By the way, sorry for the lengthy delays between my replies… “real life” is keeping me busy right now.
Sure, I believe in God. I also believe I have an angel watching over me as well, even helps me out once in a while.
[quote]orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
Many of the greatest philosophers have judged it to be a rational and mature question…
Yes, Adamsson keeps trying to sidestep the argument by giving conclusory statements and painting those that disagree with him as not MATURE.
This is one of the greatest questions mankind has ever faced - and one of the most interesting. I suspect some kid in Norway hasn’t summed it all up for the rest of humanity.
And Kant ended the debate.
Critique of pure reason , for everyone interested.
I guess some guys in the US are not up to par when it comes to the enlightenment?
The answer is in short, we can not know.
[/quote]
Kant reads like drywall feeds.
Sorry, just had to throw that out there.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
"Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
[/quote]
The “God” that awed Einstein was not yours, when he said that God does not play dice he was wrong and he clearly explained several times that he was VERY unhappy that he was used to further religious agendas.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
Many of the greatest philosophers have judged it to be a rational and mature question…
Yes, Adamsson keeps trying to sidestep the argument by giving conclusory statements and painting those that disagree with him as not MATURE.
This is one of the greatest questions mankind has ever faced - and one of the most interesting. I suspect some kid in Norway hasn’t summed it all up for the rest of humanity.
And Kant ended the debate.
Critique of pure reason , for everyone interested.
I guess some guys in the US are not up to par when it comes to the enlightenment?
The answer is in short, we can not know.
Kant reads like drywall feeds.
Sorry, just had to throw that out there.[/quote]
Yup, but since he apologized for it I forgive him.
The only trouble is that some people think Hegel has something to say though he is pure gibberih whereas Kant only writes awesomely bad and they cannot see the difference.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Aren’t instincts simply genetically wired automatic behaviors? Like trying to stay alive or attempting to reproduce? Eating when hungry and finding water when thirsty? Maybe you need to explain that one, unless you feel an “instinct” to believe in God.
Intuition is similar, as it’s a conclusion or a “knowledge” you feel you know, but can’t really understand how you came to know it. What you call “intuition” might be more adequately described as “wishful thinking.” With some intuitions, you can test your feeling or your instant knowledge and validate (or reject) the intuition. With this question, intuition is worthless, since, again, you cannot test the result of the intuition.[/quote]
There is the problem - you overrely on concrete validation of an idea. Much like you discuss in your “morality” section, you can’t possibly validate transcendental morality in the way you want - but you believe in it and trust it all the same. Why? It satisfies a sense that you can’t quite prove.
I can - as in, some look at the order of the universe and get a sense that design is the explanation rather than randomness.
Plus other evidence, such as departures from the lockstep rationality of the order. For example, the ordered theory of evolution. At some point, organisms began to no longer produce asexually and developed into two distinct sexes.
After this, heterosexual coupling was required to reproduce. Why? Evolution does not provide the answer: evolution is a process that moves toward more efficient modes of reproduction, not less efficient.
I bring this up as an example - the order of the universe plus the curious exceptions, when added to the squishy “metaphysics”, tend to suggest a higher power somewhere in the universe to some.
But a belief that morality comes from “common experience” comes from the same squishy intuition that leads people to believe a transcendental morality exists as a religious matter. You can’t prove it, and in fact, so many exceptions exist, many might argue the evidence is thin of a common human morality (not necessarily me).
That said, there is nothing absolutely “rational” about the morality you have adopted - it comes you via some other means.
You have fashioned an argument that eats itself - I don’t disagree with what you have said as true, but your problem is that every human society that developed these “core assumptions” of morality have all been religious societies throughout history.
So yes, I concur that there is a common human morality, but there is also a common denominator of religion throughout human history while forming that common human morality.
Does that prove common human morality comes from a divine spirit? No. But it does demonstrate that your “common human morality” cannot be understoood outside of the context that much of it stems from the idea that a transcendental morality exists - i.e., religion.
We don’t know if there is a secular common human morality as you hope, because we have no such history. Your reliance on a common human morality is problematic, since that common human morality has always been formed by societies that believe in a god(s).
Same problem as before. I don’t doubt that any of those feelings exist - they do - but where do those feelings come from? You say experience - and that is somewhat true. But that experience, historically, has always been informed by religion, so you can’t rely on it as a purely secular impulse to bolster your idea.
In short, whatever common morality we all share has always had religion as the key ingredient. Take that away - do we still have a sense of universal morality? I’d be pretty skeptical - humans are innately savage. Our history is one of selfishness, brutality, and envy.
If you don’t think you answer to a higher power, why not be as cruel as you want?
Would a history of atheistic societies given us the same common morality? Atheists would love to say yes - but I am skeptical of that answer.
