... a focal point for the worst in them. Yep, you're right, the personality dominates the belief system and the belief system "justifies" the personality ...
shareOoooh, I'm stealing that.
shareBtw, if you're wondering about the deleted posts, I'm away from home, using somebody else's computer, and it keeps double-posting.
Might do it again this time, but we all have our crosses to bear.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I referenced on another thread how the National Academy of Science defines the terms 'fact' and 'theory.' Evolution is a fact because it is an observable phenomena.
Evolution is change, specifically in this context the change that takes place regarding living organisms over time. We can observe this change in the lab by flipping genes on and off, we can observe speciation taking place in the field, and we can observe how this change has occured over long periods of time via the fossil record.
This evolution, this change, is fact. Back in Darwin's time the prevailing thought was that all animals were made a few thousand years ago and no change had ever taken place, things are as they were created. Darwin observed differently, pointed it out, then went on to propose natural selection.
Natural selection is part of the Theory of Evolution. The explanation for how evolution works.
Theories prove nothing in an absolute sense and that's what I was refering to. The theory can be modified or discarded as new information becomes available so in that sense it's not certain -- absolute -- knowledge. But of course Theories can become so well established that the likelihood of overturning a given theory may be all but nonexistant. Still, technically, it's a possibility.
The philosopher interviewed doesn't even know what atheism means. He presents a false dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism. They are clearly compatible. One denotes absence of belief and the other denotes absence of knowledge.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
That's an important reminder, thanks for calling attention to it :)
shareIf atheism means absence of strong belief in things that can't be proven one way or the other, there is not now nor ever has been any such thing as an atheist.
Geez, some atheists believe in things that have been pretty substantively discredited by the academic community--like there having been no historical Jesus. The more you point out that the articles and books they read were by lightweights and are based on shoddy research and wishful thinking, the more stubborn they get. They behave the same way as Christians confronted with the inconsistencies in their beliefs about Jesus. Same basic behavior patterns. One dogma replaces another.
MANY people use the terms interchangeably. Atheism can sometimes be taken to mean disbelief in organized religion and its dogmas--which is not the same thing as denying the existence of a supreme being. While this might be more aptly described as Deism, that term is just not used anymore--neither is Freethinker.
The more narrowly you define atheism, the fewer atheists there are, so maybe you should think about that.
The more narrowly you define atheism, the fewer atheists there are
Which is exactly what theists attempt when they falsely pit atheism against agnosticism and erroneously define atheism as a belief system or claim to knowledge.
And what you're attempting in presenting the straw man of atheism meaning "absence of strong belief in things that can't be proven one way or the other."
The definition of atheism covers anyone who isn't a theist.
The "a" in atheism is Greek for "without." It's simply a lack of belief in any god.
But most theists steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this even when faced with it, preferring to continue the argument with their straw man.
Alas, you've reinforced my point that many who misidentify atheism prefer to continue opposing their straw man than simply acknowledge what the a- prefix means.
Your post is littered with misrepresentations of me and what I've written, but since you don't appear to be interested in an honest dialogue, I won't bother correcting them.
Alas, you've reinforced my point that many who misidentify atheism prefer to continue opposing their straw man than simply acknowledge what the a- prefix means.
Your post is littered with misrepresentations of me and what I've written,
but since you don't appear to be interested in an honest dialogue, I won't bother correcting them.
[deleted]
"Haaaaaaaave ya met clyons?"
[deleted]
CLYYYYYYONS!!!
lol, you mega fagggot. you still hang out here?
yeah atheism is irrational.. but believing in a 1700 year old fairytale is not? []
i love how some of you religious americans cling on for dear life to your precious idea of the almighty saviour.
just admit that you are afraid of dying and be on with it.
[deleted]
not so good at reading between the lines are we??
do you think actually think i meant I'm NOT afraid?
well if i have to spell it out for you... YOU CRAVE/NEED RELIGION as a comforting blanket cos you can't handle mortality.
its the basic need for trying to avoid the unavoidable. false sense of security. afterlife, religion, whatever.
also, yes 1700 years, wasn't the first Bible in its relatively modern form written in the third century?
correct me if I'm wrong.
not that it matters. its not the age of it i object. its the content.
[deleted]
oh ill just let you answer why that is relevant your self.. see below.
Jesus christ you're stupid.. YOU ripped on ME on the numbers and then YOU asked how its relevant!? lol
yes, and thats why i said in its MODERN form, isn't that the King James Bible?
i understand fully how its folklore and myths thats spread word of mouth for centuries that later ended up in what we call the Bible.
but thanx for clearing that up, cos it CERTAINLY just adds to FACT that its just fiction and stories. bedtime tales to comfort, and a tool to oppress. finally we agree on something!
clyons, as usual, I am enjoying your witty, barbed repostes to that ignorant little hater. While I was happy to place him on ignore, I can see by your replies that he's digging himself deeper and deeper.
share[deleted]
I can not only speak for myself, but it's possible to read what I type without wincing inwardly, and feeling pity for my poor teachers.
Whatever your native language may be, I doubt very much you can speak coherently in that one either.
You're just DUMB, man. Worry about that. Jesus is the least of your problems.
