Religion IS crazy!

[barney]

So many legitimate arguments for and against the existence of "God" ...... who knows for sure; obviously no one does (for sure) It is a belief based on faith and personal experience.

I was bought up in a Christian environment .... As an adult I have become quite disillusioned by many "Christian" ideals and beliefs .....

Quick example ...... If the God of the universe revealed him/herself to me and I unequivocally believed they existed ...... then they asked me as a sign of my newfound belief to sacrifice one of my children as an example of my enlightenment, I would tell the God of the universe to "go to hell"

Could anyone here put their own child to death if God instructed you to ...... If you say yes, you are definitely off my Christmas list!

it almost scares me that so many "enlightened" people can accept blood sacrifice as a reasonable way for their God of the universe to behave


No wonder Jesus felt so rejected when they strung him up .... his supposed own Father had orchestrated his death. Why? ..... Just so he could bring him back to life to show his power. That is not love, that is EGO!

Do I think "God" exists; A higher life force than man in the Universe .... highly possible.

A Christian God who condones killing, murder and bloodshed .... no thanks!

Bit of a rant, sorry

 

[Value Collector]

People seem to think that holding atheist views requires no evidence for the inconsistencies of their world views.
...."

Atheism isn't a world view, is one opinion on one topic.

But I here this....hey "one day with infinite time and infinite resources science will support the atheist view....that I hold prior to having no evidence for a self existent universe

I am an atheist because I have never seen any evidence that suggests a god exists, I need to have a good reason to believe something. Believing an unproven hypothisis just because it can't be disproven is just plan silly.

There is strong evidence (as is apparent when researched with even a little objectivity) that Christ resurrected.

Such as, can you provide your best piece of evidence.

Therefore it is Him who I will listen to about the purpose of life, life after death etc.

And what has he told you the purpose of life is?

Everyone has the RIGHT to hold whatever view they want, but it doesn't make the view itself correct.

Exactly, so before you start pressing you personal view on others, you have to demonstrate you are correct, otherwise keep you silly religion to yourself.

Like I said, not because I said it.... but because the only one who has conquered death has said it....

you still haven't provided evidence for that claim yet, and Jesus certainly isn't the only religious figure that was said to have risen from the dead, he is not even the only one in the bible to rise from the dead.

 

[Value Collector]

So many legitimate arguments for the existence of "God" ......

Really, I have never seen one. Can you give us a before outline of the best argument there is for god.

it almost scares me that so many "enlightened" people can accept blood sacrifice as a reasonable way for their God of the universe to behave

I find it extremely weird that the catholic faith involves sitting in front of a replica corpse, bashed and hung on a cross, while they simulate drinking its blood and eating its flesh. The fact that this is accepted as a good family endeavour shocks me, and the fact they say us unbelievers are immoral shocks me even more.

 

[Ruby]

Secondly. I have provided much evidence and have seen very little for opposing views. People seem to think that holding atheist views requires no evidence for the inconsistencies of their world views.
But I here this....hey "one day with infinite time and infinite resources science will support the atheist view....that I hold prior to having no evidence for a self existent universe...."

Pav, I have read everyone of your posts, and in spite of repeated requests from many posters, and repeated assertions from you that it exists, you have never provided a shred evidence for the things you claim (eg, the resurrection of Christ). When pressed, you always back off, claim you are being victimised (my terminology), and go off in a huff, only to return later and claim you have given us your evidence.

Now I don't really mind what people believe (I respect Duckman's view and the way he expresses it) but you are so strident in your claims for the existence of evidence I think we feel you are obliged to produce it. You never do.

As for providing evidence for the atheistic view - well, that is not possible; just as it is not possible to provide evidence that fairies don't exist, astrology doesn't work, and Elvis is not alive and well in Gracelands. If you claim something exists, the onus is on you to provide the evidence; not the other way round.

 

[overhang]

Pav, I have read everyone of your posts, and in spite of repeated requests from many posters, and repeated assertions from you that it exists, you have never provided a shred evidence for the things you claim (eg, the resurrection of Christ). When pressed, you always back off, claim you are being victimised (my terminology), and go off in a huff, only to return later and claim you have given us your evidence.

Now I don't really mind what people believe (I respect Duckman's view and the way he expresses it) but you are so strident in your claims for the existence of evidence I think we feel you are obliged to produce it. You never do.