P.S. - I realize this was a lengthy reply, but I might not be checking this for a few days (very busy). I was wary about getting involved in a long conversation on religion because there is no short way to discuss it, because my time is limited. That said, I am busy, but you can reply or here or certainly PM me - and I apologize for bailing out.
Not going to reply to all of these points made above but I WILL say that there are so many of these ‘behavioural codes’ which we consider purely human, that are displayed by primates (which as far as we are aware, have no religion) that surely it could be just as easily put down to the Darwinian principles that helping the ‘community’ indirectly helps you ‘the individual’ to survive and so it is in the individual’s interests, as opposed to being ‘informed’ or shaped by religion down the ages.
If I was to make such speculative leaps of intuition as the post above occasionally displays, then I could easily, should I be of a mind to, make the assertion that the introduction of religion, whether it be paganism, eastern and roman religions or the later influence of Judaism, Christianity and then Islam, was nothing more than communities trying to enforce something which was innate in humans, like it is in many animals - ie making everyone pull their weight with the threat of otherworldly repercussions if they didn’t.
But I won’t. because whilst I would like that to be the case, and believe there are several factors that make it highly possible/probable, I cannot prove it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In short, whatever common morality we all share has always had religion as the key ingredient. Take that away - do we still have a sense of universal morality? I’d be pretty skeptical - humans are innately savage. Our history is one of selfishness, brutality, and envy. [/quote]
Forgot to say… That’s a fairly subjective and skewed viewpoint there. What about the invention of the wheel? What about ancient cave drawings? Are we not a species of innate creativity and ingenuity? Are we more savage than primates, or rhinos? Or hippos? Or is it just our ingenuity and creativity that have allowed our communities to fight our turf wars, as most social creatures do, from meerkats to gorillas, on a much larger scale?
You have a viewpoint supported by an argument which doesn’t really hold up to close scrutiny.
Not 100% sure that I understand how skepticism is something that can be turned on and off in such a way. You are skeptical about a concept of morality that does not come from faith-based religion, even though there are millions of examples of perfectly nice and charming and friendly and kid examples walking among you every day.
But, you are NOT skeptical about something there is not one single iota of evidence to support it. I’m not saying you are wrong, just that your sense of skepticism seems somewhat misplaced.
On a personal level, because my life is improved by sharing my skills and by helping those I can. Because I like to learn. It is easier to learn when others are willing to teach me. I am more than capable, like most animals, of cruelty when it is needed, but to make someone smile makes me smile. That is reason enough.
On an anthropological level, because it is not conducive to the survival of the community and the survival of the community is important to the survival of the individual. This is a core concept of Darwinian evolution, which is as applicable to group dynamics as it is to the individual.
Why are you skeptical of this answer?
Imagine the freedom of knowing, beyond question, that you were responsible/beholden only to yourself and those around you, and that you have one life to live and it is a beautiful thing and that you should seize every moment to try and:
1)experience as much as possible, 2)add something to the continuation of your species and 3)not be concerned about an afterlife, which whether it exists or not, is not described once anywhere that I have read, across ANY faith, in such a way as to make it even come close to the amazing possibilities for enlightenment and opportunities for bettering yourself right here and now on Earth, the one life you KNOW 100% that you DO have.
That’s what it is like for me every day. Free. I have a sense of belonging with the world, not with a sect. It’s amazing. I just wish I could say this stuff without sounding like a hippy.
As I said to a muslim friend - Who wants 72 virgins in paradise when all you need is just one really filthy slag? Imagine having to teach them all how to do stuff they way you liked it. Nightmare!
Seems like a pretty good basis for a community, doesn’t it?
Again, not provoking a row, just genuinely interested in people’s thoughts.
Cheers,
I’ll take 5 quick minutes here:
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Forgot to say… That’s a fairly subjective and skewed viewpoint there. What about the invention of the wheel? What about ancient cave drawings? Are we not a species of innate creativity and ingenuity? Are we more savage than primates, or rhinos? Or hippos? Or is it just our ingenuity and creativity that have allowed our communities to fight our turf wars, as most social creatures do, from meerkats to gorillas, on a much larger scale? [/quote]
What does this have to do with anything? Does our innate ingenuity somehow contradict our innate dark side of savagery?
A ridiculous claim, since I have all of human history backing me. You seem confused - I never said Man never did anything good at all: I said Man, in his imperfection, was capable of some pretty awful, selfish behavior.
What makes you think I haven’t been skeptical, thought about it, examined it, and then made up my mind the other way?
I sense you haven’t thought much before typing.
I’ll remember your adherence to social Darwinism of we ever get into a discussion about racial minorities.
