Atheism and faith

[danydandan]

23 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

The fact is that the Christian god has a very funny definition of the word "perfect". It's one of the mainstays of Christianity - a perfect, infinite god. But you cannot be perfect if you "want", as "want" denotes you're lacking in something. So the idea that God is both perfect and wants things from humans (whatever those things are) is bizarre in the extreme.

Couple this with the fact that God is both infinite and everywhere, but cares about thing like you mixing your cloth fibers together, makes the whole thing pretty impossible to buy into. 

And this is what I mean - what am I buying into by saying "Christianity is true"?

I think the question is misleading, or rather confusing as there are many different belief systems in Christianity. Perhaps a better question would be if the accounts in the Bible are true would you accept it as truth?

The issue is there are multiple Bibles and most religious people are so closed off that they think the Bible they study is literally the only one written. Also there is the evident difference between the OT and NT.

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

Regardless of which flavor of Christianity is meant, those that accept the NT also accept the OT. It's kind of a two part set, except that the main character has been totally re-written.

 

[jmccr8]

14 minutes ago, JMPD1 said:

Regardless of which flavor of Christianity is meant, those that accept the NT also accept the OT. It's kind of a two part set, except that the main character has been totally re-written.

 

Hi JMPD1

That would be the proper aspect but as can be seen here in the forum there are many that reject the OT and cherry pick through the NT and still call thselves Christians because they think Jesus was all there is to the religion. Personally I don't see them as following the Christian faith if they deny the purpose of why there needed to be a Christ to fulfill the doctrine.

jmccr8

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi JMPD1

That would be the proper aspect but as can be seen here in the forum there are many that reject the OT and cherry pick through the NT and still call thselves Christians because they think Jesus was all there is to the religion. Personally I don't see them as following the Christian faith if they deny the purpose of why there needed to be a Christ to fulfill the doctrine.

jmccr8

Because many of them do not think critically about their own beliefs. They don't realize that JC supposedly said he did not come to change any of the OT laws, but people either overlook that, or are completely ignorant of the fact. Likewise, when believers say that "Jesus fulfilled the law", they do not comprehend how nonsensical that sounds. Of course, the true believers will jump through hoops and tie language into a knot trying to prove it. I guess it is easier when you claim that words don't mean what they say, but rather, mean what they are interpreted as saying.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JMPD1

[Emma_Acid]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

I think the question is misleading, or rather confusing as there are many different belief systems in Christianity. Perhaps a better question would be if the accounts in the Bible are true would you accept it as truth?

The issue is there are multiple Bibles and most religious people are so closed off that they think the Bible they study is literally the only one written. Also there is the evident difference between the OT and NT.

They can't be true though, as they contradict each other. Even just the account of the resurrection is mired in contradictions and omissions from all the authors. The bible is demonstrably written by humans - and ones with glaring holes in their knowledge of the world around them (bats are birds, pi equals 3, etc). So I'm being asked what I would do if we found this was proven real? It can't be. Hence the question is meaningless.

I'd really like Brother_Spirit to quantify what they mean by "if Christianity were true". Simply saying "God exists and sent his son to earth to be killed for our sins" isn't good enough. Again, it implies "want", something a perfect entity couldn't experience, and an infinite, all knowing God that cares about whether you m********e on a Sunday or wear mixed fabrics or kill a goat facing a certain way does not sound like the sort of god worth believing in, especially when he shows his very "human" side (anger, jealousy etc).

I cannot pretend something that makes so little sense were real, let alone what my reaction to it would be.

[danydandan]

12 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

They can't be true though, as they contradict each other. Even just the account of the resurrection is mired in contradictions and omissions from all the authors. The bible is demonstrably written by humans - and ones with glaring holes in their knowledge of the world around them (bats are birds, pi equals 3, etc). So I'm being asked what I would do if we found this was proven real? It can't be. Hence the question is meaningless.

I'd really like Brother_Spirit to quantify what they mean by "if Christianity were true". Simply saying "God exists and sent his son to earth to be killed for our sins" isn't good enough. Again, it implies "want", something a perfect entity couldn't experience, and an infinite, all knowing God that cares about whether you m********e on a Sunday or wear mixed fabrics or kill a goat facing a certain way does not sound like the sort of god worth believing in, especially when he shows his very "human" side (anger, jealousy etc).

I cannot pretend something that makes so little sense were real, let alone what my reaction to it would be.

I agree with you, an explanation of what the "truth" is. There are so many inaccurate, contradictory and false statements in the Bible it's difficult to see why anyone who has an IQ above 90 would believe it's true. But with that being said it doesn't mean everything in the Bible is false.

Edited May 14, 2018 by danydandan

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

Wasn't that ossuary carbon dated? Or are you suggesting it's a fraud.