As for providing evidence for the atheistic view - well, that is not possible; just as it is not possible to provide evidence that fairies don't exist, astrology doesn't work, and Elvis is not alive and well in Gracelands. If you claim something exists, the onus is on you to provide the evidence; not the other way round.

I think Pav goes away and prays for evidence

 

[burglar]

I think Pav goes away and prays for evidence

Retreat?!

 

[barney]

Really, I have never seen one. Can you give us a before outline of the best argument there is for god.

Howdy VC .... Just as a pre-cursor (before we get into an incredibly uncomfortable argument about the pros and cons of the existence of a supreme deity) ..... I enjoy and appreciate your posts

"Arguments for a God" ........ simple really .....

God (to me), is simply a higher life form than man ..... (not some all empowered, all knowing, I'm better at you than everything Being which we would need to bow down and worship ...... Rather, another existing life form that is further advanced than Man is

Of course my concept of God may be totally erroneous, (and maybe I will burn in Hell), but, God to me is ......

An entity which has been fortunate enough to evolve to a point where it can control its own destiny, and, potentially control the destiny of other (maybe our) life forms.

My logic behind this line of thinking ........ Humans (you and I) are living breathing creatures ... ie. we appear to be real and existing ... yes??

If we are real and existing (I assume agreed?) .... and, (assuming we are not the top of the Universal "food chain"), then it is logical (for me) to accept that ........

A higher level "food chain" exists which is "Superior" to "my world" ..... ie. "GOD" (God is simply a higher evolved life form than Man) .....

On that summation .... Man may well achieve his own God status in the future (to other beings in the Universe) ... he may well control and orchestrate the "existence" of other life forms (on Earth or perhaps other Planets in the Universe) ...... Those life forms will then likely perceive him (Man) as "GOD" ...... scary!!

If you understood the above, then .... thank you for your patience ........ and welcome to my world .... lol ... but don't disregard my assumption as erroneous without consideration!

 

[FxTrader]

I completely agree. "Doctrinally" he is not a fundamentalist, but when viewed against the position of modern day Christianity he is. Religion is full of contradictions and remains an enigma. A puzzling conundrum that I don't fully understand - even as a attending Catholic. I like the parts that relate to my life, I encourage my family to live to the values held up by the Church, I enjoy the structure that the church plays in my life, I certainly agree with and support the Christian education my kids are afforded. Do I live in fear of eternal damnation? No. Do I believe in slavery? No! Do I cover myself in vipers to test my faith? No thanks

The strong belief in religious myth is definitely an enigma given the fantastic claims and assertions made in divinely inspired magic books without compelling, corroborating evidence to support such claims. Religious belief and the traditions wrapped around it are more mythical in nature than enigmatic.

The Catholic church would no doubt prefer that you remain puzzled about their brand of Christian myth and keep attending church for enlightenment while accepting your money in the offering plate in exchange. Given the moral filth that has been exposed at all levels of the Catholic church I remain bemused by how many still cling to the traditions and teachings of this morally bankrupt religious institution.

It would seem that you find religious belief useful for social structure and moral instruction while conveniently discarding the uncomfortable parts you don't agree with. You portray the indoctrination of your children in Christian myth as a positive for them because, presumably, it instills values in them at your behest as a parental proxy. However, I assert once again that the books of the Bible and the fantastic claims therein are not true or correct because they're useful in some way. The is no such thing as a good fraud in this context.

You've misunderstood my point. My whole argument was "live and let live". People who are religious should be treated with respect and tolerance. Referring to religious beliefs as brainwashed myths, fairy stories, and old wives tales is disrespectful, dismissive and intolerant. I also believe people have a right not to believe in religion.

People should indeed be treated with respect and tolerance as human beings. Their religious beliefs however do not deserve respect when asserted without evidence while claiming to be absolute truth with the consequences of non-belief being eternal hellfire. Such incredible arrogance and total confidence in the incredible claims made in magic books can and should be subjected to criticism and be dismissed as mythical nonsense.

If you want to then say that I am not a "true Christian" go ahead. Religion is a very complex and personal experience. I'm sorry that I don't fit nicely into your box Fx.

I said nothing of the kind but no doubt many other Christians would brand you as such. Rather I would say that, based on your statements here so far, you're a typical lukewarm moderate Christian who embraces religion as a lifestyle choice while rejecting the parts that are more contentions or objectionable - customized Christianity if you will. Molding the Christian message into a form that is more palatable for personal consumption is simply being dishonest with yourself about the foundational tenets and core themes of your faith by wearing a intellectual blindfold.