As is, sometimes group cooperation is great, sometimes not - for the individual. Often group cooperation means subjugating individual desires - and when people who essentially worship themselves as idols don’t take kindly to that.
Because then morality becomes completely relative and there is nothing to hold humans back from unleashing their savage nature, should they decide to.
[quote]Imagine the freedom of knowing, beyond question, that you were responsible/beholden only to yourself and those around you, and that you have one life to live and it is a beautiful thing and that you should seize every moment to try and:
(naive list)[/quote]
That is precisely the problem. When people turn completely inward, it is all about self-satisfaction. When it becomes all about self-satisfaction, you have to answer to nothing beyond yourself.
Fantastic in the short run, especially if you are naive about human nature - figure human nature into the equation, and the ethic of “I answer only to myself in my capacity for satsifying myself” justifies an atrocious set of behavior, unlocking the worst humans have to offer.
Only a naive utopian would think that such relativism would unlock an enlightened paradise across the board - nothing, repeat nothing in human history should provide you with that conclusion.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
Many of the greatest philosophers have judged it to be a rational and mature question…
Yes, Adamsson keeps trying to sidestep the argument by giving conclusory statements and painting those that disagree with him as not MATURE.
This is one of the greatest questions mankind has ever faced - and one of the most interesting. I suspect some kid in Norway hasn’t summed it all up for the rest of humanity.[/quote]
Wrong, you people are running an red-herring argument, beacause you don’t have any actual evidence that supports the notion of “god”.
The burden of evidence is NOT on me, and “many believe” and “the bible says so” is NOT evidence…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ll take 5 quick minutes here:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Forgot to say… That’s a fairly subjective and skewed viewpoint there. What about the invention of the wheel? What about ancient cave drawings? Are we not a species of innate creativity and ingenuity? Are we more savage than primates, or rhinos? Or hippos? Or is it just our ingenuity and creativity that have allowed our communities to fight our turf wars, as most social creatures do, from meerkats to gorillas, on a much larger scale?
What does this have to do with anything? Does our innate ingenuity somehow contradict our innate dark side of savagery?
You have a viewpoint supported by an argument which doesn’t really hold up to close scrutiny.
A ridiculous claim, since I have all of human history backing me. You seem confused - I never said Man never did anything good at all: I said Man, in his imperfection, was capable of some pretty awful, selfish behavior.
But, you are NOT skeptical about something there is not one single iota of evidence to support it. I’m not saying you are wrong, just that your sense of skepticism seems somewhat misplaced.
What makes you think I haven’t been skeptical, thought about it, examined it, and then made up my mind the other way?
I sense you haven’t thought much before typing.
On an anthropological level, because it is not conducive to the survival of the community and the survival of the community is important to the survival of the individual. This is a core concept of Darwinian evolution, which is as applicable to group dynamics as it is to the individual.
I’ll remember your adherence to social Darwinism of we ever get into a discussion about racial minorities.
As is, sometimes group cooperation is great, sometimes not - for the individual. Often group cooperation means subjugating individual desires - and when people who essentially worship themselves as idols don’t take kindly to that.
Why are you skeptical of this answer?
Because then morality becomes completely relative and there is nothing to hold humans back from unleashing their savage nature, should they decide to.
Imagine the freedom of knowing, beyond question, that you were responsible/beholden only to yourself and those around you, and that you have one life to live and it is a beautiful thing and that you should seize every moment to try and:
(naive list)
That is precisely the problem. When people turn completely inward, it is all about self-satisfaction. When it becomes all about self-satisfaction, you have to answer to nothing beyond yourself.
Fantastic in the short run, especially if you are naive about human nature - figure human nature into the equation, and the ethic of “I answer only to myself in my capacity for satsifying myself” justifies an atrocious set of behavior, unlocking the worst humans have to offer.
Only a naive utopian would think that such relativism would unlock an enlightened paradise across the board - nothing, repeat nothing in human history should provide you with that conclusion.[/quote]
You seem to think that “certain traits that we developed trough evolution to make functional small tribal groups to hunt and gather are still in function” equals “i’m a social darwinist”
that is an UGLY strawman and is in NO way a honest argument. You act childish and foolish. Grow up!
I believe in God. I’m a Christian. I’ve wavered a lot and I’ve lived with some different mindsets, but life has really been best (not with regards to my situation, but with how I handle the situations that I have) when I’ve tried to maintain a relationship with God.
In short, I believe mostly because of experience with a hint of reason. Epistemologically I don’t think that any inductive or deductive isolate or reason can lead us to a conclusion about God, but that holistically we have to be open to all the forces that guide our lives. We have eyes to see, ears to hear, and a spirit to pray (or whatever).
