Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
681

[quote]Rza UK wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I recommend that you explain to me either:

  1. Why the bar of evidence should be lowered so much in this particular instance.

or

  1. How the bar of evidence is not being lowered.

On reflection, I find that Kamui’s point that arguing the veracity of whether or not Jesus existed is probably counterproductive to the overall discussion to hold a lot of merit. I guess I just have a sore spot for a level playing field in debate. [/quote]

You are trying ro raise the bar of evidence when it comes to the existence of Jesus Christ. Other historical characters of that time, or even before that time are not questioned to have lived and have far less evidence to prove their existence. This is just another way (not begun by you) to move further from God. After all if Chirst never existed then there can be no Christianity. I get it, I get it.

I’ve already posted all that I’m going to on this topic. As I’ve said many times a message board is a poor place to discuss these things, too much posturing. And then you have the hate filled bottom feeders like Makavali who bring any discussion of such things to its very lowest element.

Here is a book that you should read which may at least change your mind regarding the fact that Jesus Christ is an historical figure:

“The Case For The Real Jesus” By Lee Strobel

If you care enough to really take some time to investigate the possibility that Jesus Christ existed this is an excellent starting point.

Thanks for the conversation and all the best to you,

Zeb
[/quote]

I think that you should raise the bar for the existence of Jesus, after all it is going to impact your life in a big way. Tutankhamun probably existed but if I were then to base my life around him I would need a lot more evidence.
[/quote]

Gee thanks for the advice. I wish that most 20 somethings questioned their left wing wacky professors as much as the existence of Jesus. But then that’s not how the system is built is it?

Anyway, you too can read this it will give you a deeper understanding of what you’re talking about:

“The Case For The Real Jesus” By Lee Strobel

682

I will have to check that book out.

You have absoultly no idea who has questioned what, just becuase someone hasnt reached the same conclusion as you dosent mean they have not questioned it.

You should check out Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”

683

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I will have to check that book out.

You have absoultly no idea who has questioned what, just becuase someone hasnt reached the same conclusion as you dosent mean they have not questioned it.

You should check out Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”[/quote]

No, no I’m sure that every freshman who walks out of a poli sci class is in deep thought about whether his professor is correct or if he’s just slinging his personal left wing views on the schools time. No question I’m sure that happens all time I do, I really do.

As to the point at hand, you assume that I have not questioned and researched my spiritual views. Now let’s see why do you question that? Could it be because you have a different view? Yes, by golly I think that’s it.

I talked all about my 10 year spiritual search earlier in this thread. But I don’t fault you for not seeing it. As I’ve said message boards are a very poor place to discuss this stuff. I’ve probably missed many of your posts as well.

No problem, no harm done and nothing learned by you or me. Just one more typical message board exchange.

Gee this fun!

Let’s do more when we both have lots and lots of time to kill.

Deal?

684

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I will have to check that book out.

You have absoultly no idea who has questioned what, just becuase someone hasnt reached the same conclusion as you dosent mean they have not questioned it.

You should check out Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”[/quote]

No, no I’m sure that every freshman who walks out of a poli sci class is in deep thought about whether his professor is correct or if he’s just slinging his personal left wing views on the schools time. No question I’m sure that happens all time I do, I really do.

As to the point at hand, you assume that I have not questioned and researched my spiritual views. Now let’s see why do you question that? Could it be because you have a different view? Yes, by golly I think that’s it.

I talked all about my 10 year spiritual search earlier in this thread. But I don’t fault you for not seeing it. As I’ve said message boards are a very poor place to discuss this stuff. I’ve probably missed many of your posts as well.

No problem, no harm done and nothing learned by you or me. Just one more typical message board exchange.

Gee this fun!

Let’s do more when we both have lots and lots of time to kill.

Deal?
[/quote]

I’ve gotten a lot out of these two threads. You haven’t?

685

At no point did I assume that you have not questioned your spirtual views, you come accross as very intelligent person (very sarcastic though! or maybe im just reading into your coments too much)

686

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
At no point did I assume that you have not questioned your spirtual views, you come accross as very intelligent person (very sarcastic though! or maybe im just reading into your coments too much) [/quote]

I just want to take this opportunity to say that you Raza you are one heck of a poster. I’ve tried to read as many of your posts as possible. Let’s just say that my natural tendencies steer toward getting things accomplished, big or small I like to do things. And for some reason when I get bogged down in a thread like this it just seems like a waste of time.

But again, that’s just me. I can see how someone would find it enjoyable. And I must say I’ve had my share of laughs at one or two posters. The problem is they were serious when they were posting. Welp I don’t want to keep you, I’m sure you have lots of God denying to do before the sun goes down. (See…see? I just can’t help myself…I have to stop this don’t I?)

Okay well you take care now,

Bye.

Zeb

687

Zeb,

I hereby dub you the Master of the Straw Man!

688

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

I hereby dub you the Master of the Straw Man![/quote]

And I dub you the Master of avoiding solid evidence which would tarnish your current view.