As to complexity, religious institutions would like to portray the Christian message as complex but in reality New Testament Christianity is quite simple to understand and can easily be summarized in one sermon from the pulpit. If religion was just about personal experience and claimed to be nothing else then human society would likely be in a much better place at the moment.

 

[Value Collector]

Howdy VC .... Just as a pre-cursor (before we get into an incredibly uncomfortable argument about the pros and cons of the existence of a supreme deity) ..... I enjoy and appreciate your posts

"Arguments for a God" ........ simple really .....

God (to me), is simply a higher life form than man ..... (not some all empowered, all knowing, I'm better at you than everything Being which we would need to bow down and worship ...... Rather, another existing life form that is further advanced than Man is

Of course my concept of God may be totally erroneous, (and maybe I will burn in Hell), but, God to me is ......

An entity which has been fortunate enough to evolve to a point where it can control its own destiny, and, potentially control the destiny of other (maybe our) life forms.

My logic behind this line of thinking ........ Humans (you and I) are living breathing creatures ... ie. we appear to be real and existing ... yes??

If we are real and existing (I assume agreed?) .... and, (assuming we are not the top of the Universal "food chain"), then it is logical (for me) to accept that ........

A higher level "food chain" exists which is "Superior" to "my world" ..... ie. "GOD" (God is simply a higher evolved life form than Man) .....

On that summation .... Man may well achieve his own God status in the future (to other beings in the Universe) ... he may well control and orchestrate the "existence" of other life forms (on Earth or perhaps other Planets in the Universe) ...... Those life forms will then likely perceive him (Man) as "GOD" ...... scary!!

If you understood the above, then .... thank you for your patience ........ and welcome to my world .... lol ... but don't disregard my assumption as erroneous without consideration!

Oh ok, If your defining god as simply a higher life form, then yes I would have to agree, it is possible for a god to exist under that definition, how ever I think there are many better words to use to define such a thing that don't come with all the baggage of the word god.

The problem with using the word God to define a life form, is that most people use the word god to describe a creator of the universe, However any evolved being would not have been around at the beginning, and would have been the end result of a long evolution process, not the first cause of the process, and it would be the result of physics not the creator of the laws of physics.

Also, Even if we know its possible for such a life form to exist, we still don't know if one does, after all it is possible we are the most advanced creature in the universe, although I wouldn't bet on it.

I have had a guy try to get me to admit god exists by defining god as love, I told him if thats the sole definition your using for a god, then yes god exists, but I find these types of discussions where god is defined into existence are pointless, its best to stick to proper terms, if we want to talk about love, let's call it love, if we want to talk about aliens, let's call them aliens,

 

[bunyip]

Whether or not God exists is really neither here nor there to me. I don’t believe he does, since I’ve never seen any evidence of it. Nor do I believe that there’s any evidence of what’s attributed to him/her/it if he does exist.
Creation of the human race, for example? No evidence whatsoever that God was the architect and builder of the first humans on earth. No evidence whatever that there were no humans, and then suddenly there was a man and a woman, both created by God, who could talk, breathe, reason and breed as humans can today.

But even if God does exist, what gets up my nose is the lies that are told by people who hero-worship this god of theirs.
For example, the ‘god of compassion and love’. Try telling that to the Jews whose families were subjected to such brutality under the Nazis. Try telling the people in Iraq that their God is loving and compassionate and fair and just, as they’re driven from their homes and their men beheaded and their women taken into slavery by the sub-human animals who call themselves the ‘Islamic State’.

God of compassion and love, fair and just, always on the side of righteousness, someone you can count in in times of trouble? Ppffttt – what utter nonsense!
If he exists, he couldn't give a stuff about you or me or anyone else. If you had a neighbor or relative who was cold and uncaring, you’d have nothing to do with them. And yet we’re supposed to worship this God character as a role model of love and compassion and fairness and decency who deserves our total admiration and respect and gratitude. And if we don’t, we’re wicked and selfish and our fate is to spend eternity burning in hell.

How any sensible, thinking adult can believe this rot is beyond me. That’s why religion starts working on people while they’re very young children, indoctrinating them with religious views while their thinking and reasoning skills are still very much underdeveloped. Religion knows perfectly well that if they miss the chance of brainwashing kids when they're little, then they have little hope of doing so in later life when the kids can think and reason for themselves.