Zeb, nothing personal, but the arguments you make are almost too dumb to respond to. You’re getting all of your “historical” information from Christian apologists, not from legitimate scholars. There little or no evidence that King Solomon even existed, much less that anything written about him in the Bible is true. And, contrary to what you have stated, the passage by Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum) is in fact considered to be a forgery and has been for hundreds of years.
Hiya Thunderbolt,
Thanks for responding. I’ve not done the big quotey (just one) thing cos then every post is a mile long. SO in short… And I use the term loosely…
Your initial claim was that our history was one of selfishness and savagery. I was making the point that to suggest what you did without painting the full picture in order to support your argument, you implied that we were savage and selfish and violent, when in fact we are just as equally loving, kind, creative and social.
You could even go as far, using your framework of argument (ie dropping what doesn’t suit) to say that in fact, as the word of God (whichever one you want) spread across the globe, so our ability to commit great violence to each other increased exponentially.
Wow, so maybe belief in God causes wars, hardship, pain and death… Are you skeptical of that?
The response in your rebuttal of what I said was [quote]You seem confused - I never said Man never did anything good at all: I said Man, in his imperfection, was capable of some pretty awful, selfish behavior.[/quote]
Absolutely agree 100% with this. However, maybe I AM confused, as this is not what you had originally said. When you make points about a potential wholly atheistic community, and then only state the destructive side of human nature it loses all credibility, especially as these characteristics are no more or less prevalent in us than those found in many other animals.
I recall a thread from many months ago which sadly deteriorated (hoping this one won’t because it’s fascinating ;)) concerning the origins of morality where I argued that as a point of fact, morality is both relative AND subjective.
Of course it is. Otherwise you would not have radical Islam believing 100% that they are right and just in what they are pursuing, whilst at the same the US, UK and whoever else believing the same of what THEY believe.
My morals are personal. They are born of the sum of my life experience. I’m sure there are many many things on there that would feature on everyone’s moral compass, just as I am sure that much of what is on there relates only to myself.
Surely what you described in terms of group dynamics, the idea of doing right by the greatest number of the group, is as true a maxim for democratic political principles as it is for social interaction.
I get the feeling that you think the atheist would not accept repressing his desire for the good of the community whereas the person of faith would (If that’s not what you meant by this I apologise).
Atheists are just as capable of seeing the long term view as people of faith. On a daily basis I might want to grab that woman. I might like to own that car. It’s not fear of getting caught that stops me taking them. It is a combination of my moral compass and my knowledge that society as a whole will run better if people did not just go and take what they wanted, without thought to consequences.
You are right though, you do have the whole of human history to back you up. Incalculable million upon millions upon millions of people killed because of their differing religious beliefs throughout the ages, leading us right up to the present day.
And you’re skeptical about an atheistic community that didn’t have any of that in it? Wow…
Who are these people you are talking about who ‘essentially worship themselves as idols’? If that is seriously what you think an atheist is then you are so far removed from reality it’s scary. It’s about not worshipping ANYONE. It is about a desire to learn, to try and understand our universe through the scientific means that we have used a a framework for every other aspect of waking life. It is about a disbelief in the supernatural, until such a time as the supernatural can be proven, demonstrated or rationally explained.
You say this stuff about people turning completely inward, and it being all about self-satisfaction. Again THAT IS NOT ATHEISM. A disbelief in the supernatural does not make someone a selfish bastard. It makes them want to search for answers.
This is something I have to come up against all the time when stating my beliefs. I’ve worked for charities, I have tutored people for free, I have always gone out of my way to be polite, courteous, and respectful and help others where possible.
And so I’m sure you can understand my frustration at someone who doesn’t know me automatically labelling me a self-worshipper and attributing to me the behaviour you just outlined as being the consequences of a community free of supernatural overlords.
All this worshipping of the self bollocks sounds like Sunday school scaremongering.
The truth of the matter is that I have met far more smug, self-satisfied, patronising and condescending theists than I have atheists. Many people of faith I know what not bend a finger to help me if they knew I did not believe in a supernatural God. Whereas every atheist I know just wants to learn, wants to put a stop to conflict born of racial, religious divides and would not give a shit before trying to help.
I hear that atheists are the least trusted social group in the US right now. WHAT? Because they believe in what they can prove? It’s the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Whatever it is you religious peeps have heard about us to make us so untrustworthy, it’s simply not true.
We’re just people. Good ones. Bad ones. Caring ones. Selfish ones. We just don’t believe stuff that has no basis in fact. You don’t have to demonize us or make up how you think we think. Just ask us and then make up your minds.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is the problem - you overrely on concrete validation of an idea.[/quote]
Overrely? If there’s no way of objectively evaluating the validity of a conclusion, then it informs no inquiry. It’s simply an agreeable feeling that supports the pre-established conclusion. That you feel that God is instinctual or intuitive unfortunately does nothing for anyone but yourself.