Okay, that was fun now what do we do?

Let me know it is your turn after all - I’m usually game for most anything.

Thanks,

Zeb

689

To redirect this thread back on track what was being argued in most of this thread is the axiological argument even though that is not the way I prefer to argue.

Instead what I have seen were arguments that divert attention away from the main ones that have been argued on this thread. Some like the argument based on very poor knowledge on how the bible was put together and using this base of poor knowledge to discredit the historicity of Jesus, instead of focusing on whether if morality if it does exist what is the most plausible explanation for its existence.

If it doesn’t exist or is relative then what is to stop me from being evolutionary successful by following in the footsteps of what Genghis Khan did. Or what if my morality is setting up an eugenics program controlling human population to prevent people with serious genetic defects from reproducing ,introducing a law that reproduction must be in the interest of maximum genetic diversity.

690

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I always take history with a pinch of salt, the older it is the more salt I pinch. After all history is written by the victors.

But to base your entire life around some history thats 2000 years old really must take some ‘faith’[/quote]

Our Faith doesn’t sit on one event 2000 years ago.

691

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I always take history with a pinch of salt, the older it is the more salt I pinch. After all history is written by the victors.

But to base your entire life around some history thats 2000 years old really must take some ‘faith’[/quote]

I can’t understand why people are comfortable in being content with “faith.” Religious faith basically requires a suspension of disbelief. The problem is that once this suspension is achieved then there is nothing to recommend catholicism over protestantism, or christianity over islam because evidence has largely been taken out of the equation.

If you believe in a divine jesus, you may as well believe in prophetic diction to muhammad … or any guy in some backstreet of New York claiming to be a messiah.[/quote]

This is a false dichotomy. Either we believe in God and we’re imbeciles or we don’t believe in God and we’re not imbeciles…you sir have a very open mind.

692

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Let me clear something up for you, Zeb.

You said that the existence of Jesus was a “fact.”

The burden of proof is now yours.

I’m offering that it is far from established fact and that maintaining that it is requires that you lower the bar of evidence typically applied to the study of history.

You have accused me of being “corrupted,” “attempting to rewrite history,” and in holding “weird beliefs.”

I recommend that you explain to me either:

  1. Why the bar of evidence should be lowered so much in this particular instance.

or

  1. How the bar of evidence is not being lowered.

On reflection, I find that Kamui’s point that arguing the veracity of whether or not Jesus existed is probably counterproductive to the overall discussion to hold a lot of merit. I guess I just have a sore spot for a level playing field in debate. [/quote]

The bar of evidence is an ambiguous term, have no clue what you’re talking about and ZEB posted his information. You posted a book title.

693

[quote]Rza UK wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I recommend that you explain to me either:

  1. Why the bar of evidence should be lowered so much in this particular instance.

or

  1. How the bar of evidence is not being lowered.

On reflection, I find that Kamui’s point that arguing the veracity of whether or not Jesus existed is probably counterproductive to the overall discussion to hold a lot of merit. I guess I just have a sore spot for a level playing field in debate. [/quote]

You are trying ro raise the bar of evidence when it comes to the existence of Jesus Christ. Other historical characters of that time, or even before that time are not questioned to have lived and have far less evidence to prove their existence. This is just another way (not begun by you) to move further from God. After all if Chirst never existed then there can be no Christianity. I get it, I get it.

I’ve already posted all that I’m going to on this topic. As I’ve said many times a message board is a poor place to discuss these things, too much posturing. And then you have the hate filled bottom feeders like Makavali who bring any discussion of such things to its very lowest element.

Here is a book that you should read which may at least change your mind regarding the fact that Jesus Christ is an historical figure:

“The Case For The Real Jesus” By Lee Strobel

If you care enough to really take some time to investigate the possibility that Jesus Christ existed this is an excellent starting point.

Thanks for the conversation and all the best to you,

Zeb
[/quote]

I think that you should raise the bar for the existence of Jesus, after all it is going to impact your life in a big way. Tutankhamun probably existed but if I were then to base my life around him I would need a lot more evidence.
[/quote]

There is a difference between raising the bar and being a skeptic. Being a skeptic (of course most skeptics are skeptics about what they want to be skeptics about, which is called closed mindedness).

694

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I will have to check that book out.

You have absoultly no idea who has questioned what, just becuase someone hasnt reached the same conclusion as you dosent mean they have not questioned it.

You should check out Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”[/quote]

I am reading it, you should read “The Godless Delusion.”

695

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Let me clear something up for you, Zeb.

You said that the existence of Jesus was a “fact.”

The burden of proof is now yours.

I’m offering that it is far from established fact and that maintaining that it is requires that you lower the bar of evidence typically applied to the study of history.

You have accused me of being “corrupted,” “attempting to rewrite history,” and in holding “weird beliefs.”

