CrashFrog vs. Juhrahnimo: A friendly discussion

No, J. I just read the Bible, observed that God did absolutely nothing that people said he did; that all the explanations people gave for that phenomenon were exactly like the explanations battered wives give for their abusive husbands.My faith "matured" to the point where I could not expect God to intervene, nor for prayer to have any effect except as a meditation and a key for helping me cope with outcomes. At that point, I was like "what's the point?" I realized that the God I believed was indistinguishable from no God at all, hence, atheism. (Agnostic atheism, just to be precisce.)In other words I became an atheist not because somebody told me to, or gave me "false impressions", but because the God of Christianity cannot be reconciled with observations of the world we live in; and because the only God that can be so reconciled is a God indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist. At the time it felt like Jesus filled a hole in myself, made me more complete. You know, like people say.Perhaps that was true; perhaps it was merely a teenager's desire to fit in with friends who were doing the same; maybe it was some of both. At any rate I no longer have that need, and atheism, in addition to being so obviously right, makes me feel a whole lot better about my station in the universe.

I'll readily admit this was the case; but here's the thing - what's the point of God if he isn't those things? I mean I could believe in a God incapable or unwilling to intervene in the world, but what would be the point? What would distinguish that belief from atheism? I will go ahead and answer this, because I feel it's important you know. Yes, I'm much more hopeful now as an atheist than I was as a believer. I'm more fulfilled and confident in my future as an atheist. Yes. No. Or rather I don't believe it to be very likely. I wasn't, after all, there. Because such an act is, to the best of human knowledge, impossible.

At this point, does anybody really think Juhrahnimo possesses such spiritual insight that he's going to be able teach me something? Considering how he flies off the handle at the slightest prod to his pride, I doubt it.Might as well close the thread; we're done here. I don't think he's got the maturity for a genuine spiritual debate, or even a friendly discussion.

I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you, especially after you've so sincerely tried to steer the topic back on track.But I simply don't see a spiritual common ground for us to discuss from, so I simply don't think it will be fruitful. I appreciate the effort, though.

The problem with Flew is that he's never been an atheist, as far as I can tell; he's widely reported as one but has never said that he is. Rather he was and continues to be a deist.Regardless, the answer to your question is, if you'll pardon my Polish, "I don't give a fuck." Why would I care about the beliefs of some old fogey? Atheism isn't like religion; we don't follow dogma or worship leader figures. If atheism doesn't do it for Flew, I don't see why it's any of my concern.

No, I fully believe that absolutely none of us really know what happens after we die, just as absolutely none of us really know if there's a God or not, or if the supernatural exists. The reason that I know that none of us knows these things is because I know these things are fundamentally unknowable; hence, atheism.

Wait, what? Where exactly did I say that?Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.I don't believe there's any evidence that God exists. The reason I believe this (this belief being called "atheism") is because there doesn't seem to be any evidence that God exists.

Thank you, Obi Wan-Kenobi. Well, no, there's not. There's perhaps accounts of those accounts - maybe - but none of the authors of the Bible were eyewitnesses, or claimed to be.I believe in the essential veracity of the historical events you described because they're quite mundane - people cross rivers or hammer nails all the time. I can observe people doing these things if I choose to.But nobody has ever been observed to rise from the dead after three days; it's apparently impossible. The standard of proof to substantiate these claims, therefore, is much, much higher. Not ever. Of course, I make it a point to attempt to understand the difference between those things that are just really hard to do; and those things that are physically impossible. I don't claim this knowledge to be perfect, of course.But I've never seen anything "impossible" happen. No supposed "magic" or "psychic" power has ever withstood scrutiny; it's always tricks and nonsense. (Now I'm playing the Han Solo to your Ben Kenobi.) Well, lets put it this way. If God wanted to act or exist in such a way that his presence could never be detected, he could. So I can't say that the total lack of evidence for God means he doesn't exist. The same thing goes for everything supernatural. If it exists but doesn't want to be detected, then it won't be.The question of the existence of God is essentially unknowable. Now, the flip side is, if God wants to be indetectable, he has to act like he doesn't exist. Hence, I'm safe in acting like he doesn't exist. What eyewitnesses?

It seems a little far-fetched. I don't think crucifixion is that survivable. If half the account of the passion is true I don't see it as survivable.

Who? Who are they? Where do we find their direct testimony?