What is “transcendental” morality? How does that differ from simply morality? Morality is simply “doing the right thing” with the right thing generally being what’s beneficial for the most individuals or detrimental to the least number.
The apparent order of the universe arises from the basic physical laws of the universe. Whether those laws have been determined or are simply random luck is not something we can determine. There might be untold trillions of universes, some of which happen to be set up to allow intelligent life to eventually appear.
There is no way to objectively weigh this view against the belief in an intelligent creator. So here again, the inquiry is not additionally informed. The conclusion you believe in simply depends on what assumptions you’re ready to accept on faith.
That’s a common misconception about evolution. Evolution does not “move towards” a predetermined goal. It simply goes on with what works the best for a given environment at a given time. The appearance of sexes simply tells us that at some point, sexed organism had an advantage vs. non-sexed organism.
That advantage might simply be a better adaptability (because of gene mixing) to changing environments or the eventual specialization of each sex for particular tasks (allowing each to be better at what it needs to do) Sexes were in no way “destined” to appear.
An analogy could be drawn by comparing marsupials and mammals. Both produce litters of youngs, but the marsupials must keep their young in a pouch for some time. When mammals are introduced in the same areas where marsupials live, marsupials population decline and die out. Two systems distinct systems of reproductions have evolved in parallel, but when pitted once against the other, the better one dominates.
Again, that conclusion requires some assumptions for which there is no evidence. I understand the viewpoint and it’s just as valid as the opposing one because neither can show any support for their views.
Just as the Earth appears to be “special” until you realize that within the untold trillions of planets in the universe, some fair number are bound to be earth-like, we might be assuming a single universe when there are untold trillions of them too.
That we live in a universe that can support life would then be no more surprising than the fact that life has developed on a planet capable of supporting it.
Many exceptions exist now in our modern world; societies have evolved and many little quirks from long ago have been amplified. I still contend that the basics - life, family, caring for close ones - is common to all humans across time and place.
From those valued basics, it then becomes easier (not easy, mind you, easier) to establish “rules” that will increase the likelihood of keeping one’s life, being able to care for one’s family and friends, and so on.
Most of it initially comes from our parents. We cannot, as children, reason moral behavior. We are taught right from wrong. But now, as an adult, I can pretty much give the reasons for any one of my decisions which involve a moral choice.
When I tell my kids that they cannot or should not do something, they often ask why and I’ve yet to be unable to explain the why to them and having to resort to having them fear retribution from a larger authority.
The amusing thing is that they not only very well understand the reasons, they’ll sometimes repeat them later to other kids on the playground who are doing disagreeable things.
True. I believe that at one point in history, religion played a useful role as a “unifier” of communities. It allowed diverse people to find common ground to unite against a larger threat.
While someone might not have cared for someone living 500 miles away, he could find it in himself to care for another Christian/Moslem/Jews/etc. I do not deny that religion can be beneficial and have positive outcomes. What I do not accept is the truth of the basic dogma behind every religion.
I think that in this modern day and age, we could establish morality entirely from reason. It might even be easier to teach that way, since you could explain the rationale behind the various taboos and forbidden acts.
A logical, reasonable explanation might be more convincing than “because God says so!”
Well obviously we cannot ignore the history of humanity. But many traditions and cultural artifacts have been abandoned throughout the ages. Simply because there’s a long tradition of associating morality with God doesn’t mean that it’s the only way to derive it.
From the atheist point of view, “divine” morality is simply rules made up by men and attributed to a non-existent God. It’s origin is no more transcendental than anything else from man. That view is only reinforced by the fact that most holy books lay out a morality that closely matches the mores and cultures of the time when it was put to paper.
Some things which we now find abhorrent, such as slavery, is often treated as par for the course in moral writings of supposedly divine origin.
Is it completely unfathomable to you to explain, in reasonable terms, why indiscriminate killing is wrong? Why rape is wrong? Or stealing? How can you not see that killing other human being on a whim is wrong, unless you’re told your Divine Creator forbids it?
We cannot change history. But again, simply because historically morality has been enmeshed with religion doesn’t mean it’s the only way it can be. And to bring us back to our initial point, religious history, as embedded with morals as it may be, still does not inform our inquiry into the existence of a god.
Humans are complex; but I think that our social traits our stronger than our savagery. While we are selfish, envious and brutal, we also wish to live, to have companionship and to reproduce (instincts are strong here). We accomplish more in groups than we do alone, so we’re basically social.
