Just finished reading the D'Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
Although it is fiction and has some mistakes in its 'factual bits' it does weave some interesting ideas such as:-
1. Jesus was mortal and married to Mary Magdolaine (she was a princess not a prostitute), He had kids and the bloodline could survive till today.
2. The christian church as it is now was created by the council of nicocia (spelt wrong) and is nothing like what Jesus and Mary envisaged (women opression and the only way to god is through them (monopoly) being two points in question).
3. The holy Grail is basically the lost truth, supressed by the church for centuries.
and a lot of other stuff.
I have enacted a cursory search on the internet and find detractors and supporters of the book and some of the research appears to be quite good.
The history of the church is littered with pain and suffering, frankly its a right old mess and certainly not the sort of organisation (both historically and recently) that you would expect to be the representative a benevelent god on Earth.
The defenders of the church tend to fall back on the old chestnut that everything that has gone wrong is down to human failing and everything that went right was down to Gods influence.
But if the whole thing is a lie or at least a massive perversion of early christiality then it looks like God has been severely napping.
So heres a logical thought flow to follow:-
1. IF a lot of Dan Brown's fiction is based on sufficient factual references.
2. This proves that the church is a completely different from how Jesus envisaged it would be and it is a creation pretty much solely of Man.
3. IF this is true it means God influence has been very very small and Man's influence very very large since Jesus left the earth.
4. As Gods input decreases to zero then he either:-
a. Can not influence the real world.
b. Does not want to influence the real world.
5. Either way anything that does not influence a closed system does not exist for that closed system.
6. God does not exist or no longer exists.
It all hinges on whether it can be shown that Dan Brown's assertions are true and the Church is not what Jesus (and thus God) wanted, then its down to statistics. As God's influence diminishes to zero so does his existance.
I propose this simply for the purpose of debate and this arguement as presented here is somewhat simplified for compactness. It is also linked to a popularist phenonmen although it could apply to other areas of influence.
The views above do not represent the views of the author, at least not so for more then a few moments in accordance with the tenants of Supra-Agnostism.
thank god i've already read it, spoiler warning would have been nice/considerate.
the facts are shown to motivate the narrative and bare little or no resemblance to the real world, the paintings are real and some of the links between historical figures are real but the substance of the novel is nonsense.
the church has held back women, this is hardly a new notion and one that can be seen present in almost every act and decree of the Roman Catholic church for some 2000 years.
look to philosophical texts about the nature of the Church and its position in society if you are truly interested in this field of inquiry don't put too much stock in the narrative devices used by an fictional writer purporting fiction as fact.
i found it an interesting read with a novel idea, but being an aetheist it failed to offer a substasive arguement why i should get excited about corruption in an organisation that throughout time is possibly the most corrupt anyway.
i mean the child abuse cover ups all over the world from ireland and australia to britain and america, that told me more than anything else that the church was corrupt.
Originally posted by kcamsI wrapped the arguement up in Dan Brown's novel as a delivery mechanism.
thank god i've already read it, spoiler warning would have been nice/considerate.
the facts are shown to motivate the narrative and bare little or no resemblance to the real world, the paintings are real and some of the links between historical figures are real but the substance of the novel is nonsense.
the church has held back women, this is hardly a ...[text shortened]... tralia to britain and america, that told me more than anything else that the church was corrupt.
To confess I have not looked deeply into all his so called factual research, only enough to see there is some basis on which he builds his fiction on. To do a proper job would take years and travel to the various libraries and sites rather then an evening on the internet.
The book simply underlined to me that the Church is not what 'GOD' would have wanted and if it it is not what he (it?) wanted and there is some proof that it is not even what Jesus wanted then surely it means that after jesus left the planet (by whatever means) his influence stopped dead and man took over.
If it can be proved that the church is the creation of men and an antipathy of what jesus and God wanted then it proves God does not exist in any potent way QED. It seems illogical to send his son to earth to create a church that ceases to exist in the form it was created as soon as he dies/ascends or whatever.
As an atheist what logic do you base your disbelief on, do you have an arguement or is it just how you 'feel'. Without an arguement are you not the same as a believer in essense?
Originally posted by DeepfaultAs an atheist, I don't think your conclusion follows at all.
I wrapped the arguement up in Dan Brown's novel as a delivery mechanism.
To confess I have not looked deeply into all his so called factual research, only enough to see there is some basis on which he builds his fiction on. To do a proper job would take years and travel to the various libraries and sites rather then an evening on the internet.
The b ...[text shortened]... t just how you 'feel'. Without an arguement are you not the same as a believer in essense?
How does the fact that the church isn't what god intended prove god doesn't exist? Surely it just proves god didn't create the church.
