13 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillEdit: "Craig points out in the video that science cannot prove atheism. And he quotes an athiest who also argues that if all proofs of the existence of God fail it still does not mean that there is no God. That is his quotation not of a theist but of an atheist philosopher who happens to be rigorous in the art of philosophical argumentation."
He's a philosopher. He's not submitting scientific papers but philosophical ones.
And the people who should be waring of his papers are not necessarily scientists but scientists posing as [b]philosophers - like Hitchens and Dawkins. W.L. Craig, like many Christian apologists is not anti science.
Such popularizers as Hitchens and Dawkins h ...[text shortened]... atheist[/b] philosopher who happens to be rigorous in the art of philosophical argumentation.[/b]
I am aware of this string of thought, but it goes like this: "Even if today all proofs of the existence of God fail, it still does not mean that there is no God because our knowledge expands constantly; therefore we can merely claim that, until this very moment, there is not any scientifically and/ or philosophically accepted indication that proves that God exists".
13 Oct 09
5 edits
Originally posted by black beetle=================================
Edit: "Craig points out in the video that science cannot prove atheism. And he quotes an athiest who also argues that if all proofs of the existence of God fail it still does not mean that there is no God. That is his quotation not of a theist but of an atheist philosopher who happens to be rigorous in the art of philosophical argumentation."
I am aw any scientifically and/ or philosophically accepted indication that proves that God exists".
I am aware of this string of thought, but it goes like this: "Even if today all proofs of the existence of God fail, it still does not mean that there is no God because our knowledge expands constantly; therefore we can merely claim that, until this very moment, there is not any scientifically and/ or philosophically accepted indication that proves that God exists".
=========================================
I don't know if that is the line of thought or not. I do know that Craig was was quoting an atheist philosopher. And the last part of your quotation seems to bend the argument around to be a theistic one rather than an atheistic one.
I think Craig's quotation of the atheist was meant to point out that more rigorous and careful thinking is done by philosophers atheist OR theists, on the subject. The video was a critique of the scientific naturalism which purports that only what can be proved by science should be believed.
The rising popularity of this philosophical premise among unsophisticated thinkers, Craig challenges.
13 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillThe argument I offered is agnostic and not theistic or atheistic.
[b]=================================
I am aware of this string of thought, but it goes like this: "Even if today all proofs of the existence of God fail, it still does not mean that there is no God because our knowledge expands constantly; therefore we can merely claim that, until this very moment, there is not any scientifically and/ or philosophical ...[text shortened]... g popularity of this philosophical premise among unsophisticated thinkers, Craig challenges.
Back to Craig, the point is that the philosophers must back up their opinions by solid reasoning based on facts, therefore they are forced to use scientifically accepted interpretations if they want to bring up philosophically and scientifically accepted theories of reality. And at that point theology goes down the drain due to its irrational doctrines that must be accepted blindly (faith).
😵
17 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleActs 2:32
The argument I offered is agnostic and not theistic or atheistic.
Back to Craig, the point is that the philosophers must back up their opinions by solid reasoning based on facts, therefore they are forced to use scientifically accepted interpretations if they want to bring up philosophically and scientifically accepted theories of reality. And at tha ...[text shortened]... goes down the drain due to its irrational doctrines that must be accepted blindly (faith).
😵
"God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."
Huh. So much for blind faith.
20 Oct 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI proved repeatedly that your initial post is as bonkers as your pathetic attempt to show that you do not follow the Christian religion, and I reply to your posts simply because I want to see when you will finally feel embarrased enough in order to leave aside your religious sophisms.
As stated, your "argument" lacks clothing.
Try again!
If Luke was indeed the author of the Acts and the author of the Gospel of Luke, then he was not an eyewitness of the events he described at the Acts just as he was not an eyewitness to the events that he described at his Gospel. And the so called resurrection is not an historically accepted event but a religious belief implied by the Christian theology.