Who weren't there. Whose earliest accounts still weren't written until some 60 years after the events they describe. Whose later accounts are based not on testimony but on the earlier Gospels.I'm sorry but I don't find that compelling, and I certainly don't see the eyewitness accounts that you refer to. And do you have their verifications? No, you don't. Do you have any witnesses to that? No, you don't. None of your "written evidence" is the account of an eyewitness. Of course the Gospels largely agree with each other; they were copied from each other. Plagarized. It's not any kind of testimony, because there's no evidence the writers were there. At best it's hearsay; at worst it's their own invention. Do you have copies of those verifications? Direct statements from the hand of those people? No, you don't. The accounts of who, specifically? Yes, of course. And should verification of that transcript be required, that witness can be summoned to testify again, because we have their name and address.What you have is a written record of "some people say they saw this." That's not testimony of any kind. You have no eyewitnesses whatsoever. If you insist. Now, I'm not much of a Biblical scholar, but I can detect bullshit when I see it, and I can read clearly written articles on the subject. Here's excerpts from the Wiki article on the Gospel of John:

quote:

---

Almost all critical scholars place the writing of the final edition of John at some time in the late first or early second century. The text states only that the Fourth Gospel was written by an anonymous follower of Jesus referred to as the Beloved Disciple. Traditionally he was identified as John the Apostle, who was believed to have lived at the end of his life at Ephesus.

​

Scholarly research since the 19th century has questioned the apostle John's authorship, however, and has presented internal evidence that the work was written many decades after the events it describes. The text provides strong evidence that it was written after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and after the break between Judaism and Christianity.

​

Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in a number of stages (probably two or three) beginning at an unknown time (AD 50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (our Gospel of John) around AD 95-100

---

John doesn't sound like the reliable testimony of an eyewitness to me; it sounds, like the rest of the Gospels, as a frequently-redacted manuscript that evolved and changed as the early church evolved and changed.The truth of Jesus's life and death is, at this point, lost to history. I see no evidence to ascribe supernatural or miraculous doings to Jesus any more than I see reason to ascribe them to Gilgamesh, or Beowulf (my favorite), or King Arthur, who might themselves all been real figures who were blown out of proportion, just like Jesus.

Yes, based on the quality of the evidence and the burden of proof required to support the claim.I may not need a number of independant verifiers to believe that my friend's story about walking down to the corner store is true. I do, on the other hand, need those verifiers to believe that a murder occured the way the prosecution says it did. There's a greater burden of proof on the second claim; there's a remarkably high bruden of proof on a claim of a miraculous rise from the dead, which the Gospels do not even come close to meeting.

But some people said he did, and there would have been eyewitnesses if he did, so surely he must have? By your logic from the other post?

The question is what it is most reasonable to accept, and to reject. I've made a pretty good argument that the Bible must be rejected by resonable people as "proof" of the ressurection. But we know they existed and that they died because we have the records of that. We know some particulars of their lives, so we can ascertain whether or not their testimony was cocerced, or motivated by malice. And we can always try to compare that testimony to other, independant sources.But there's no independant source for the ressurection of Jesus. There's only the four gospels, repeatedly redacted and based, for the most part, on each other. I'm not inclined to take your opinion over that of the majority of scholars. Expects in textual analysis have concluded the opposite of your opinion. Of course it's all just opinion. I'm unable to defend one position over another; I can merely tell you whose opinion I'm going to defer to on this, a matter that I'm not really concerned about. Heh. What's your contingency plan for when you're at the Throne of Judgement, and it turns out that it was the Muslims who were right all along?Anyway, I'm not worried. If God insists on acting like he doesn't exist then I can hardly be blamed for taking him at his word. But that's off-topic. Reasonable people set reasonable guidelines that determine what they accept or reject. Only those driven by dogma accept or reject what they'd like to be true.

I'm not saying that you have to believe it for the same reason; I was simply giving you the basis for my conclusions on the subject. Geez. I think it was said already, but:1) Show up. Anyone can claim to be God. It's as easy as saying so. I don't see how a demostration of godly power would suffice, either - how could you substantiate infinite power with finite actions? How could I know that the being before me had the nature of God, and wasn't simply concealing his true motives?Here's the thing; if there's any doubt that this is God, then it's not God. The thing that would convince me this was God would be that I wouldn't have to be convinced.