Religion: The Deuce

[setzer777]

This argument is pointless. On one side is: God Exists, Miracles Happen, The Bible was divinely inspired. The other side says God Does Not Exist, Miracles Don't Happen, The Bible was not divinely inspired. In both cases, the middle step is unnecessary.

If this argument is concerning the existence of God, it is equally pointless. The existence of the Bible does not prove that God exists any more than the existence of Star Wars proves the Force exists. Similarly, the existence of mistranslations of the Bible does not disprove God's existence any more than the existence of a change in perception of Bigfoot disproves Bigfoot's existence.

I think the argument is about whether the following is valid:

1. The Bible is an extremely reliable historical document which documents miracles occurring in a pattern based on God's activities.
2. Therefore it is most rational to conclude that miracles and God in fact exist.

So pointing out issues with the Bible is not an attempt to disprove God's existence, but to undercut an alleged proof of God's existence.

[Heisenberg]

My issue is more with the premise that the Bible is magically 'different' from a standard historical document

Ok, as long as you're applying the same standard to all of history. We can make arguments all day about how the Iliad and the Bible aren't worth studying because they probably differ from the original texts, but until we have the original texts we must make do with what we have.

Also, the Bible never says the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's various references that are implied to mean as much ("to the ends of the Earth!!") have to be seen in the context in which they were written and read. The prophets weren't in a position to communicate astrophysics to illiterate Jewish slaves. They had a hard enough time with concepts like "Don't be a dick!" The fact that these concepts were not recorded does not prove that they were not available to the Bible's authors.

[Ixtellor]

This argument is pointless. On one side is: God Exists, Miracles Happen, The Bible was divinely inspired. The other side says God Does Not Exist, Miracles Don't Happen, The Bible was not divinely inspired. In both cases, the middle step is unnecessary.

If this argument is concerning the existence of God, it is equally pointless. The existence of the Bible does not prove that God exists any more than the existence of Star Wars proves the Force exists. Similarly, the existence of mistranslations of the Bible does not disprove God's existence any more than the existence of a change in perception of Bigfoot disproves Bigfoot's existence.

No.

One side is saying:
1) There is a god
2) The bible is the word of said god and it is true
3) Jesus was a divine being on earth who was resurrected.

The other side is saying:
1) There is ZERO empirical evidence to suggest that there is a god, the bible is believable, or that Jesus was divine. These beliefs are 100% based on man made, man edited books.

I pesonally will be a devout christian the day or second anything undeniably divine actually occurs. (I picture a 500' tall zeus like dude walking around breathing fire, shooting death rays, and telling us in a booming voice "I am god, kneel before me!". It might very well be some alien joke, but I will still become a devout christian at that point)

Christians who try to "prove" their case will lose 100% of the time.
Christians who say "I can't prove it, but I believe it anyway = faith" are more logical and of sound mind than those that falsely believe they can prove anything regarding their beliefs.


Ixtellor

[MoghLiechty2]

Christians who try to "prove" their case will lose 100% of the time.
Christians who say "I can't prove it, but I believe it anyway = faith" are more logical and of sound mind than those that falsely believe they can prove anything regarding their beliefs.

I don't think you're implying this, but none of the Christians arguing here have tried to "prove" their case. As if you could prove anything, including the propositions such as that God doesn't exist, or that Jesus wasn't God. Our main points are to argue that the evidence does not in any way rule out Christianity, and even supports it in a wide array of cases.

The only argument I will ever personally make is that given the evidence, and beginning with the assumption that miracles, God, and Jesus being God are at least possibilities, it is possible to arrive at the conclusions of Christianity without being irrational. Does it still take faith? Yes. Does using faith make you impossible to be correct? No.

[Ixtellor]

The only argument I will ever personally make is that given the evidence, and beginning with the assumption that miracles, God, and Jesus being God are at least possibilities, it is possible to arrive at the conclusions of Christianity without being irrational.

I disagree. It is irrational. There are hundreds,if not thousands, of religions to choose from and is almost certain that you choose Christianity because of the culture you were raised in and/or your family.

What rational reason would their be to choose Christianity over hinduism, Islam, or the Jewish faith? They all have old books written by people long dead, who were edited by man. To put faith in any of those books over the others is going to be completely arbitrary.

One reason Muslims choose their book is because they claim it is perfect. With the classic example of the number of syllabuls consistantly add up to the same number... and that number being the representation of God. (I forget if its by sentance or stanza or chapter).

Of course its possible that the Bible is correct. But its also possible that the universe is ruled by Joseph, a highly depressed excentric frog who plays the Banjo, or that Scientology is true. They are all 'possible'. I just happen to think they are all equally improbably. ESPECIALLY when you factor in that every single one of them is based on something written and edited by man. (I am the author of "Joseph the magic frog" religion)(conicidently 3000 years ago, 26 million people witnessed Joseph play the Banjo - no I dont' have any empirical evidence, but I did just write it down... so have faith.)