The early 21st Century forensic mistreatment of the ossuary casts doubt on the chemical tests of the patina. Overzealous cops, it would seem (not helped by casual treatment with chemicals during the decades the box was alleged to be in private hands, and physical damage since the matter became public).

But yes, I was saying outright that in my opinion the inscription is fraudulent. The box itself was likely genuine (I don't know of any doubters of that), and there's plenty of constituency for the "James, son of Joseph" part of the inscription. The money part is "brother of Jesus," and that's where the fog rolls in.

Even if the authenticity of the final words were granted, you would still need to accept a supposed "statistical analysis" that doesn't compel acceptance to infer from three common First Century male Palestinian Jewish names that there would be remarkable rarity for that specific father, son, brother configuration. To do that would also require Jackpot Jesus having been described as the brother of James in life, for which we have no evidence (nor for that matter that Second-place Jackpot James' father was named Joseph).

Assumptions piled on assumptions, resting on botched tests and the essential impossibility of retesting.

Oh - on the Josephus, etc. my affirmative theory is that he was writing about the early church. Assuming we have the dates right, then there would be at least two now-canonical Gospels and who knows how many non-canonical gospels, passion accounts, sayings collections, ... available to writers in the 90's (as Josephus says he is). The cat's been out of the bag long before we hear its first meow.

Edited May 14, 2018 by eight bits

[danydandan]

37 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The early 21st Century forensic mistreatment of the ossuary casts doubt on the chemical tests of the patina. Overzealous cops, it would seem (not helped by casual treatment with chemicals during the decades the box was alleged to be in private hands, and physical damage since the matter became public).

But yes, I was saying outright that in my opinion the inscription is fraudulent. The box itself was likely genuine (I don't know of any doubters of that), and there's plenty of constituency for the "James, son of Joseph" part of the inscription. The money part is "brother of Jesus," and that's where the fog rolls in.

Even if the authenticity of the final words were granted, you would still need to accept a supposed "statistical analysis" that doesn't compel acceptance to infer from three common First Century male Palestinian Jewish names that there would be remarkable rarity for that specific father, son, brother configuration. To do that would also require Jackpot Jesus having been described as the brother of James in life, for which we have no evidence (nor for that matter that Second-place Jackpot James' father was named Joseph).

Assumptions piled on assumptions, resting on botched tests and the essential impossibility of retesting.

Oh - on the Josephus, etc. my affirmative theory is that he was writing about the early church. Assuming we have the dates right, then there would be at least two now-canonical Gospels and who knows how many non-canonical gospels, passion accounts, sayings collections, ... available to writers in the 90's (as Josephus says he is). The cat's been out of the bag long before we hear its first meow.

I was under the impression Golan was found not guilty of fraud?

I'm of the opinion, based on the writings of non biblical historians, the James ossuary and the Talpoit tomb that there is a good chance that a person called Jesus, who had the brother James, son of Joseph and Mary existed in or around the times of which the gospels speak off. Weather or not this Jesus was the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is definitely up for debate. If the Talpoit tomb is infact Jesus of Nazareths tomb, which in all likelihood may well not be based on statistical analysis of regional names but it's a coincidence that the inscriptions match names mentioned in the Gospels. If you exclude the mention of Mariamne and Judah son of Jesus and accept it is the tomb of Jesus's of Nazareths family. Then you also have to accept the accounts in the Bible are nonsense, specifically the resurrection and the ommision that Jesus had a son and that he assented to heaven.

Edited May 14, 2018 by danydandan

[Only_]

8 hours ago, JMPD1 said:

No, I would not. If Christianity were true, that would mean that the OT was also true. And if the god depicted in the OT is THE god, then he is an immoral son of a female dog who does not deserve worship.

You claim to be an atheist - a beacon a reason - but would not accept the truth? How's that reason, how's that rational? It's not. If you don't want it to be true it's because you have a moral issue, an emotional issue. Perhaps even an accountability issue. Some atheists don't want there to be a God, they want to be God. They don't want to have a moral authority above them. Clearly, you are not on a truth quest, you are in a happiness quest.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Brother_Spirit

[Emma_Acid]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

I agree with you, an explanation of what the "truth" is. There are so many inaccurate, contradictory and false statements in the Bible it's difficult to see why anyone who has an IQ above 90 would believe it's true. But with that being said it doesn't mean everything in the Bible is false.

Not at all. But the stuff that is wrong completely disqualifies it from ever being an accurate representation of the truth. So - I'll ask again, what doesn't "Christianity" mean? Because if its following a God not worth believing in and Son we know nothing about, I'm not sure what the pull is really.