 

[pavilion103]

Pav, I have read everyone of your posts, and in spite of repeated requests from many posters, and repeated assertions from you that it exists, you have never provided a shred evidence for the things you claim (eg, the resurrection of Christ). When pressed, you always back off, claim you are being victimised (my terminology), and go off in a huff, only to return later and claim you have given us your evidence.

Now I don't really mind what people believe (I respect Duckman's view and the way he expresses it) but you are so strident in your claims for the existence of evidence I think we feel you are obliged to produce it. You never do.

As for providing evidence for the atheistic view - well, that is not possible; just as it is not possible to provide evidence that fairies don't exist, astrology doesn't work, and Elvis is not alive and well in Gracelands. If you claim something exists, the onus is on you to provide the evidence; not the other way round.

Even just take a look through something like this link below. Here is one quote from it following the evidence listed:

http://www.bible.ca/d-resurrection-evidence-Josh-McDowell.htm

Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."


That link provides many pieces of evidence that
1) The resurrection did occur
2) There are no other ways to account for some of these things.


I provided a number of these points previously, but because you have asked here they are

It isn't that I have no evidence that I tell people to look back at previous posts, it is that it get tedious repeating the same things. I hope this link helps.

 

[pavilion103]

It is an interesting study if anyone cares to take the time to research those who went out to actively disprove the resurrection and ended up being compelled to affirm it, in the light of overwhelming evidence.

I doubt many have researched the historicity of this event or even anything relating to the life of Christ.

Further to that, when compared to other events in history the evidence is mind-boggling and overwhelming.

Yet, I see incredible bias when people are prepared to accept other historical events as having occurred, or even other historical people having existed, yet reject the events which have the most overwhelming evidence because their subjective mind would rather not believe it.

People would rather not apply an consistent historical standard to the resurrection of Christ, simply because they believe that "It couldn't have happened."

This is the reason I loathe posting evidence over and over again.... because it is not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of objectivity that is present.


But, being pressed, I have posted that above link which is one of many out there. That one was from a simple Google search.

 

[pavilion103]

More quotes from the article among the various evidence.

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
F. F. Bruce
Manchester University


I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University


There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.
Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University


For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

 

[Value Collector]

Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."


That link provides many pieces of evidence that
1) The resurrection did occur
2) There are no other ways to account for some of these things.

LOL, that's not evidence at all. It's simply taking the Biblical account as fact.

When it asks this question.

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?

It fails to prove the tomb even existed, I mean the bible story was written decades after Jesus's alleged Burial, its quite possible the whole story of the tomb was fabricated.

It then moves on to just guess that the authors may have spoken to eye witnesses, This is also un reliable, I can go and find eye witness accounts of people abducted by aliens, it doesn't mean its true.

All this article is doing is quoting bible stories as if they are proven historical events, Its circular reasoning at its best.

Do you Accept the eye witness accounts in the qu'ran as proof of Muhammed's stories being true. If not, why not?

 

[pavilion103]

Have you done any research on the historicity of the tomb?

What about on the death of Christ?

You do realise that "decades after" is an absurdly short timeframe for writing down events after they occurred in these cultures? The fact that they were written in the lifetime of eye-witnesses is extraordinary. There was no time for myth to spring up. Further more, there was no account of a "natural Jesus" and then this changed to a "supernatural Jesus." This was the original account.

Furthermore, the apostles were in the position to know 100% whether Christ's resurrection was true or not (obviously). Secular historical writings document their deaths. They died for this fact.
Prior to the resurrection they were cowards on the run, denying Jesus. All of a sudden they see something and are completely transformed and go to their death for the resurrection.


We could go on and on. It is easy to see why I don't bother to respond to post after post.

The evidence is compelling.

 

[overhang]

It is an interesting study if anyone cares to take the time to research those who went out to actively disprove the resurrection and ended up being compelled to affirm it, in the light of overwhelming evidence.

I doubt many have researched the historicity of this event or even anything relating to the life of Christ.

Further to that, when compared to other events in history the evidence is mind-boggling and overwhelming.

Yet, I see incredible bias when people are prepared to accept other historical events as having occurred, or even other historical people having existed, yet reject the events which have the most overwhelming evidence because their subjective mind would rather not believe it.

People would rather not apply an consistent historical standard to the resurrection of Christ, simply because they believe that "It couldn't have happened."