Ixtellor

[MoghLiechty2]

What rational reason would their be to choose Christianity over hinduism, Islam, or the Jewish faith? They all have old books written by people long dead, who were edited by man. To put faith in any of those books over the others is going to be completely arbitrary.

OR... We could examine religions on their merits to figure out which one is most likely correct, rather than refuse to study them, discounting them because they're all "based on faith." You will see loads and loads of such arguments in all 55 pages of this 2-part thread.

Of course its possible that the Bible is correct. But its also possible that the universe is ruled by Joseph, a highly depressed excentric frog who plays the Banjo, or that Scientology is true. They are all 'possible'. I just happen to think they are all equally improbably. ESPECIALLY when you factor in that every single one of them is based on something written and edited by man. (I am the author of "Joseph the magic frog" religion)(conicidently 3000 years ago, 26 million people witnessed Joseph play the Banjo - no I dont' have any empirical evidence, but I did just write it down... so have faith.)

Making this argument lowers you to 0 on my scale of respecting your ability to tactfully and objectively examine religion. This is the same sort of argument as the stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster that Dawkins keeps screaming about, an argument that has been decried and refuted many times over. Your Joseph the eccentric frog may be possible, but it's stupidly unlikely... unlike actual religions which have actual evidence for them, so don't compare the two.

[Kurushimi]

I disagree. It is irrational. There are hundreds,if not thousands, of religions to choose from and is almost certain that you choose Christianity because of the culture you were raised in and/or your family.

That logic is non-sequitur. Your argument was that arriving to the same conclusions as the ones found in my religion is illogical. Your point is that there are several religions out there. This does not follow.

What rational reason would their be to choose Christianity over hinduism, Islam, or the Jewish faith? They all have old books written by people long dead, who were edited by man. To put faith in any of those books over the others is going to be completely arbitrary.

None, I suppose. Therefore, it is equally rational to choose any of the above provided one has reasons.

One reason Muslims choose their book is because they claim it is perfect. With the classic example of the number of syllabuls consistantly add up to the same number... and that number being the representation of God. (I forget if its by sentance or stanza or chapter).

That's a logical reason right there. I was under the impression that you thought religion had no logic. That it was irrational.

Of course its possible that the Bible is correct. But its also possible that the universe is ruled by Joseph, a highly depressed excentric frog who plays the Banjo, or that Scientology is true. They are all 'possible'. I just happen to think they are all equally improbably. ESPECIALLY when you factor in that every single one of them is based on something written and edited by man. (I am the author of "Joseph the magic frog" religion)(conicidently 3000 years ago, 26 million people witnessed Joseph play the Banjo - no I dont' have any empirical evidence, but I did just write it down... so have faith.)

Now comparisons like that aren't very good. When someone says things like that, the only thing they do is insult other people. And I don't get that.

Lastly, what are you doing here? What do you hope to accomplish with this?

[setzer777]

Making this argument lowers you to 0 on my scale of respecting your ability to tactfully and objectively examine religion. This is the same sort of argument as the stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster that Dawkins keeps screaming about, an argument that has been decried and refuted many times over. Your Joseph the eccentric frog may be possible, but it's stupidly unlikely... unlike actual religions which have actual evidence for them, so don't compare the two.

Actually, when used properly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is used against one of the attitudes you have a big problem with: "You can't prove or disprove God, so there's no point in critically examining religions or judging their truth or falsity." IIRC, this is the fashion Dawkins uses it in, *solely* as a rebuttal to the argument "you can't disprove God, therefore it's just as rational to believe as to not believe in God". When it comes to arguments that religion has evidence or logic backing it up, Dawkins attempts to refute the arguments themselves. It may be that he does a poor job in refuting them, but it is a gross mis-characterization to imply that he uses the FSM or Russel's Teapot against claims of evidence for religion.

[MoghLiechty2]

Actually, when used properly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is used against one of the attitudes you have a big problem with: "You can't prove or disprove God, so there's no point in critically examining religions or judging their truth or falsity." IIRC, this is the fashion Dawkins uses it in, *solely* as a rebuttal to the argument "you can't disprove God, therefore it's just as rational to believe as to not believe in God". When it comes to arguments that religion has evidence or logic backing it up, Dawkins attempts to refute the arguments themselves. It may be that he does a poor job in refuting them, but it is a gross mis-characterization to imply that he uses the FSM or Russel's Teapot against claims of evidence for religion.