Now that's still a big blow to organised religion, I agree, but it doesn't prove that god doesn;t exist.
the logic behind my atheism is that i see no need of God.
i don't require him to create the heavens and the earth, i don't need him to create man or to define the rules by which man lives.
all that any devine figure represents to me is an outmoded set of beliefs that were created by man in order to give meaning and direction to his life. now that some of us no longer require the reassurence of this divinity i feel it is time to move on, as was famously said
"God is dead!" Nietze
ther e is no foundation of fact to build a belief system, the world is round i build this knowledge on a foundation of dfacts those i see and those that are all around me.
all belief systems are based firstly on faith and faith requires a leap, this leap is to believe without proof, in essence to have faith. this i cannot do unless the foundation points toward it.
for example dark matter exists, or something fufilling its requirements of the universe, it can be prooved through intuitive logic and calculation, but we can't see it or detect it. there is no requirement for God other than peoples need for him, but i have no need.
Originally posted by kcamsJust because you don't require something does not mean it is not true.
the logic behind my atheism is that i see no need of God.
i don't require him to create the heavens and the earth, i don't need him to create man or to define the rules by which man lives.
all that any devine figure represents to me is an outmoded set of beliefs that were created by man in order to give meaning and direction to his life. now that som ...[text shortened]... detect it. there is no requirement for God other than peoples need for him, but i have no need.
A position of atheism is much a step of faith as a position of faith.
You have no proof that he does not exist and laws of thermodynamics not withstanding no proof that he does exist either.
We did not know about Brane theory or string theory etc.. 50 years ago but could we say we definitely DONT believe in them. Some time before that scientists used to believe that matter was made of four elements until it was disproved.
Unless you come up with some concrete disproof of the existance of God the best that can really be said is 'I dont know'.
Agnostism is the only intelectually sound position, until a successful theory proving the non existance of God is established.
The purpose of this thread is to propose one.
Originally posted by DeepfaultAt no time is atheism a step of faith. Athiesm asserts nothing and does not claim to prove that god does not exist. An atheist says that since there is no proof for the christian claim that god exists, that it must be doubted. It's up to the christian to prove that god exists. If he can't then his claim should be doubted and should be assumed to be false. That does not in any way prove it to be false, but merely that it is not worthy of belief.
Just because you don't require something does not mean it is not true.
A position of atheism is much a step of faith as a position of faith.
You have no proof that he does not exist and laws of thermodynamics not withstanding no proof that he does exist either.
We did not know about Brane theory or string theory etc.. 50 years ago but could we s ...[text shortened]... roving the non existance of God is established.
The purpose of this thread is to propose one.
Originally posted by RedmikeThe argument is similar to the one used by scientists in particle accelerators to propose and then prove a new particle exists.
As an atheist, I don't think your conclusion follows at all.
How does the fact that the church isn't what god intended prove god doesn't exist? Surely it just proves god didn't create the church.
Now that's still a big blow to organised religion, I agree, but it doesn't prove that god doesn;t exist.
If we can observe the particle directly, which with God we can not; we must observe how it affects other particles. God is our Higgs Boson if you like.
Organised (or disorganised) religion can be said to be a secondary effect of the existence of God. Would it have happened if there was no God to promote it, certainly we can say no Jesus no Christians so IF Jesus WAS god then god had a direct hand in creating the church.
You can of course theorise that the church may have been created anyway even if Jesus was just an early tele-evanglist (without the telly) but that is a very complex argument to prove and is irrelevant to this line of reasoning.
The difference between an elusive particle and God is that while an elusive particle may modify electronic and gravitation properties of the particles it influences God is an intelligence and is attempting to modify culture and behaviour. The results he (it) wants are moral and social and more complex then a slight deflection of an electron.
So if we assume he does exist he will at various points manifest his influence, by sending his only son to earth or influencing the minds and hearts of men.
Just like with a particle we can theorise it exists if we have enough samples of its action we can theorise god exists with enough samples of his influence.
Just like with a particle if the samples are all the same and consistent with each other we can say we are dealing with one particle with these characteristics. If they are different then we have several different particles (several influences, multiple gods perhaps) or we don’t have particles at all, just the background noise of men. (though this technique can also be used to spot political movements and secret societies).
The point being IF what Jesus taught when he was ‘influencing’ is significantly different from what the church taught 300 ish years later in the council of Nicosia which is the proposal in the D’Vinici code then either the original particle (Jesus) was God and he fired it and then forgot us or he had a difficulty with consistent planning.
There are certain more complex ideas involving pre-sentience and omnipotence which rule out him changing his mind or not knowing what he was doing so if his actions at various points seem extremely at odds with one another the chances is it is not the same entity.
If in particular the original nature of Christianity has been perverted he is no longer exerting influence (at least successfully) on us. If we are not influenced by something it does not exist for us.
Therefore God currently does not exist.
Originally posted by rwingettI beg to differ and sorry to get all pedantic on you but:
At no time is atheism a step of faith. Athiesm asserts nothing and does not claim to prove that god does not exist. An atheist says that since there is no proof for the christian claim that god exists, that it must be doubted. It's up to the christian to prove that god exists. If he can't then his claim should be doubted and should be assumed to be false. That does not in any way prove it to be false, but merely that it is not worthy of belief.