This is the reason I loathe posting evidence over and over again.... because it is not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of objectivity that is present.


But, being pressed, I have posted that above link which is one of many out there. That one was from a simple Google search.

Pav I read the link you provided and is this really what you base as evidence, to quote something from your link

The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible

well this hyperbole sure sounds convincing...

I would refute your claim that when compared to other historic events the evidence is overwhelming and mind-boggling.

If you would take the time to read this lecture you will see that in fact the evidence is far from overwhelming and actually lacks any credible evidence to suggest the resurrection occurred. Now considering the weight of the evidence Richard Carrier presents I would think that given that was all the evidence you required that this may alter your view but then again those that are blinded by faith have difficulty with logic.

From the lecture

It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

 

[pavilion103]

Do you Accept the eye witness accounts in the qu'ran as proof of Muhammed's stories being true. If not, why not?

Well this one is easy.

The reason I believe in Christ as reliable is because he rose from the dead. Mohammad did not. This is what separates Christ from everyone else. This is the whole basis behind why He should be believed in relation to the purpose of life, death, afterlife etc.

The historicity of the resurrection separates it from other supernatural claims which are not verifiable with the same historical evidence.

The simple fact is that the apostles were cowardly and on the run and then after the resurrection they go to their deaths for what they knew 100% to be truth or lie. People will die for what they think is truth (but might be wrong), but not for what they know 100% is a lie. Their deaths are recorded outside the Bible.


Further to this, The Quaran says things about Jesus completely different to those accounts written only within decades of his life. From a historical perspective you do not believe accounts which occur 400 years after someone's life (from a less reliable source) that contradict accounts written pretty much at the time of their life (written by eye-witnesses and close associates).

 

[SirRumpole]

he following article asserts that most historians agree that Jesus lived, preached in the Gallilee area and was crucified on the orders of Pontious Pilate.

There is not so much evidence as to his resurrection, so I guess people who want to believe it will, others won't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

[Value Collector]

Further to that, when compared to other events in history the evidence is mind-boggling and overwhelming.

Yet, I see incredible bias when people are prepared to accept other historical events as having occurred, or even other historical people having existed, yet reject the events which have the most overwhelming evidence because their subjective mind would rather not believe it.

The only "evidence" people have is the Bible, Which can be shown to be wrong in many other areas, So why should we take it as true.

Also, Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence, If there is an historical claim that a emperor name Ceaser lived, that's not an extrodinary claim, we know men exist and some men become emperors. However if there were claims which said Ceaser was god like (which there were) we can ignore them until they are proved.

People would rather not apply an consistent historical standard to the resurrection of Christ, simply because they believe that "It couldn't have happened."

This is the reason I loathe posting evidence over and over again.... because it is not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of objectivity that is present.

You have the lack of objectivity, you take the biblical claims for granted, while dismissing the claims of other religions, you jump through hoops to justify the claims of Christianity, while dismissing Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, That called special pleading.

Also, on the topic of Historical figures, take a character like Ceaser, there is loads of evidence, from multiple sources that show he existed, But when it comes to jesus, there is no evidence outside the bible.

No contemporary Documents, accounts or artworks exist for jesus. Ceaser on the other hand has many artworks that were made during his life at different ages, written accounts by many sources including his enemies and much more.

Show me where I can find a painting or sculpture of jesus that was done during his life.
Show me where I can find a document that was written by Jesus during his life.
Show me where I can find a document written by an enemy of Jesus during his life.

There is nothing, Jesus is only mentioned in the Bible, which was written many years after he died, by people who never met him.

 

[Value Collector]

he following article asserts that most historians agree that Jesus lived, preached in the Gallilee area and was crucified on the orders of Pontious Pilate.

There is not so much evidence as to his resurrection, so I guess people who want to believe it will, others won't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Even that "evidence" is pretty bias and relies on the bible.

But as I have said earlier, I am willing to take for granted that a Jewish Rabi called Jesus was getting around the area around that time, But it in no way is that evidence of the Mythical story that built over the decades and later made it way into the bible.

Its the Santa vs St Nicholas concept I explained earlier. The existence of St Nicholas does not prove the existence of Santa and his reindeer and elves etc.

So When I say I don't believe Jesus existed, I am saying the Mythical Christian story version of Jesus didn't exist.

It's like if every time you said Santa wasn't real, If I brought out St Nicholas as evidence, it doesn't mean anything, because you weren't talking about St Nicholas.