Ah OK. Fair enough. I think someone should tell that to the atheist group that's always on campus dressed up like pirates and worshipping the FSM they built.

My Philosophy of Religion professor would still disagree with that version of the FSM argument. He even specifically mentioned it in class as what a poor representation of the subject is. His particular field of interest is, in fact, the question of "burden of proof", and he says that intrinsically the two claims:

1) The physical world is a result, or a part of, the mental. i.e. God exists.
2) The mental world is a result, or a part of, the physical. i.e. God does not exist.

Are equally probable and bear similar burdens of proof, thus, without adding on "extra" ideas that themselves require real evidence, it is just as rational to believe in God as to believe in Naturalism.

Really, if I weren't a Christian, I would be an Agnostic...

[setzer777]

My Philosophy of Religion professor would still disagree with that version of the FSM argument. He even specifically mentioned it in class as what a poor representation of the subject is. His particular field of interest is, in fact, the question of "burden of proof", and he says that intrinsically the two claims:

1) The physical world is a result, or a part of, the mental. i.e. God exists.
2) The mental world is a result, or a part of, the physical. i.e. God does not exist.

Are equally probable and bear similar burdens of proof, thus, without adding on "extra" ideas that themselves require real evidence, it is just as rational to believe in God as to believe in Naturalism.

Really, if I weren't a Christian, I would be an Agnostic...

I would disagree with your philosophy prof:

1) Does not imply God's existence, unless you define "God" so broadly as to exclude what most people are even arguing for most of the time, and thus redefine the word vastly away from common usage (both in casual and philosophical conversation). Defining the physical world as a subset of the mental does not constitute any proof or argument in favor of God's existence.

Also, it seems questionable to say that they are equally "probable", as the dichotomy between materialism (only matter exists) and idealism (only the mental exists) isn't really subject to probability in the mathematical sense. I'd say that I prefer 2) for a variety of reasons, but none of those reasons are based on empirical evidence, they couldn't be - both materialist and idealist views of the universe can explain the existence of any sort of empirical fact. I will say that either is preferable to the idea that the mental "created" the physical (or vice-versa) in the literal sense, as that introduces the troublesome issues of dualism.

[alexh123456789]

What rational reason would their be to choose Christianity over hinduism, Islam, or the Jewish faith? They all have old books written by people long dead, who were edited by man. To put faith in any of those books over the others is going to be completely arbitrary.

None, I suppose. Therefore, it is equally rational to choose any of the above provided one has reasons.

Or, it's equally irrational to choose any of them.

One reason Muslims choose their book is because they claim it is perfect. With the classic example of the number of syllabuls consistantly add up to the same number... and that number being the representation of God. (I forget if its by sentance or stanza or chapter).

That's a logical reason right there. I was under the impression that you thought religion had no logic. That it was irrational.

That's a rational reason to believe that the original authors were able to count up the number of syllabuls, not a reason to believe in god. For example, people write haikus all the time without any apparent divine inspiration.

Of course its possible that the Bible is correct. But its also possible that the universe is ruled by Joseph, a highly depressed excentric frog who plays the Banjo, or that Scientology is true. They are all 'possible'. I just happen to think they are all equally improbably. ESPECIALLY when you factor in that every single one of them is based on something written and edited by man. (I am the author of "Joseph the magic frog" religion)(conicidently 3000 years ago, 26 million people witnessed Joseph play the Banjo - no I dont' have any empirical evidence, but I did just write it down... so have faith.)

Now comparisons like that aren't very good. When someone says things like that, the only thing they do is insult other people. And I don't get that.

He's parodying the notion that it's logical to believe in one religion over another.

Lets think about this mathematically:

1.Given: There are an infinite number of possible religions.
2.Given: Each has the same chance of being correct (no evidence to the contrary)
3.Given: One of the possible religions is correct.
4.Therefore, the chance of any one religion being the "true" one that describes the nature of god and the universe is one divided by infinity, which is zero.
QED

Now we see that it's foolish to believe in any religion because the chance of it being the right one is zero. That's even assuming that one of the religions is the right one (the third given) and that there is a god.

[The Great Hippo]

Ok, as long as you're applying the same standard to all of history. We can make arguments all day about how the Iliad and the Bible aren't worth studying because they probably differ from the original texts, but until we have the original texts we must make do with what we have.

Even if we had the original texts, it would still be suspect. Even original historical texts are nothing but anecdotal evidence. This is what I'm trying to explain: History (especially ancient history) is about faith. Not as much as religion (believing 300 Spartans and 1600 Thebians held off the Persian hordes is a little more believable than a guy walking on water), but in the end, the evidence that Jesus died and got better and the evidence that Socrates actually existed are about the same. It's fine to be passionate about history and religion - fine to study them, fine to love them (and I do love history) - but let's just keep in mind that these are not rational, empirical subjects. They're reflective - they tell us more about ourselves than they do about the world around us.