Furthermore, it is false to insist that whatever is mentioned in (any kind of a so called) “holy scripture” and in the miscellaneous theologic doctrines is accurate; if this was the case, we should accept amongst else that during the Anthesteria, after the rite of Baptism in the Eleusinian Mysteries in the Limnae, the mystae who passed through the “narrow gate of Dionysus to emerge therefrom as full Initiates” were actually in touch with Dionysus;
We should accept that Riger, the Scandinavian Cherubim with the flaming sword, stands indeed night and day on Bifroest in order to protect Asgard and the way to the Tree of Life;
We should accept that at his tenth avatar, Vishnu -according to the Brahmins- will indeed emerge from the open sky riding his milk-white steed, with a drawn sword blazing like a comet, for the final destruction of the wicked, the renovation of “creation” and the “restoration of purity” (BTW it would be fun to compare this “revelation” with the Christian Revelation);
And we should accept that Sonkhapa, the famous Tibetan reformer of the 14th century, is indeed an avatar of Buddha and that the Tree of the 10.000 images sprung from his long hair that was left behind him when he disappeared for ever from the view of the profane;
😵
20 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleI proved repeatedly that your initial post is as bonkers...
I proved repeatedly that your initial post is as bonkers as your pathetic attempt to show that you do not follow the Christian religion, and I reply to your posts simply because I want to see when you will finally feel embarrased enough in order to leave aside your religious sophisms.
If Luke was indeed the author of the Acts and the author of the G ...[text shortened]... ong hair that was left behind him when he disappeared for ever from the view of the profane;
😵
In your mind, I am certain this is true. However, the only thing established by your esoteric ramblings is your profound lack of grasp of basic words and concepts.
... your pathetic attempt to show that you do not follow the Christian religion
Again, you failed to prove that there exists anything called the Christian religion... let alone that I follow the same.
... leave aside your religious sophisms.
Oh, I get it it. What I have been putting forth seems true, but you know better?
If Luke was indeed the author of the Acts and the author of the Gospel of Luke, then he was not an eyewitness of the events he described at the Acts...
Really? This is the extent of your argument? Is your grasp of the situation so incredibly tenuous that you bring out such a pathetic argument, so obviously lacking in even a basic understanding of the topic? Again, I underscore the fact that your position of supposed intellectual superiority is, well, laughable. Although Luke did, indeed, write the letter to Theophilus, in the verse I offered, he is quoting Peter... who most definitely was an eye witness to the events of the Lord Jesus Christ's ministry.
Do try to keep up, won't you?
And the so called resurrection is not an historically accepted event but a religious belief implied by the Christian theology.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
If the resurrection was not accepted as an historical event, there wouldn't be a Christian on the planet. Moreover, religion still has nothing to do with a fact of history. Further-furthermore, an implication is something other than a direct statement. If there is anything more emphatically stated by Christianity than the resurrection, I cannot for the life of me think of what it is.
Furthermore, it is false to insist that whatever is mentioned in (any kind of a so called) “holy scripture” and in the miscellaneous theologic doctrines is accurate...
Yeah? Based on what, exactly?
...if this was the case, we should accept... We should accept... We should accept... And we should accept...
Sure we could accept all of those great examples... except for that pesky problem known as history. Gosh, and you had a great head of steam going, too!
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: "Again, you failed to prove that there exists anything called the Christian religion... let alone that I follow the same."
[b]I proved repeatedly that your initial post is as bonkers...
In your mind, I am certain this is true. However, the only thing established by your esoteric ramblings is your profound lack of grasp of basic words and concepts.
... your pathetic attempt to show that you do not follow the Christian religion
Again, you failed to prove that t ...[text shortened]... for that pesky problem known as history. Gosh, and you had a great head of steam going, too![/b]
Yes. The Christian religion is an ...illusion and your personal religious beliefs have not Protestant/ Methodist origins😀
edit: "Really? ... Do try to keep up, won't you?"
He is indeed quoting somebody else.
edit: "Wrong... ...what it is."
The resurrection is considered an "historical event" solely by the Christians, and this is another reason why the Christian doctrine is clearly a religious one: one is forced to accept it blindly;
edit: "Yeah? Based on what, exactly?"
Based on science and philosophy.
edit: "Sure we could accept all of those great examples... except for that pesky problem known as history. Gosh, and you had a great head of steam going, too!"
Anthesteria are historically verified events, and the people that they were involved at those events were acting the way I described.
The Brahmin theology is as valuable as any other theology, the Christian one included. Furthermore, the “White Horse Avatar” is a uniformity in the universal theology: the Brahmins are talking about Vishnu as I explained earlier; the Northern Buddhists are talking about Maitreya Buddha; the Parsis are talking of Sosiosh, the last Saviour of the Zoroastrians; the Christians are talking about the “Faithful and True on the White Horse” (in Relevation).
Finally, Sonkhapa is an historical person and a great reformer of the 14th century.