Dictionary defintions are:-
Atheism n. belief that no God or gods exist(s).
- Oxford english dictionary.. Note the word .... belief....
Agnostic n. one who believes that nothing can be known of the existence of God or anything but material phenomena
also Oxford English dictionary but still not perfeect.
Supra-Agnostic n. One who does not belief or disbelieve in the existance of God but has an open mind on the subject pending evidence or reasonable theory either way.
Not Oxford english dictionary as there is no term that actually means this so I have made one up.
It is indeed up to someone to prove God exists as it is upto someone to prove most theories, though I doubt if christians are the best qualified to construct an objective proof as they are somewhat biased and may well fix their results, it would be like asking the tobacco companies to research into the health effects of cigarettes.
My proof for God is in science.Hmm do you claim an actual poof that can be laid down and an analysed or are you using the word proof only in a personal context?
Faith is a wonderful thing and a boon to those lucky enough to have it bestowed upon them but it is seldom arrived at by any form of proof that will stand up to scrutiny.
Before you outline your proof may I asked which came first your faith or your proof, just to put it in context?
Then lay it on me... I have discussed with bishops and theologians, evangalists and mystics and none that I can recall have ever claimed they had a 'scientific' proof before.
Originally posted by DeepfaultMay I ask, what would be the need for faith if what you believed
Hmm do you claim an actual poof that can be laid down and an analysed or are you using the word proof only in a personal context?
Faith is a wonderful thing and a boon to those lucky enough to have it bestowed upon them but it is seldom arrived at by any form of proof that will stand up to scrutiny.
Before you outline your proof may I asked which cam ...[text shortened]... d mystics and none that I can recall have ever claimed they had a 'scientific' proof before.
in was standing in front of you? Of course faith is going to be the
driving force behind what we cannot prove, if we could prove it
there would be no need for faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by DeepfaultYour definition is a poor one. My dictionary says:
I beg to differ and sorry to get all pedantic on you but:
Dictionary defintions are:-
Atheism n. belief that no God or gods exist(s).
- Oxford english dictionary.. Note the word .... belief....
Agnostic n. one who believes that nothing can be known of the existence of God or anything but material phenomena
also Oxford English dictionary but ...[text shortened]... ould be like asking the tobacco companies to research into the health effects of cigarettes.
Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of deity.
That is a much more accurate definition. Atheism in NOT a belief. It is the lack of belief. An atheist does not think the theists have substantiated their claim and therefore it cannot be believed. All the while the atheist freely admits that he could be wrong and that if more evidence were to come to light then he may have to re-evaluate his opinion. But given that the theist has failed to substantiate his claim for the existence of god, the atheist will have no choice but to not belief it. It is a subtle distinction, but I'm sure you can work it out if you apply yourself.
As for having to rely on the theists to prove their claim, who else should do it? They are the ones making the active claim that a god exists. It is up to them to substantiate that claim if they want people to believe it.
Originally posted by rwingettThe definition is just another way of stating my definition using diety as opossed to God or Gods.
Your definition is a poor one. My dictionary says:
[b]Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of deity.
That is a much more accurate definition. Atheism in NOT a belief. It is the lack of belief. An atheist does not think the theists have substantiated their claim and therefore it cannot be believed. All the while the atheist freely admits that he co ...[text shortened]... hat a god exists. It is up to them to substantiate that claim if they want people to believe it.[/b]
The key point is that there IS disbelief rather then uncertainty.
If I were to say to you that in the next room is a table and you could not check the this.
If you were to say I believe there is a table there even though i have not seen it you would be a believer.
If you were to say I do not believe there is a table there even though I have no means to check you would be a disbeliever, an atheist.
The sensible thing to say is that I do not know as i have not seen the table or a facsimile of the table. The intellectually sound thing to be is a Agnostic of the Supra variety if you want to remove materalism from the definition.
Atheists are reactionary, reacting against what they dont like rather then thinking about the concept rationally.
Unless you can disprove the existence of God you are just as intellectually compromised as a believer.
In regard to whether christians are the ideal one to prove god exists I give you another very bad table metaphor.
A man makes a table that he believes can hold 100kgs, he believes it implicitly and his livelihood depends on him selling it today. He tries it out with 100kg for a few minutes it looks ok and so he sells it. In fact the table can only take 100Kgs for 5 minutes but his belief makes him shortcut the test and he feels quite happy and not at all like a con man. Christians are the table makers they will shortcut the testing of any theory because they know what they are `trying to prove' is true.
The best science and possibly table making is enacted by the sceptic not the believer.
Obviously it is mainly the believer that trys to convince you God is true which is a paradox, but anyone who got their faith before their proof should be regarded with extreme suspicion.
Originally posted by Deepfault
Just finished reading the D'Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
It's a bunch of drivel, best-selling athiest fodder. They come around in 3 to 5 year cycles. Kinda like the Sun, you have no idea why people actually believe any of that junk, but sure enough, there is always some guy with it sitting opposite you in the tube.