Also, the Bible never says the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's various references that are implied to mean as much ("to the ends of the Earth!!") have to be seen in the context in which they were written and read. The prophets weren't in a position to communicate astrophysics to illiterate Jewish slaves. They had a hard enough time with concepts like "Don't be a dick!" The fact that these concepts were not recorded does not prove that they were not available to the Bible's authors.

Fair, I picked the sun revolving around the earth out of a hat. But I'm sure there are plenty of scientific fallacies in the Bible - a guy living in a whale? My point was to demonstrate that one statement that seems to predict a current scientific theory only works as evidence if we apply the same standard throughout the text, and if we do, we'll probably quickly find out that it fails this standard in many passages.

Edit:

4.Therefore, the chance of any one religion being the "true" one that describes the nature of god and the universe is one divided by infinity, which is zero.
QED

Now we see that it's foolish to believe in any religion because the chance of it being the right one is zero. That's even assuming that one of the religions is the right one (the third given) and that there is a god.

To be fair, you're assuming there are infinite religions. There can only be as many religions as there are people to dream them up - or, assuming one person can dream multiple religions up, there can only be as many religions as one person can dream up, multiplied by the population of humanity (present, past, and future). This number would be ridiculously, obscenely high, but it wouldn't be infinite.

So, one divided by an insanely huge number, which equals an insanely small fraction.

[Phill]

By the way, can I see some citations on the whole discovery of matching Biblical fragments dating from ancient history that were clearly geographically and/or culturally isolated? Because I've never heard of anything like that - and if I did, I'd be immensely surprised not to hear something like 'but there were a few significant differences from canon'. Otherwise, I don't see why we should treat the Bible as somehow special from every other ancient historical document that's been clearly modified from the beginning.

On the point of the dead sea scrolls, apparently most of the manuscripts were actually pretty close to the biblical canon. I will look into the differences though, as useful as Wikipedia is I always like to get a second opinion!

In terms of the manuscripts, there are 5,700 manuscripts in Greek - 10,000 in latin, more than a million quotations from early church fathers (this from here but I don't think it's accessible without registration)... I would be more surprised if they didn't come from different geographical areas and cultures. Although I'm sure I was reading an article about the location the manuscripts were found, will try and dig it out.

Edit: In fairness, I see you're talking more about the Gospels than the Old Testament - but, what, would the claim be then that the Old Testament might be edited all to hell, but through some miracle the Gospels were all magically spared? And let's keep in mind - that's what the claim is here - that a miracle happened, and the original content of the 'correct' Gospels were somehow preserved in the mass of copies and rewrites.

Well, 10-15 manuscript fragments we have come from within the first 100 years of the completion of the NT. Some of these fragments are pretty big (i.e. covering large portions of the gospels or Paul's letters). The point is, leaving aside the Dead Sea Scrolls for the moment, the evidence of significant variations within the NT is just not there.

To be fair, you're assuming there are infinite religions. There can only be as many religions as there are people to dream them up - or, assuming one person can dream multiple religions up, there can only be as many religions as one person can dream up, multiplied by the population of humanity (present, past, and future). This number would be ridiculously, obscenely high, but it wouldn't be infinite.

My argument with the "many religions" thing is -- if God does in fact exist, you would expect the 'true' religion to be a major religion. I know that truth isn't determined by popularity vote, but nonetheless a religion which only has two adherents probably isn't going to be the one true religion. So that does somewhat restrict the list of options.

Secondly, my contention is that Christianity is far better supported by logic and evidence than other religions It's also different in that it has the concept of grace, which no other religion really has. A lot of people seem to have this idea that God is angry and we need to appease him (for example, the early pagan religions in the same area as Israel). The idea of God actually loving us and providing a sacrifice, of himself, to provide atonement for our sins and reconcile us to himself is just to crazy that I think it has to be true

[setzer777]

My argument with the "many religions" thing is -- if God does in fact exist, you would expect the 'true' religion to be a major religion. I know that truth isn't determined by popularity vote, but nonetheless a religion which only has two adherents probably isn't going to be the one true religion. So that does somewhat restrict the list of options.

Why would you expect that unless you were assuming a very specific God from the start? If you start with the general idea of a creator, there are many possibilities: It doesn't care whether humans believe in it, it only needs a very of small number of humans for its purposes, it doesn't have enough control over the universe to ensure it has enough believers, it's too busy dealing with other things to pay much attention to its human believers or keep up the numbers.