[deleted]
oh i was just waiting for that one.. attack my language skills. good going man! whats next, my lack of capitalisation.. ? []
NOTHING I've written here has been neither incoherent nor have you failed to understand any of it. period.
i love that you ALWAYS resort to this kind of arguing though.
its what makes you so fun to f-ck with, since your transparency make you SUCH an easy target.
now, where were we again? oh yeah.. Jesus.
[deleted]
yeah thats just it.. there aren't any... but nice try man! yet another fail of yours..
Einstein ey?
yeah cos we all know that if he believed it, then IT MUST BE TRUE.
its not like there's been ANY progress since he was around..
homophobe? how do you know I'm not gay? or bi? fagggot ( oh and before you attack the spelling, thats the only way IMDB lets you spell it without being beeped )
isn't JUST synonymous with "homosexual" anymore. its just a fun word to throw around as an insult. and yes, thats what it was. for fun :)
you know just by saying something is "incoherent" doesn't make it so.
and PLEASE again, point out what you think was, and ill give you a point for it.
otherwise.. keep pulling stuff outa your ass.
makes you look awesome. and by awesome i mean not awesome.
[deleted]
[deleted]
its not an argument, are you daft?! i was just pointing out how YOU argue. lol, and how you kinda screwed up there "mate"
circles... don't you just love walking in them?
also i was talking about the first complete listing of the New testament which if i remember correctly was "published" some time in the 300s, hence 1700 years old.
btw hows the dog?
[deleted]
really now? did he? I've heard otherwise.. Dr Richard Carriers explanation is quite good.
that Paul in fact he DOESNT talk about Jesus as a living man, but more of some sort of space man,
and the parts that do have been altered and added later.
But i know you wouldn't listen to that though, since hes one of the guys you just pay no heed to.. ( yeah i know just like i don't give a crap about Bart D Ehrman )
and whats been pointed out SO many times before, the similarities with Horus, and other figures, ( and the birth of Jesus just HAPPENED to be at the same time as year is at its darkest, hence the coming of light etc, something featured IN LOTS OF religions )
also, quoting something from the Bible, to prove its historical accuracy... do i need to point out how stupid that is?
Jesus was real, COS THE BIBLE says so. ... what else do we have that confirms that.. non religious scripts thats is.. oh nothing?
[deleted]
Yeah, you did. And you just made it worse--geez, don't you ever GOOGLE before you type?
Pilate's existence was known entirely from the gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus--the latter two sources, you will note, ALSO confirm the existence of Jesus, so they are of course anathema to you.
That was all anybody had until recently, when they found what is now called "The Pilate Stone"--a Roman incription that showed he had, in fact, been the procurator of Judea at the time of Jesus, just as the gospels said he was (why bother to use a real man in a wholly mythic narrative?). Something no surviving Roman records confirmed, because in fact we don't have a lot of surviving Roman records. Any Roman historian will tell you that the notion that we have all this incredibly well documented information about ancient Rome is itself a myth. It took historians a whole lot of work to piece together what we know about Rome, and they're still working away at it.
That same Roman historian will tell you that he or she considers the gospels themselves to be a valid source of historical information--and not just about Jesus.
If they didn't use anything written by people who believed in the supernatural, they wouldn't have ANYTHING AT ALL TO WORK WITH.
Now going out to pick up dinner. Enjoy the sleep of the stupid.
[deleted]
No did not.
come back to me when we have found the Jesus stone.
i wasn't arguing the existence of Pilate.
you REALLY aren't the brightest are you??
btw, what was that other artefact that people claimed was the proof of Jesus... the shroud of Turin? oh yes... yeah that was ALL TRUE... lol.
like i said form the start,
there might very well have been a man on which the myth is based.
probably, i don't think all this would appear out of thin air. but his name was MOST likely not Jesus,
nor was anything written in the bible about him true.
well maybe he was crucified.. that was after all a common execution method at the time.
but the rest, folklore and myth. i just can't understand how you can't see this.. its so obvious.
[deleted]
oh NO i misspelled from to form.. yes, i do write a lot of posts..
sometimes that happens. its so funny, you think focusing on that, somehow pwns me,
yet the only thing it does is make you look like you are grasping at straws.
its beyond me that you don't know this.. you post a lot yourself.
yes, "artefact" my spellcheck actually corrects it to that.. believe or not. i thought i looked weird too..
sure, the shroud of turin comment is straw man..
but sometimes its just fun to point out the idiocy of christianity and how its time and time again been proved wrong.
[deleted]
lol, no you just sound like a pompous turd instead. id MUCH rather be the 5 year old...
hahaaahhaa, oh the hilarity...
you are just using the same lame argument ALL the time, Jesus existed cos some parts of the bible is true, then so must he...
which doesn't prove sh-t and you know it. every time when asked about proof you avoid it like the plague and starts babbling on about spell checks.. now THAT my friend makes YOU look like a halfwit.
yes I'm bilingual,
and not ALL ( and by all I'm talking about three or four misspelled words here.. lol ) words will be spelled 100% correctly, but JUST THE FACT that you think that is where its at, just shows how insecure and small you are and how LITTLE you even believe your own delusions.
hahahahahah.. REALLY? get a life???? thats you're closing statement.. oh man...
yes you can have the last word. i will give you that. go ahead, embarrass yourself some more. []