[Emma_Acid]

11 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

You claim to be an atheist - a beacon a reason - but would not accept the truth? How's that reason, how's that rational? It's not. If you don't want it to be true it's because you have a moral issue, an emotional issue. Perhaps even an accountability issue. Some atheists don't want there to be a God, they want to be God. They don't want to have a moral authority above them. Clearly, you are not on a truth quest, you are in a happiness quest.

Problem is, you cannot define "the truth".

[Jodie.Lynne]

25 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

You claim to be an atheist - a beacon a reason - but would not accept the truth? How's that reason, how's that rational? It's not. If you don't want it to be true it's because you have a moral issue, an emotional issue. Perhaps even an accountability issue. Some atheists don't want there to be a God, they want to be God. They don't want to have a moral authority above them. Clearly, you are not on a truth quest, you are in a happiness quest.

 

 

I posted elsewhere, that if a being presented itself as a god, beyond doubt or subterfuge, then I would acknowledge its existence. But I can not, in good conscience bow down to a deity that endorses slavery, murder, rape, racial hatred, and the abuse of children and women. Your Yahweh isn't a moral authority, he is the celestial equivalent of a mob boss. "Nice life ya got here. It would be a shame to have in end in the pit of hellfire. Maybe you should just bow to me and tell me you love me, just like I love you."

If THAT is your god, then I will happily, and with pride, take my place in hell, because it would mean that I was more moral than your god.

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, Brother_Spirit said:

You claim to be an atheist - a beacon a reason - but would not accept the truth? How's that reason, how's that rational? It's not. If you don't want it to be true it's because you have a moral issue, an emotional issue. Perhaps even an accountability issue. Some atheists don't want there to be a God, they want to be God. They don't want to have a moral authority above them. Clearly, you are not on a truth quest, you are in a happiness quest.

 

 

You still have not posted what facet of Christianity we are suppose to hold as truth, can you elaborate? But if your making a broad sweeping statement in a generalised fashion, if something is found to be true and is backed up with infallible evidence then you would have to accept it being true. But it doesn't mean you have to accept it into your life.

Edited May 14, 2018 by danydandan

[Only_]

3 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Problem is, you cannot define "the truth".

The truth is what is can be undoubtely proven, what is ''fact''. Reality. If Christianity were true, JMPD1 said he still wouldn't accept it based on his own emotional and moral reasons. That exposes him as someone not so much interested in the truth, despite claims of the contrary.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Brother_Spirit

[Only_]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

You still have not posted what facet of Christianity we are suppose to hold as truth, can you elaborate?

The essentials of the Christian faith are:

- The deity of Christ

- Salvation by grace

- Salvation through Jesus Christ

- The resurrection of Christ

- The New Testament Gospels

- Monotheism

- The Holy Trinity

These are the tenets of Christianity that pretty much all denominations can agree on.

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Brother_Spirit

[Jodie.Lynne]

8 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

The truth is what is can be undoubtely proven, what is ''fact''. If Christianity were proven, were a 'fact', JMPD1 said he still wouldn't accept it. That exposes him as someone not so much interested in the truth, but by what makes him happy.

Please stop interpreting my motives because you are deadarse wrong. Your god is a thug. Read my last post regarding your assumption of my motives.

Do you not comprehend that one can accept that there may be a god, but that deity is reprehensible to some? Kind of like an occupied country; the inhabitants might accept the fact that they are under the flag of another nation, that doesn't mean that they will embrace their occupiers with open arms.

 

You are just slinging the old theist argument that non believers don't believe because they "want to sin." which is pure b******s.

But you go right on bowing and scraping to a god who takes pride in the fact that he kills children. Have fun with that

[eight bits]

6 hours ago, danydandan said:

I was under the impression Golan was found not guilty of fraud?

Yes. Golan was found not guilty of all the major charges against him. The court made no finding (I am told; the decision is 495 pages, I rely on news summaries) as to the genuineness of the items in question, which included the ossuary. They were not on trial.

There is no dispute that Miriam, Joseph, Jacob, Joshua, etc. were common Palestinian Jewish names in the late Second Temple period. Some people with those names died in Jerusalem. Some of them had tombs.

Quote

but it's a coincidence that the inscriptions match names mentioned in the Gospels.

Hardly a coincidence. The Gospel story, whether fact or fiction, is set during the 30's of the First Century, in Palestine, with mostly Jewish characters.

Quote

Then you also have to accept the accounts in the Bible are nonsense, specifically the resurrection and the ommision that Jesus had a son and that he assented to heaven.

That wouldn't bother me personally, but there's a problem connecting such a man with the "historical Jesus." If all I know about the guy is that he didn't resurrect, he didn't ascend to heaven and he did have a son, then he could just as well be any old Joshua at all.