Secondly, my contention is that Christianity is far better supported by logic and evidence than other religions It's also different in that it has the concept of grace, which no other religion really has. A lot of people seem to have this idea that God is angry and we need to appease him (for example, the early pagan religions in the same area as Israel). The idea of God actually loving us and providing a sacrifice, of himself, to provide atonement for our sins and reconcile us to himself is just to crazy that I think it has to be true

That's a pretty strong contention: "far better supported by logic and evidence". What's your basis for the claim, I mean, how comprehensive a study of major religions have you made to come to that conclusion? I could see saying: "Christianity is the first religion I encountered, and I think it has enough evidence to warrant belief without considering alternatives", but to say that it is "far better supported by logic and evidence" and be justified would take a huge amount of historical/philosophical study of all the religions.

[Ixtellor]

OR... We could examine religions on their merits to figure out which one is most likely correct, rather than refuse to study them, discounting them because they're all "based on faith."

1) I have studied most of the major religions, with a TON of research on christianity.
2) What merits are you referring to? More specifically what merits do you believe that Christianity has that Islam does not? Choose wisely...

This is the same sort of argument as the stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster that Dawkins keeps screaming about, an argument that has been decried and refuted many times over

No one has ever sucessfuly refuted it. You can't disprove there is a flying spaghetti monster.

unlike actual religions which have actual evidence for them, so don't compare the two.

There is no evidence of the divine. At best you can have some evidence of people and places that did exist. But I defy you to get evidence Jesus ever did anything miraculus. Its impossible. So did a guy named Jesus exist? Probably. Did he rise from the dead? Almost certainly not. (99.99999__% not)

One reason Muslims choose their book is because they claim it is perfect.

That's a logical reason right there. I was under the impression that you thought religion had no logic. That it was irrational.

Its not a logical reason. Its the false belief that only God could create a book with syllabuls that consistantly add up. Shakespere did almost every one of his works in iambic pentameter.

Anytime someone stupid can't explain something and concludes "Therefore god" they are being illogical.

What rational reason would their be to choose Christianity over hinduism, Islam, or the Jewish faith? They all have old books written by people long dead, who were edited by man. To put faith in any of those books over the others is going to be completely arbitrary.

None, I suppose. Therefore, it is equally rational to choose any of the above provided one has reasons.

So you admit, there is no rational reason to choose anyone of the major religions. Good.
As soon as you realize that the major religions have just as much evidence is greek mythology, you will see the "big picture". Greek mythology predates a lot of the silly new religions and offers the exact same amount of empirical evidence -- ZERO.
So why not worship Zeus?

Secondly, my contention is that Christianity is far better supported by logic and evidence than other religions It's also different in that it has the concept of grace, which no other religion really has.

No Greek Mythology has the exact same amount of evidence.

Islam is full of grace as well as the Jewish faith.

God in the bible is a wrathful god, whose basic deal is "acknowledge and kneel before me, or else suffer eternal damnation in hell - a place I created in which you will be tortured for all eternity" (Some christians argue there is no hell, that it just means seperation from god, but if you want me to refer you to specific passages about the hellish tortures in hell, I will be happy).


Ixtellor

P.S. Being that God is supposedly infinatly intelligent and powerful, I wonder what his devious mind has waiting for sinners in hell. I can think of some really horrible shit, but I imagine god can do far worse, if you buy the premise is exists as outlined in the Bible.

[The Great Hippo]

On the point of the dead sea scrolls, apparently most of the manuscripts were actually pretty close to the biblical canon. I will look into the differences though, as useful as Wikipedia is I always like to get a second opinion!

Right, except there were significant differences, portions that were completely changed, new portions added in - so on, etc. Can you cite a source that shows that the Dead Sea Scrolls are miraculously closer to our current documentation than what we would expect from a historical document, i.e., proof that a miraculous preservation took place? I imagine this would be a Pretty Big Deal^tm if it was true, so.

In terms of the manuscripts, there are 5,700 manuscripts in Greek - 10,000 in latin, more than a million quotations from early church fathers (this from here but I don't think it's accessible without registration)... I would be more surprised if they didn't come from different geographical areas and cultures. Although I'm sure I was reading an article about the location the manuscripts were found, will try and dig it out.

Yeah, it requires registration. And just because something's written in Greek or Latin doesn't mean it dates from antiquity. I'd need something a little more substantial than this - again, keep in mind, what I'm asking for is some sort of verification that these documents came from isolated geographical regions or cultures (i.e., minimal contact with other cultures that could have shared earlier copies with them and allowed them to correct copying errors, so on) and are surprisingly (miraculously!) identical.

The point is, leaving aside the Dead Sea Scrolls for the moment, the evidence of significant variations within the NT is just not there.