To have societies, you need to understand that a certain amount of mutual respect is required. That’s where we get our morals from, more than anything else. That certain codes of conduct were then ensconced in religion and attributed a divine origin follows from the establishment or the basic rules by men, not the other way around. We were not savages until Moses came down with the commandments.
Because being cruel sucks? Does being cruel make you happy? Do you long for cruelty all day long but hold back because you’re afraid there will be Hell to pay (literally) later? That kind of reasoning scares me.
Are believers really cruel sociopathic savages who, where it not for the fear of retribution, would gladly run amok and kill, rape, pillage and burn? Do you only do good and “the right thing” because you feel you’re forced to do it?
If it was somehow proven beyond a doubt that God didn’t exist, would you cross over to your neighbor, shoot him in the head, then rape his wife and kill his kids before claiming his money and belongings as yours?
If religion is the only thing holding back billions of believers from transforming into Mongol Hordes, I might start supporting my local churches, temples and mosques.
Were I to concede that point, which I’m not yet willing to do, it would only support the idea the religion is the opium of the people and required to keep the peace. It would not, unfortunately, tell us anything about the reality - or lack of such - of the existence of god.
The question, while interesting, is unanswerable. We don’t have an atheistic history, so any discussion is pure speculation. And, as I’ve said previously, the community building aspects of religion might have been a boon to society in the past; to the point that a secular - or even a fringe religious community - could not stand alone and had to adhere to a large belief system if it were to survive.
Well, that makes two of us. Reply when time allows, I’m in no hurry. I will check up on this thread occasionally. Although I feel we’re straying away from my initial question about what better “informs the inquiry” about god’s existence and straying to what establishes morality for most people.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am sure you will consider my opinion “overwhelming ignorance” but what you have written appears to be the ramblings of a confused person looking for something to fill a void in their life.
Or maybe it is poetry. I don’t know. I never understood poetry.[/quote]
They were just my own personal musings. A few glasses of chardonnay in and immersed in plato’s cave. Regardless it was a departure from the ‘to believe or not to believe’. Stagnant and boring. Bible quotes and interpretations aplenty.
Either way, I’m pretty sure there is a void in most peoples lives. Some fill it with donuts and others with heroin. Anti- depressants and feel good pills. Some fill it with their idea of god and call it better.
Everyone seems to be reaching for something. I am just a person who finds purpose and meaning in poetry and music. I don’t mind if you think I’m confused. Since I pretty much think you’re an asshole.
Err… What Pookie said. x2
I’ll try and be quick.
[quote]pookie wrote:
The apparent order of the universe arises from the basic physical laws of the universe. Whether those laws have been determined or are simply random luck is not something we can determine. There might be untold trillions of universes, some of which happen to be set up to allow intelligent life to eventually appear.
There is no way to objectively weigh this view against the belief in an intelligent creator. So here again, the inquiry is not additionally informed. The conclusion you believe in simply depends on what assumptions you’re ready to accept on faith.[/quote]
Precisely correct on all points. We can’t know - not yet anyway - and the basis beyond that begins to move into matters of philosophy and faith. I have never disagreed with that.
What is interesting about your statement is that there is no way to objectively weight this view against the belief that there is no creator. Back to square one. It all depends on your starting point, which is based in philosophy, faith, and squishy metaphysics.
You start with a presumption that there is no god and then measure information against it to see if the information could change your mind.
That is fine - you seem confused as to my point. I am not here to suggest that the evidence irrefutably points to the existence of a god - I chimed in to state that the atheistic smugness of “it is completely irrational to believe in a god” is incorrect.
How do I know? You can’t prove the existence of a god, and you can’t prove a god doesn’t exist. Most everything starts with a presumption outside of proof - that goes for both theists and atheists. Yours does. So does mine.
Well, you tried to negate a claim by then saying exactly what I said. “More efficient” is exactly the same thing as “going on with works best for a given environment at a given time”. I never suggested evolutionary determinism - I said “efficiency” - which is exactly what you said.
But this is ignoring the logic of what we know already - “adaptability” definitionally means “to be more successful in surviving”. So use reason - what kind of environment would actually demand on a species that it move into a reproduction scheme that makes it more difficult to reproduce?
The theory of evolution via natural selection does the exact opposite - it winnows out those organisms that are less efficient at reproducing. The theory of evolution does not support the idea of making organisms less adpative. But we have concrete evidence of it at the most basic level of evolution.
No one is talking about “destined to appear” at this point - I am speaking strictly on the merits of evolutionary theory. There is nothing “adaptive” about moving into two species that have ever harder and more fragile means of reproduction.
As for “gender specialization for particular tasks”, you have leapt too far ahead - the stimulus has to first arrive to force the species into heterosexual reproduction. The “particular task” idea only works after-the-fact - the environment can’t “know” if a different sex is more suited to a task until the other sex has already been created.