I recommend that you explain to me either:

  1. Why the bar of evidence should be lowered so much in this particular instance.

or

  1. How the bar of evidence is not being lowered.

On reflection, I find that Kamui’s point that arguing the veracity of whether or not Jesus existed is probably counterproductive to the overall discussion to hold a lot of merit. I guess I just have a sore spot for a level playing field in debate. [/quote]

The bar of evidence is an ambiguous term, have no clue what you’re talking about and ZEB posted his information. You posted a book title.[/quote]

Consider this: To this day, a well-reasoned and logical debate goes on about the veracity of the existence of William Shakespeare… There are various theories crediting the body of ‘his’ work to multiple authors or to a number of possible individuals working in anonymity.

We’re talking here about an historical figure of much more recent prominence.

Now, the prevailing custom in literary and historical circles is to work under the assumption that he was “William Shakespeare” of Stratford, son of a glove maker… and get on with life.

However, it would be supremely arrogant for a scholar to emphatically claim that the excepted identity is incontrovertible fact.

I posit that claiming that the historical existence of Jesus is incontrovertible fact is equally arrogant and ignores the complexity of variables and possibilities still deserving reasonable consideration.

You may or may not have noticed by now that I don’t stoop to such a degree of arrogance as to claim that the historical non-existence of Jesus is an incontrovertible fact.

Curse me roundly as stubborn, ignorant, and close-minded… but, I’m confident that these characterizations are not true.

696

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I will have to check that book out.

You have absoultly no idea who has questioned what, just becuase someone hasnt reached the same conclusion as you dosent mean they have not questioned it.

You should check out Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”[/quote]

I am reading it, you should read “The Godless Delusion.”[/quote]

We should compile a “recommended reading list” from this thread… hmm… I just came up with a great idea of how to make this discussion entirely more productive. We could enact something along the lines of a book club.

I propose that every month we pick a book, alternating from various points of view, read it for the first 15 days of the month, then discuss it for the second 15.

I propose we start with Cortes’s recommendation… A refutation of moral relativism … I need to dig back and make sure that’s what it was.

697

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I will have to check that book out.

You have absoultly no idea who has questioned what, just becuase someone hasnt reached the same conclusion as you dosent mean they have not questioned it.

You should check out Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”[/quote]

I am reading it, you should read “The Godless Delusion.”[/quote]

We should compile a “recommended reading list” from this thread… hmm… I just came up with a great idea of how to make this discussion entirely more productive. We could enact something along the lines of a book club.

I propose that every month we pick a book, alternating from various points of view, read it for the first 15 days of the month, then discuss it for the second 15.

I propose we start with Cortes’s recommendation… A refutation of moral relativism … I need to dig back and make sure that’s what it was. [/quote]

I love the idea. If you start a thread like that, I’m in. Just let me know what you title it in this thread.

698

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

If it doesn’t exist or is relative then what is to stop me from being evolutionary successful by following in the footsteps of what Genghis Khan did. Or what if my morality is setting up an eugenics program controlling human population to prevent people with serious genetic defects from reproducing ,introducing a law that reproduction must be in the interest of maximum genetic diversity.[/quote]

Morals not existing as an external, immutable force or being relative are not necessarily the same thing. Morals being evolutionarily derived is yet another line of reasoning.

I’ll address your questions in the context of an evolutionary origin:

If we work on the assumption that moral codes are the relics of genetic adaptation, then we can also assign similar origin and significance to concepts such as free will, selfishness, etc… It is entirely reasonable to assume that the desire for self-determination, survival, etc… when magnified by the power of cultural cognition can stand in the way of aberrant emergences such as Genghis Khan, Hitler, or a leader who might come to prominence and seek to enact a eugenics program.

Cultures tend to evolve.

It’s also not unreasonable to suppose that we may someday evolve into the Borg. That’s the shitty part of natural selection.

Like any genome, those of us who perceive a moral code including ideas like respecting the sanctity of life, allowing for personal choice, etc… bare the responsibility of working to propagate our ideals. This doesn’t necessarily narrow our options for success to simply reproducing. There is a growing body of evidence that cognitive tools that are passed on genetically can be regulated epigenetically… I’ll reference again Ken Richardson’s book, The Making Of Intelligence

699

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I will have to check that book out.

You have absoultly no idea who has questioned what, just becuase someone hasnt reached the same conclusion as you dosent mean they have not questioned it.

You should check out Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”[/quote]

I am reading it, you should read “The Godless Delusion.”[/quote]

We should compile a “recommended reading list” from this thread… hmm… I just came up with a great idea of how to make this discussion entirely more productive. We could enact something along the lines of a book club.

I propose that every month we pick a book, alternating from various points of view, read it for the first 15 days of the month, then discuss it for the second 15.

I propose we start with Cortes’s recommendation… A refutation of moral relativism … I need to dig back and make sure that’s what it was. [/quote]

I love the idea. If you start a thread like that, I’m in. Just let me know what you title it in this thread.[/quote]

Consider it done. On December 1st, I will post a thread, “Atheists & Religious Book Club.”

700

Will be there. Starting with A refutation of moral relativism?