And that's the issue; the evidence doesn't need to be there. Historical documentation is always suspect. The evidence could easily have been destroyed by chance. We could come across a copy of The Republic tomorrow that shows that the whole book we have today is nothing but a big fat lie written by some smuck of a monk in the 12th century. All ancient historical document can safely be assumed to have been edited. You need to prove that the Bible - the gospels, in particular - are special in some way. That they're 'magical'; that they avoided the process by which all historical documents are rendered suspect. You need to prove that a miracle happened. And I'm not seeing any evidence.

Secondly, my contention is that Christianity is far better supported by logic and evidence than other religions It's also different in that it has the concept of grace, which no other religion really has. A lot of people seem to have this idea that God is angry and we need to appease him (for example, the early pagan religions in the same area as Israel). The idea of God actually loving us and providing a sacrifice, of himself, to provide atonement for our sins and reconcile us to himself is just to crazy that I think it has to be true

Except, you know. God didn't actually sacrifice himself. Going "I'm going to kill myself, then resurrect myself, then go back to Heaven where everything rocks forever" doesn't count as a sacrifice. It's a momentary inconvenience.

[Heisenberg]

1.Given: There are an infinite number of possible religions.
2.Given: Each has the same chance of being correct (no evidence to the contrary)
3.Given: One of the possible religions is correct.
4.Therefore, the chance of any one religion being the "true" one that describes the nature of god and the universe is one divided by infinity, which is zero.
QED

The conclusion here is that your premises are invalid. First, you're assuming that one religion is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and that all others contradict it. Of course, from most religious perspectives, this is wrong. Many faiths reconcile multiple religions nicely by saying they all contain an element of truth. Eastern religions are similarly inclusive. Second, you're assuming that there is no way to value religion or to judge the correctness of religion. Most of the people of the world disagree. They would all take issue with your second "given." In short, you made inaccurate assumptions, drew an incorrect conclusion, and touted your cleverness. Congratulations.

It's fine to be passionate about history and religion - fine to study them, fine to love them (and I do love history) - but let's just keep in mind that these are not rational, empirical subjects. They're reflective - they tell us more about ourselves than they do about the world around us.

I agree. Philosophy and theology are properly grouped in with the Arts, and not the Sciences.

[setzer777]

I agree. Philosophy and theology are properly grouped in with the Arts, and not the Sciences.

Agreed for the most part, though I think Philosophy is broad enough that some of it would fall outside of that grouping (like symbolic logic, or some philosophy of science).

[MoghLiechty2]

No Greek Mythology has the exact same amount of evidence.

Right. You've clearly studied all religions objectively.

Many on this thread have been offering evidence for Christianity for page after page of posts. It is utterly foolish to say that all religions have equally valid foundations. All facts about the history of any religion are evidence for or against it, but all you seem to do is claim that there can't possibly be any evidence for religion because all religions are false... I and Phill are not trying to prove Christianity here, just show that it's feasible and at least worthy of contemplation... By showing evidence. You might not think that the evidence is strong, but you'd have to be so self-absorbed in your own beliefs to say that none of the points we are making are the least bit valid. Even if there are alternative explanations for anything we say, we make points that increase the likelihood of Christianity, thus counting as "evidence."

It'd be like if you gave evidence for string theory, and then I gave what seemed to me a more likely alternative explanation, and then I conclude that you haven't argued string theory to be any more likely.

God in the bible is a wrathful god, whose basic deal is "acknowledge and kneel before me, or else suffer eternal damnation in hell - a place I created in which you will be tortured for all eternity" (Some christians argue there is no hell, that it just means seperation from god, but if you want me to refer you to specific passages about the hellish tortures in hell, I will be happy).

I would actually like to hear what your thoughts are about those specific passages of the Bible, so I can actually get a picture of where in the world you are coming from in your observations and judgements of Christianity.

[The Great Hippo]

God in the bible is a wrathful god, whose basic deal is "acknowledge and kneel before me, or else suffer eternal damnation in hell - a place I created in which you will be tortured for all eternity" (Some christians argue there is no hell, that it just means seperation from god, but if you want me to refer you to specific passages about the hellish tortures in hell, I will be happy).

I would actually like to hear what your thoughts are about those specific passages of the Bible, so I can actually get a picture of where in the world you are coming from in your observations and judgements of Christianity.

I was under the impression that Hell really isn't well described in the Bible and the whole 'be good or go to Hell' was a more recent manifestation that was really 'ratified' by Dante's Inferno and later 'canonized' by the whole Protestant/Calvinist/Lutheran 'salvation by grace' ideal ('accept Jesus as your savior or ROAST!'). As far as I'm aware, there's really no scripture to support any of these conclusions - they're conclusions made through drawing some inferences. So I'd be very interested in hearing about those passages too.

