The great Church debate!

quote:

There is a reasonable amount of evidence that shows Jesus existed.

What evidence? It would seem that no one noted down anything about a guy called Jesus Christ.

Please point us to this reasonable amount.

quote:

Dorkins (yes, he really is a dork!) is little more than a nasty troll, IMHO

1: in what way is Richard a "dork"?
2: why "nasty"?

... at least we'd be arguing about someone for whom evidence can be presented regarding his ACTUAL existence...

Well, I guess we can all pick chunks of “evidence” out of the internet. This is a chunk from Wikipedia, specially prepared for the "sceptics". The fourth paragraph below is therefore “reasonable” proof of the existence of Jesus.

The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few scholars and historians, some of the earliest being Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[147][148][149][150]

The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[151]

More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, by Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), by Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud), by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (Jesus & the Lost Goddess) and by biblical scholar Robert M. Price. Doherty, for example, maintains that the earliest records of Christian beliefs (the earliest epistles) contain almost no reference to the historical Jesus, which only appears in the Gospel accounts.[152] He suggests that these are best explained if Christianity began as a mythic saviour cult, with no specific historical figure in mind.

Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians.[153][154] [155]The New Testament scholar,[156][157] James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'.[158][159][160]

As I said before, there is a reasonable amount of evidence. Not the same as absolute proof.

And that's why Dorkins is a dork - he is silly in his insistence that lack of evidence about a "god" = proof of "no-god"

He is also nasty in that he can't get beyond 5 minutes in any of his TV programmes without taking a swipe at "believers in a deity", any and all sorts of "god-believers"

Cheers

Don

Ah, St Dawkins, the athiests' messiah. But not quite as flawless as some would like - either in his philosophy (in which he is frequently quite childish) or sometimes science, at points being self-contardictory within the same work.

If one is going to swallow Dawkins hook, line and sinker, in fairness one should also have a counter-read. One might begin well with Alister McGrath (himself originally an Oxford molecular biologist, now theologian - and he asks some interesting questions about how he and Dawkins, from the same background, can come to such radically different conclusions), "The Dawkins Delusion", a straightforward and digestible critique of Dawkins, 95 pages.

McGrath is far from the only highly respected scientist to take an opposite view to Dawkins. You might also wish to look up Cambridge's Jeremy Craddock for example.

-

"Some folks believe in nothing
But if you believe in nothing
Then what’s to keep the nothing from coming for you"

Stephen Colbert and Elvis Costello Christmas Duet
Colbert Christmas Duet

It would be nice if we didnt have an archbish who a) suggested we have sharia law in the UK and b) still cant cope with gays.

Personally, I'm all for the church splitting in two -- it would be nice to know the one I would like to attend was actually happy for me to be there.

(before you ask, our local chap is fab)

Well i was christened a catholic at the age of eleven, forced opon me by my religious parents.

I now don't believe in any of it or though i used to naively, being so young and brain washed and all that.

Caused nothing but trouble in every shape and form IMHO!

I believe science will prevail because i see it and experience it every day with my own eyes.

Faith is just luck IMHO.

Regards, steve

quote:

Caused nothing but trouble in every shape and form IMHO!

Religion has inspired some of the greatest works of art (including music) ever created.
Science has caused plenty of trouble (Hiroshima). But it's also one of our proudest achievements.
Maybe it is not science or religion that's the problem, but us?

quote:

Maybe it is not science or religion that's the problem, but us?

droo, I think you could safely drop the "maybe" and the "?"

There are plenty of things mankind can squable and fight over, even if religion didn't exist.

Cheers

Don

McGrath. Oh dear.

Richard has never claimed that "no proof of god = no god!". I am not sure where you get that from, but I suspect that it may be in the same way that religious people think that Darwin states that humans evolved from monkeys. Which of course, he doesn't. Neither does Richard make the statement that you attribute to him.

For the record, what he DOES say is that: The existence of god is a measure of probability. Therefore it is correct to say that there is PROBABLY no god. However, the measure of probabilty is so small, that he is quite happy (as am I) to dismiss any notion of a god actually existing, whilst still being prepared to accept evidence to the contrary, if you can present it.

One might as well believe in the invisible Cosmic Spaghetti Monster, for which there is just the same measure of probability ie: as next to nothing as makes no difference. Why you think it more relevant to believe in your version of this "god" thing rather than a Cosmic Spaghetti Monster or any other fabulous invisible creation is puzzling, frankly.

I hope that clarifies your previous incorrect statement - it certainly didn't seem to sink in with the tedious Alestair McGrath, who insists on avoiding the issue of evidence by the employment of theology which as I have pointed out, is simply an attempt to build a house of cards on top of a fairy tale. There is plenty of "theology" to support the existence of all sorts of other "gods". Presumably McGrath doesn't believe in Zeus, or Thor or the like. Despite the "theology".

I note that James Dunn is a Professor of Divinity. Not something that, I would assume, indicates rigorous methodology with regard to accurate text-based research per se. I will forbear from criticising his biblical scholarship on the grounds of his expertise in a questionable attribute, so can you please indicate where your "reasonable evidence" (presumably, Professor Dunn is the best example, according to your list) may be found? This would be for the second time in this thread. I am eager to learn how this amazing revelation of the existence of something that has not, heretofore, been publicised, can now be revealed!

"Science can fly you to the moon. Religion just flys you into buildings."

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Religion has inspired some of the greatest works of art (including music) ever created.