Your theory makes no sense. Something had to bump species into a more difficult form of reproduction - which would set the species back from an evolution point of view - but we know from natural selection that species don’t become “less adaptable”. That is completely backwards from the theory.
You have skipped over the point and headed to something entirely different. You are talking about natural selection after the species have been created. No problem. I am no opponent of natural selection.
But I am talking about the initial shift from asexual reproduction to heterosexual reproduction. Without that, there are no mammals and marsupials to later naturally select.
There is no explanation for why species suddenly shifted and became less efficient at adapting and surviving. Evolution doesn’t explanation it. Blind appeals to “the environment at the time” don’t explain it.
Does this prove divine intervention? Nope. All it does is raise interesting questions to the many atheists who think that the theory of evolution is their “ace in the hole” against the idea of theism.
And, you should note, I am not an enemy of evolution. I don’t disbelieve in the theory, but nor do I treat it dogmatically, which is what many atheists do to supplement their rejection of theism in the exact same way theists accept dogma to supplement their belief in a god. I reject both extremes.
The evidence is in all the squishy stuff we mentioned before. You want to live a life that rejects that premise? Fine - I am not here to convert you, Pookie. I am merely here to refute the idea that lack of proof in a god somehow suggests that believing in a god is patently irrational.
What does that have to do with anything? Who has assumed a “single universe”? I haven’t.
And if there are trillions, what does that have to do with whether a god exists or not?
And? It’s weird - it’s like you want to turn me into a Biblical literalist so it would be easier to argue with me. But that isn’t the angle I am coming from.
[quote]I think that in this modern day and age, we could establish morality entirely from reason. It might even be easier to teach that way, since you could explain the rationale behind the various taboos and forbidden acts.
A logical, reasonable explanation might be more convincing than “because God says so!”[/quote]
I agree to a point - but the opposite extreme is also a problem. Atheists have no higher morality to reference - no problem, but then morality just becomes more of a “suggestion”, rather than a moral. I don’t think that is a good road to go down. But we are talking primarily about “effects” now.
[quote]From the atheist point of view, “divine” morality is simply rules made up by men and attributed to a non-existent God. It’s origin is no more transcendental than anything else from man. That view is only reinforced by the fact that most holy books lay out a morality that closely matches the mores and cultures of the time when it was put to paper.
Some things which we now find abhorrent, such as slavery, is often treated as par for the course in moral writings of supposedly divine origin.[/quote]
I don’t doubt this at all - but the atheist’s assumptions are just as rooted in “intuition” as the theist.
How do you know these things are “wrong”? A sense of feeling? A “natural law”?
So your basis in thinking these things are wrong is rooted in the exact same kinds of unprovable philosophies of religion?
You want things to be wrong based on an inherent “sense”. No problem - I think that is perfectly valid. Just don’t try and convince me your squishy “sense of wrong” is somehow more supportable than a belief in morality having a transcendental source.
It can. This sense of “right and wrong” has never, ever been seperated from the idea that it has its basis in a god - that can certainly inform the inquiry, even though it doesn’t settle it.
If it doesn’t infom yours, no problem. To say it doesn’t inform generally is incorrect. It informs mine just fine - after all, you rely on certain common denominators throughout human history as proof of their validity. One of those common denominators is adherence to theism. I think that informs my inquiry. You decide that that particular common denominator should be set aside.
I don’t disagree.
Are you really that naive about human history? I don’t believe that.
But you yourself have suggested the same thing. You have said that society provides the institutional checks against this kind of slipping into savagery in an atheistic society - you merely replace the function of “religion” with that of “society”.
You have already suggested that human need that corrective collective check on their excesses - so are you saying you don’t need all the secular guardrails on behavior that you endorsed above?
Hmm. You’re not making sense - either humans need a little fear of retribution through social-institutional guardrails to keep them straight or they don’t because they inherently want to do the right thing.
Your answer seems to change depending on whether we are talking about religion-as-the-heck or society-as-the-check.
Correct - which is why we have drifted more into “effects” than whether it is rational to believe in a god or not.
As for religion being an “opium” to keep the peace, wouldn’t that also be true of an abstract “humanism” that arbitrarily requires of its citizens a code of morality that no one can rightfully prove?
My point all along has been that you can no more “prove” secular morality than you can “prove” religious morality. Atheists claim they have a stronger rational argument - but they don’t. On balance, it all depends on your presumptions based on philosophy, etc. - but for atheists to strut around and pretend as though the morality they arrived at has some stronger “rational” basis is incorrect. It is derived from human religious experience, so it doesn’t contain a factor that puts it above religious morality.
Hmm.