Edit:
I do have to point out, though - again - that...

Many on this thread have been offering evidence for Christianity for page after page of posts. It is utterly foolish to say that all religions have equally valid foundations. All facts about the history of any religion are evidence for or against it, but all you seem to do is claim that there can't possibly be any evidence for religion because all religions are false... I and Phill are not trying to prove Christianity here, just show that it's feasible and at least worthy of contemplation... By showing evidence.

...you should add 'anecdotal' in front of each occurrence of the word 'evidence' there, because that's what you're talking about. Even logical evidence that the universe was created by God isn't evidence for the Christian God, just a God (and I'd argue that no such evidence can be truly derived anyway, but that's irrelevant).

This whole confusing-anecdotal-evidence-with-real-evidence is a big issue.

[MoghLiechty2]

I was under the impression that Hell really isn't well described in the Bible and the whole 'be good or go to Hell' was a more recent manifestation that was really 'ratified' by Dante's Inferno and later 'canonized' by the whole Protestant/Calvinist/Lutheran 'salvation by grace' ideal ('accept Jesus as your savior or ROAST!'). As far as I'm aware, there's really no scripture to support any of these conclusions - they're conclusions made through drawing some inferences. So I'd be very interested in hearing about those passages too.

There's definitely some element of "wrath" in sound Biblical theology, but it'd be silly to place this idea, like you say, in the context of Dante's inferno. That wrath could take many forms, including physical pain, but like I've said before the Biblical emphasis seems to be on eternal separation, which in itself would constitute some form of agony. Ixtellor, yay or nay?

I do have to point out, though - again - that you should add 'anecdotal' in front of each occurrence of the word 'evidence' there, because that's what you're talking about. Even logical evidence that the universe was created by God isn't evidence for the Christian God, just a God (and I'd argue that no such evidence can be truly derived anyway, but that's irrelevant).

This whole confusing-anecdotal-evidence-with-real-evidence is a big issue.

Yeah we get that. But would you agree that the arguments we make that you classify as 'anecdotal' at least increase the probability of Christianity to... any? degree? A yes to this question would invalidate Ixtellor's claim that no religion can be any more valid than another. Any type of evidence is going to alter the relative likelihood of opposing claims, which is why we should examine all of it.

But I still think the word 'anecdotal' is a bit misrepresentative of the actual nature of the evidence, because anecdotes are generally tangential stories told by a single person. Our argument is that the events in the Bible are verified accross a large domain of sources... 'Historical' evidence, however 'anecdotal,' is a valid field of study. And you're the historian, which is why you're explaining all this to me I guess...

[Ixtellor]

Versus about hell from the Bible:

OLD Testament

Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

(This is where the concept that hell last forever comes from)

Isiaiah 66:24
And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind

(This is where the idea of "hellfire" comes from and that it will consume you forever etc)

Deuteronomy 32:22
For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,
one that burns to the realm of death below.
It will devour the earth and its harvests
and set afire the foundations of the mountains.

(Reinforces the idea of fire everywhere and burning)

Psalms 55:15
Let death take my enemies by surprise;
let them go down alive to the grave,
for evil finds lodging among them.

(This is used as 'proof' that hell is a real place that you will be sent)

NEW Testament
Thessalonians 2:9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

("Proof" that the punishment is everlasting)

Revelation 14:10 & 11

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb

(More evidence of 'fire and brimstone' and evidence that it is a real place)

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

(hell lasts forever)

Revelation 20:15

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

(More fire, and more 'evidence' its a real place)

JESUS talking about Hell:

Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

(more fire)

Matthew 5:29
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

(Hell is a real place, you can be cast there)

Matthew 3:12

Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 10:28

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

(Hell is real... )

Thats enough for now I think you get the point. But there are LOTS more. Furthormore, I seem to recall Hell is mentioned more than Heaven in the Bible.

IXtellor

[The Great Hippo]

Ixtellor: It'd be helpful if you provided exactly what edition you're reading from. Also, a lot of the statements are out of context - I'm curious as to what they mean by 'hell' in the latter statements (Hell as we understand it - some shady underworld - or merely an experience of vast and terrible punishment?). Anyway, a lot of those (not all, obviously) look more like things you have to infer to get the modern perspective concerning Christianity and Hell.

Yeah we get that. But would you agree that the arguments we make that you classify as 'anecdotal' at least increase the probability of Christianity to... any? degree? A yes to this question would invalidate Ixtellor's claim that no religion can be any more valid than another. Any type of evidence is going to alter the relative likelihood of opposing claims, which is why we should examine all of it.