Maybe... Religion has not inspired me, i sometimes feel angry that i've been brain washed and that i have had to spend most of my life sorting through this fairy tale tosh that was forced upon me at a young age.

quote:

Maybe it is not science or religion that's the problem, but us?

This is more the truth but religion has alot to answer.

PS: It is not "silly" to, when arguing the case for the atheist view, take what you call a "swipe" at the religious. That is simply part of the argument being enjoined, whether it is 5 minutes into the thesis or not.

I suspect your use of the word "silly" is much the same as the accusation that Richard's writings are often described as "strident". A subjective view of a written page, using a word which actually means: "harsh in sound" (Concise Oxford).

That is to say - you are having an emotional response to a criticism of something about which you are defensive and using an innaccurate and innapplicable word to describe what has upset you. Richard has expressed surprise at this often repeated accusation of stridency and said that he was merely being humorous. Which, I must say, is what I found him to be on these occasions. Religion is, after all, risible and worthy of being the subject of humour. In my opinion.

Hmm?

quote:

It is not "silly" to, when arguing the case for the atheist view, take what you call a "swipe" at the religious.

Oh but it is, believe me. His swipes are so frequent as to be laughable. It amounts to nothing more than "I don't believe in a 'creator' but you do, therefore you must be stupid" The guy is hopeless, or as I said before, a nasty troll.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

It is not "silly" to, when arguing the case for the atheist view, take what you call a "swipe" at the religious.

Oh but it is, believe me. His swipes are so frequent as to be laughable. It amounts to nothing more than "I don't believe in a 'creator' but you do, therefore you must be stupid" The guy is hopeless, or as I said before, a nasty troll.

Cheers

Don

Well, the "swipes" are frequent because the discussion is frequent. That doesn't negate their meaningfullness or pith.

"amounts to nothing more than..." - a dismissive and subjective (dare I say, "silly"?) reaction, not a fair representation of the argument, as you bafflingly seem to think.

Still no indication of where one may find this "reasonable evidence" that you were going on about, I note. Even a copy and paste would do. Assuming that it actually exists, of course...

PS: Also, I note no structured or reasoned counters to my previous arguments regarding differences of "theologies" in support of different "gods" and the way A. McGrath ignores this point and others.

It seems all you can do is launch epithets aimed at Richard Dawkins which, on examination, turn out to be just that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
The probability that a god exists is so infinitely small that it is as accurate as saying that "There is no such thing as god" as makes no difference.

Joke: Why's being an atheist like being a dole scrounger? Both believe you can get something out of nothing...

Andrew Randle

PPS: (Sorry, I really should try to get all these into one post - please forgive me) you have once again misquoted Richard as saying "I don't believe in a creator", despite my clarification of what has ACTUALLY said, following your first misrepresentation.

There is a Theistic Apologist from the USA called Dinesh D'Souza, who is frequently video'd in public debate with the likes of Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything") who, despite having his arguments pointedly refuted and clearly shown to be baseless, keeps reiterating them over and over again despite having had them shown to be so.

I suspect that the religious mind has somehow developed this capacity to ignore what it cannot counter in any meaningful way as a sort of survival mechanism. Possibly allied to the way that it "cherry picks" the bits of it's preferred ancient text that fits in with current secular ethics, but ignores the unpleasant and unnacceptable bits, for instance; the killing of gay people for being "abinations", and so forth.

It becomes almost impossible to have a reasoned argument under these conditions, so I will attempt it no further but leave others to join in or not, as they choose.

As you say, Cheers.

Sorry - "abominations", I should say...

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:

Joke: Why's being an atheist like being a dole scrounger? Both believe you can get something out of nothing...

Andrew Randle

One last time, then...

Not so. The universe did not appear out of nothing, and nobody claims that it did. The religious mind says, usually, that it must have been god, as usual, without any evidence.

The reasoning mind simply says that - we do not know what produced the universe.

Yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Possibly allied to the way that it "cherry picks" the bits of it's preferred ancient text that fits in with current secular ethics, but ignores the unpleasant and unnacceptable bits, for instance; the killing of gay people for being "abinations", and so forth.

If you are implying that the Bible is an inferior form of text due to this passage, you first need to understand the context and bigger picture.

God effectively put the Jewish people "through the mill" (particularly when they were in the desert) to mould them, set an example and set the scene. Any slight deviation from God's will and what He saw as being acceptable was harshly punished.

The bigger picture sharply contrasts this with God's forgiveness of us when the process of being "born again" (a change of heart and attitude) occurs.

Andrew Randle

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
The reasoning mind simply says that - we do not know what produced the universe.

Yet.

The religious mind also says that we can not fully understand God on our own. However, the Bible does provide a glimpse by saying that "God is love" - from a creation point of view, love could be considered as something overall constructive, not overall deconstructive.

Andrew Randle

quote:

I note no structured or reasoned counters to my previous arguments regarding differences of "theologies" in support of different "gods"

You are becomming confused, why? As I said before, don't confuse the variety of religious orders with the possible existence of an "almighty creator". Some religions are centred around such a concept, but not all. Mankind dosen't have any proof of the non-existence of a creator, and nor does it have any proof of the existence of such a creator or any other concepts of our existence. Either way, its a matter of faith.

Its a completely different leap of faith to the idea that Jesus is God, or the Son of God etc etc. I don't recal making any such latter claim.

[quote] Well, the "swipes" are frequent because the discussion is frequent. [quote]
Nope, when old Dork makes his AV programmes there is no such thing as "discussion", he simply puts across his point of view and can't help making the gratuitous swipes every few minutes" - its counter-productive, makes him look a joke.

Cheers

Don