Most of all this is pure speculation, which has been my point the entire time. I was never interested in trying to prove the existence of a god or convert anyone to my line of thinking - it was merely to show that within the very narrow confines of what we call Reason, there is room for theistic belief, contrary to the self-satisfied conclusions of some of the atheists here.
The very essence of Faith is that there is no proof. Proof negates the very concept of Faith. Faith is part of the question “why are we here…blah blah blah…?” - which can be informed by Reason, but really is a seperate question entirely from science.
If atheists find no predicate for faith, that is their business. They have their own presumptions - and if when they ask the “why are we all here?” question, they stop at the water’s edge of secular materialism and don’t feel a sense of a different mystery beyond that, fine with me.
But clinging to Reason like it answers the question “is there a god?” is erroneous.
I will have to stop here, and I shouldn’t have even committed the time it took to write this lengthy post. But I did so because it is always a pleasure, Pookie.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
… contrary to what you have stated, the passage by Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum) is in fact considered to be a forgery and has been for hundreds of years.[/quote]
Oh belligerent you disappoint me. That’s all you have?
Jospehus is forged?
So…everything Josephus wrote about Jesus existence is forged, is that your argument?
Let’s see, all of the Apostles were lying. And they were lying in order to come to a very painful agonizing death. Yes, that’s something to lie for.
Josephus was forged.
How about the Roman historian Tacitus? He mentions Jesus. Oh he must have been bribed? No? Well then tell me what do the nutty atheist web sites say? They are after all the best judge.
What about the account of the crucifiction by Thallus?
T"hallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.
The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been."
Let’s see that would match the biblical reference…but it can’t be real…yea probably faked by some …some Christian…oh wait he wasn’t a Christian. Hmmm…still faked somehow huh?
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
That dirty Pliny!
He was probably raised to be a liar by…um…Mr. and Mrs. Pliny.
LOL
“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996."
The following is something that was posted on T-Nation last year sometime. I did not write it and I have no idea who posted it at this point.
I’m absolutely sure that it will not convince the most devout atheist to drop their current beliefs (yes atheism is a belief) and run for a Bible.
"Historical writers mentioning Jesus:
Following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/...s/annals.mb.txt
Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”
The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.
Are these more lies, or not?
"Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day?the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11?13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith."
Um…why would a guy who opposed Christianity actually verify Christs existance?
Ah…he’s just a stupid liar right?
Forged…all of it…forged.
LMAO
Then there’s the Talmud.
Hey wouldn’t hard core Jews try to deny Christs existance?
"The Talmud
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”
Okay belligerent, enough for now. You don’t have to believe, it’s your right not to. But don’t insult the intelligence of this board by trying to say that Christ did not even exist.
(Shaking head and walking away)
[quote]ZEB wrote:
belligerent wrote:
… contrary to what you have stated, the passage by Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum) is in fact considered to be a forgery and has been for hundreds of years.
Oh belligerent you disappoint me. That’s all you have?
Jospehus is forged?
So…everything Josephus wrote about Jesus existence is forged, is that your argument?
Let’s see, all of the Apostles were lying. And they were lying in order to come to a very painful agonizing death. Yes, that’s something to lie for.
Josephus was forged.
How about the Roman historian Tacitus? He mentions Jesus. Oh he must have been bribed? No? Well then tell me what do the nutty atheist web sites say? They are after all the best judge.
What about the account of the crucifiction by Thallus?
T"hallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.
The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been."
Let’s see that would match the biblical reference…but it can’t be real…yea probably faked by some …some Christian…oh wait he wasn’t a Christian. Hmmm…still faked somehow huh?
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
That dirty Pliny!
He was probably raised to be a liar by…um…Mr. and Mrs. Pliny.
LOL
“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996."
The following is something that was posted on T-Nation last year sometime. I did not write it and I have no idea who posted it at this point.
I’m absolutely sure that it will not convince the most devout atheist to drop their current beliefs (yes atheism is a belief) and run for a Bible.
"Historical writers mentioning Jesus:
Following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/...s/annals.mb.txt
Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”
The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.
Are these more lies, or not?
"Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day?the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11?13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith."
Um…why would a guy who opposed Christianity actually verify Christs existance?
Ah…he’s just a stupid liar right?
Forged…all of it…forged.
LMAO
Then there’s the Talmud.
Hey wouldn’t hard core Jews try to deny Christs existance?
"The Talmud
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”
Okay belligerent, enough for now. You don’t have to believe, it’s your right not to. But don’t insult the intelligence of this board by trying to say that Christ did not even exist.
(Shaking head and walking away)[/quote]
Ok, I’ll try this once again, slowly… the fact that jesus existed… does NOT MAKE HIM GOD.
ok? Do you get this simple little fact…?