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by eight bits

[+Liquid Gardens]

35 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

The truth is what is can be undoubtely proven, what is ''fact''. If Christianity were proven, were a 'fact', JMPD1 said he still wouldn't accept it. That exposes him as someone not so much interested in the truth, but by what makes him happy.

I think JMPD1 has cleared this up, but the above isn't really an accurate summation of the situation.  You asked JMPD1 if Christianity were 'true', would he be a Christian.  That is a lot different question than asking if he would accept it as a fact, which I think everyone would since you have the given that it is a fact.  It has nothing to do with choosing happiness over truth, it has to do with values.  If it could be proven that non-white races are inferior, would you be a member of the KKK?  I think you'd say no, and for some it's the same situation with being a Christian.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Brother_Spirit said:

The truth is what is can be undoubtely proven, what is ''fact''. Reality. If Christianity were true, JMPD1 said he still wouldn't accept it based on his own emotional and moral reasons. That exposes him as someone not so much interested in the truth, despite claims of the contrary.

Or are you just annoyed that he didn't give an outright yes, offering you the opportunity to post dust covers and make wild claims about books you haven't read........ again. 

[Guyver]

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

A "miracle" cannot happen.  But consider the implications if it does.  The next problem, of course, is to prove that it is a miracle - sort of like proving a negative.

Doug

I guess it depends on how you define miracle Doug.  By miracle, I mean something that could not naturally occur, but does anyway.  Yes, those can and do happen and I am witness.  

 

[Guyver]

19 hours ago, joc said:

The mind created  God by seeking answers for questions it had no way of knowing. Not really a mystery nor a deep philosophical anomoly.

Do you think the mind created the square root of two, or does it exist whether anyone thinks about it or not?

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, Brother_Spirit said:

The truth is what is can be undoubtely proven, what is ''fact''. Reality. If Christianity were true, JMPD1 said he still wouldn't accept it based on his own emotional and moral reasons. That exposes him as someone not so much interested in the truth, despite claims of the contrary.

No JMPD1 stated that if God appeared out of no where they would accept the there is a God.However just because there is a God doesn't mean you have to abide by it's whims and will. Hense the whole freewill thing we have.

But I suppose that really doesn't answer question as you would still have to agree in the Holy Trinity, Jesus etc etc. So maybe in a way if the God that appeared out of no where stated that Christianity is true and all the Gospels are correct, even with there many inaccuracies and contradictions, then you would still have to accept Christianity is true or fact, but that doesn't mean you have to become a Christian.

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by danydandan

[XenoFish]

9 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Do you think the mind created the square root of two, or does it exist whether anyone thinks about it or not?

Do you or I exist when no one observes us? If God exist independent of us as some outside force, how are we to know or even comprehend such a thing? This lead to the question of god not being knowable, because if god cannot ever been know, then all religions are just made up garbage. If god can be know, then it should by all accounts be observable in some way shape or form. If god is ever proven to actually exist, what created it, thus the infinite question(s) begin.

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, Brother_Spirit said:

The essentials of the Christian faith are:

- The deity of Christ

- Salvation by grace

- Salvation through Jesus Christ

- The resurrection of Christ

- The New Testament Gospels

- Monotheism

- The Holy Trinity

These are the tenets of Christianity that pretty much all denominations can agree on.

 

Sorry, but this is not accurate.  Few denominations of Christianity agree on all of these "essentials" and several groups actually consider Monotheism and the Holy Trinity mutually exclusive.  Jehovah Witnesses for example, accept Monotheism, but not the Holy Trinity - which BTW - is not a title found in the Bible.  Oneness Pentecostals, aka "Jesus Only" Pentecostals are Monotheistic but define it differently than Jehovah Witnesses.  Catholics and some Protestant groups do agree on Monotheism and the Holy Trinity but deny salvation by grace the way Luther defined it.  These are just a few examples of how these tenets listed are actually not agreed upon by all denominations.  FWIW.  

[Guyver]

11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Do you or I exist when no one observes us? If God exist independent of us as some outside force, how are we to know or even comprehend such a thing? This lead to the question of god not being knowable, because if god cannot ever been know, then all religions are just made up garbage. If god can be know, then it should by all accounts be observable in some way shape or form. If god is ever proven to actually exist, what created it, thus the infinite question(s) begin.

Yes, we exist whether on not anyone observes us.  Rene Descartes demonstrated this nicely in his "Evil Demon Hypothesis" from the 17th Century with his "Cogito Ergo Sum."  With the advent of supercomputers in recent times, some people have attempted to refute this proposition, but it's really more splitting hairs than anything. 

For, even if we exist only in the form of a subset of a supercomputer - the fact that we have freedom of thought does demonstrate that we exist in some form.