😵
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleThe resurrection is considered an "historical event" solely by the Christians...
edit: "Again, you failed to prove that there exists anything called the Christian religion... let alone that I follow the same."
Yes. The Christian religion is an ...illusion and your personal religious beliefs have not Protestant/ Methodist origins😀
edit: "Really? ... Do try to keep up, won't you?"
He is indeed quoting somebody else.
...[text shortened]... y, Sonkhapa is an historical person and a great reformer of the 14th century.
😵
Tell that to the pagan Roman guards who were guarding the tomb.
and this is another reason why the Christian doctrine is clearly a religious one: one is forced to accept it blindly;...
If, by 'blindly,' you mean in faith, well, you're barking up the wrong tree. Much of the histrocity of the events told within the Bible are as verifiable (or more) than literally any other ancient work in our possession.
And, don't forget: your entire belief system is based in faith on the work of others, as well as their ability to report the same.
When I speak of historical accuracy, I am referring to the authority conferred upon the Bible as a source for the same. The beliefs which you are continuing to bleat out are based loosely on some historical fact; the lion's share of the beliefs are based on things decidedly other.
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI do not have a "belief system".
[b]The resurrection is considered an "historical event" solely by the Christians...
Tell that to the pagan Roman guards who were guarding the tomb.
and this is another reason why the Christian doctrine is clearly a religious one: one is forced to accept it blindly;...
If, by 'blindly,' you mean in faith, well, you're barking up the wrong ...[text shortened]... ome historical fact; the lion's share of the beliefs are based on things decidedly other.[/b]
Since there is no external historical confirmation of the internally contradictory New Testament story and since the miracle of the resurrection turns the story into a myth, I prefer more natural explanations regarding the origin of this religious belief than the hypothesis that it was triggered because "...Jesus was actually risen from the dead". And I built up my opinion taking into account not any religious mambo-jumbo but the following principles: the consistency of the miscellaneous accounts, the quality of the accounts (are they based solely on eyewitness testimony?), the known reliability/ unreliability of the eyewitnesses and the confirmation of the story by independent testimony.
The resurrection story was written by scribes who were well known disciples of Jesus and eager to promote their theological beliefs, therefore it is hard to determine the reliability of their stories as historical documents that are supposed to be accurate. I could overcome my suspicion if the scribes were using documentation that could meet strict historical standards, but they did not.
Furthermore, the NT accounts of the story are inconsistent, and they can be made consistent solely by means of implausible interpretations.
Regarding the eyewitnesses to the event of the resurrection, we have the appearances of the resurrected Jesus and the story of the empty tomb. The appearances of the risen Jesus are known from hearsay testimony and Paul’s testimony alone. Since the reporters to the empty tomb are unknown I dismiss them entirely, keeping in mind too that there were no contemporaneous eyewitness accounts. And I dismiss Paul’s sighting of the risen Jesus due to the fact that it lacks of historical details.
So I do not believe that the eyewitnesses, the reporters and the scribes were reliable, but this is not so important in comparison with the fact that there was not a single eyewitness to the resurrection itself. And there are no eyewitness accounts of the people who claimed that they saw the risen Jesus. We have merely other people’s sketchy accounts of what the eyewitnesses supposedly claimed that they saw, and these sketchy accounts were written many years later after the so called resurrection. And methinks the whole thing is made up, for the original manuscripts of Mark end at 16:8 without the story of the resurrected Jesus in 16:9-20 -so the story was added later by Matthew and Luke, probably because of certain theological purposes.
All in all, due to the above mentioned reasons, in my opinion the story of resurrection is not a historically accepted fact but a religious myth😵
25 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleI do not have a "belief system".
I do not have a "belief system".
Since there is no external historical confirmation of the internally contradictory New Testament story and since the miracle of the resurrection turns the story into a myth, I prefer more natural explanations regarding the origin of this religious belief than the hypothesis that it was triggered because "...Jesus was ...[text shortened]... opinion the story of resurrection is not a historically accepted fact but a religious myth😵
Sure you do.
Since there is no external historical confirmation...
There you go again.
If you're going to discuss something, it is always helpful if you know at least a little bit about the topic. The Bible is a collection of letters, books, historical records, chronological genealogies, poems, and etc.. In all, 66 separate pieces of literature from some 40 different authors written over the course of nearly 1500 years.
Prior to the canonization and solidification of these pieces into one collection known as the Bible, each of them stood by themselves as an historical witness to their respective topics. In fact, their reliability as historical witnesses was part of the decision-making process for their inclusion in what came to be known as the Bible.
To make such a ridiculous statement as you have here shows (again) your woeful preparation and lack of mastery of the topic.
That being said, there exists outside of the Bible other sources which echo many aspects of the topics discussed in the Bible... however reliable those external pieces are is a matter of further consideration, of course.
... the internally contradictory New Testament story...
You've clearly bitten off more than you can chew. There is saying something and then there is showing something. Here--- as you've exhibited previously--- you're simply saying something. And, as in those cases in the past, the "something" you're saying is really not worth exploring, since it holds absolutely zero water.
Try another bucket.
... and since the miracle of the resurrection turns the story into a myth...
In your mind, I'm certain that all unexplained phenomena (or, better: unexplainable) is some form of a miracle. Of course, that doesn't bode well for the vast areas of life that science just can't explain, but it sure helps when you want to dismiss something as clearly straightforward as Christianity.
Again I say to you: try telling that to the Roman guards who were charged with guarding the tomb... let alone the thousands who saw Him afterwards.
The resurrection story was written by scribes...
Could you be more off base? Name one of the authors of the first five books of the New Testament who, by any stretch of imagination, could be called a scribe? Or do the same for any one of the twelve disciples.
It is painful to see what passes as knowledge in your world.
... eager to promote their theological beliefs, therefore it is hard to determine the reliability of their stories as historical documents that are supposed to be accurate.
Sure: most people who are so eager to promote their beliefs (which, by the way, even they couldn't fully grasp until after Paul came along) are willing to die as a result of those beliefs. Even more so, their commitment was such that despite each and every single one of them abandoning Him at a time when their stalwart dedication would have been most obvious, they nonetheless found it within themselves to die for their beliefs once He was no longer around.
Do you even think things over before you hold them as gospel truth? I'd venture to guess not.
... therefore it is hard to determine the reliability of their stories as historical documents that are supposed to be accurate.
Well, in your case, make that "impossible to determine" since you so obviously lack any objective ground upon which to stand.
I could overcome my suspicion if the scribes were using documentation that could meet strict historical standards, but they did not.
Idiotic.
For one, you cannot even name one "strict historical standard" without Googling it first. For two, these books have been tested, tried and found true by far, far better minds than yours. For three, the only reason you charge them as unreliable is the very reason that makes them remarkable. That hardly qualifies you or your objection. What a crock of crap!
Furthermore, the NT accounts of the story are inconsistent, and they can be made consistent solely by means of implausible interpretations.
Again, your crock pot is overflowing.
The appearances of the risen Jesus are known from hearsay testimony and Paul’s testimony alone.
It is obvious you're fuzzy on legal terms, as well.
And I dismiss Paul’s sighting of the risen Jesus due to the fact that it lacks of historical details.
That damn Paul. I told him to make sure he mentioned that he had a 46 AD widow's mite in his pocket when he was on the road to Damascus.
Really, the stuff that comes from your mind is just so... precious.
25 Oct 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt seems you are obsessed with the …guard issue; and obviously you rely upon a literal reading of Matthew -however the Roman soldiers would not actually have gone to the Jewish authorities (as Matthew 28:11-15 reports) but to the Roman governor, Pilate, to whom they were responsible. And according to Peter (11:43-49) the guard reported to Pilate.
[b]I do not have a "belief system".
Sure you do.
Since there is no external historical confirmation...
There you go again.
If you're going to discuss something, it is always helpful if you know at least a little bit about the topic. The Bible is a collection of letters, books, historical records, chronological genealogies, poems, an ...[text shortened]... us.
Really, the stuff that comes from your mind is just so... precious.[/b]
In addition, Matthew's story about the guard is also out of order because it states that the guard accepted a bribe from the Jews, but according to our knowledge about the Roman soldiers it is extremely unlikely that they could be persuaded by any amount of money to take the risk of death for falling asleep on guard. If they admitted their sleep they were as good as signing their own death sentences. Also, if they had fallen asleep, methinks they would not have known that the disciples had stolen the body.
Furthermore, the phrase "to this very day" that is mentioned in Matthew 28:15 proves that the scribe was writing many years after the events he was describing, therefore there was indeed sufficient time for the origin and growth of the legend of the guard.
So once more all you made is a pathetic apologetic for the resurrection story -and you believe that any rational person would agree with your religious conclusions. But, since disbelief in the resurrection does seem to be a rational position, methinks I can safely reject the guard story as just another religious myth😵