...yes and no. It's easy when you have the person telling you the anecdote right in front of you - but with historical documentation, corroborative anecdotal evidence may just be proof that all contradictory accounts have been thoroughly destroyed (because, well, they're contradictory, and people don't like being contradicted) or edited to have the contradictions taken out. Historical documentation is basically a game of whisper-down-the-lane played with an unknown legion of dead editors. It's shaky as all fuck. I know that seems like I'm dodging the question, but I don't think there's a clear cut answer.

But I still think the word 'anecdotal' is a bit misrepresentative of the actual nature of the evidence, because anecdotes are generally tangential stories told by a single person. Our argument is that the events in the Bible are verified accross a large domain of sources...

First off, this is what I mean by anecdotal evidence. The second definition: "Paul said that Jesus walked on water." That's anecdotal evidence. And that's what historical documentation consists of.

But there's an immense problem with religious documentation that historical documentation doesn't have. When we see the Greeks say things like 'We can do a 100 yard long-jump', we figure that the ancient Greeks are fucking liars and move on. When we see Plato commenting on Socrates' views, we accept it because it's a believable claim. The amount of evidence that Socrates existed and that the Greeks could do a 100 yard long-jump are essentially the same (see: almost nil), but we accept one claim and throw away the other because, well, one of the claims isn't incredible.

But religion is accepting the incredible claim. "Jesus walked on water" has about as much evidence as a statement as "Socrates existed"; one is an incredible claim, the other isn't. This is why historians accept anecdotal evidence that Socrates existed and may not accept anecdotal evidence that Jesus walked on water. The evidence is the same, but the claims are not.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. If you're going to say "Socrates existed", I'm willing to accept anecdotal evidence to that end; if you're going to say "Jesus returned from the dead", I'm going to need something more. It's a mistake to provide the same amount of evidence for Jesus' resurrection as Socrates' existence (i.e., anecdotal historical documentation), because the claims are no where near equal.

[MoghLiechty2]

Ixtellor: It'd be helpful if you provided exactly what edition you're reading from. Also, a lot of the statements are out of context - I'm curious as to what they mean by 'hell' in the latter statements (Hell as we understand it - some shady underworld - or merely an experience of vast and terrible punishment?). Anyway, a lot of those (not all, obviously) look more like things you have to infer to get the modern perspective concerning Christianity and Hell.

+5 points for unbias. The passages as Ixtellor quotes them I believe are partially New International Version, and partially King James Version. Some of these sort of Old Testament passages, like Hippo says, have more ... complex contexts, and some may be referring to real wrath for real evil deeds, rather than wrath for lack of salvation. Salvation as defined by modern theology is in fact a dichotomy: heaven or hell, but there is also a lot of Biblical evidence for varying degrees of rewards, or even punishments, after this dichotomy is decided in the final judgement. (See 1 Corinthains 3:14-15 e.g.).

I'm not going to individually examine each of those verses, but I'll pick a couple that are good examples of what I mean: First, Psalm 55:15. My Bible renders it
"Let death steal over them; let them go down to Sheol alive; for evil is in their dweling place and in their heart."
A bit about the context of this verse. Psalms being a mere collection of hymns and poems, we can examine Psalm 55 by itself, which simplifies things a bit. It, like most of Psalms, is likely written by David, who has had his fair share of betrayals and trials. The Psalm is an outcry to God, a prayer, and the things David (who I'll assume henceforth is the author) screams in agony to his God need not be taken as Theology, but still bear some importance. The song itself is about being oppressed by the enemy and the wicked, and his cry for God to come to his aid, vanquishing the enemy and restoring David. Verse 15 that you quote does reference a place called Sheol, the place of the dead, which I agree with you is a real place where people are sent. Depending on your theology, this may be a different place than Gehenna, the place of suffering... But the main point is that this punishment called for by David is in response to the specific wrong done to him, rather than punishment for his enemy's lack of salvation in particular.

I really wish I could comment on the Isaiah one, because that one is particularly potent, but alas, I am very unfamiliar with the prophets. There could definitely be a lot to be said about that verse...

Each of the Revelation one's could easily be 10 page papers in themselves, as I'm sure you know Revelation is one of the most complex, confusing, and image-infused books in the Bible.

As for the Matthew 5:22 reference, "Fire of Hell" is about as accurate as it gets in terms of what Jesus is saying. Fire here literally means "fire" in Greek, like wood burning, and like its other uses to describe Hell, is imagery used to portray Hell as a painful place, but not necessarily a place of physical fire. Hell here is "Gehenna" which is the place where those who are under God's judgment go after being in Sheol. Reference Jesus uses this imagery to describe what will happen to people who commit some specific sins he names. But this is merely a portion of a greater theme in Christian theology, which is that all people sin, all people deserve this punishment, and only through Christ can you be made right in God's eyes.

So yes, Hell is a real place, a place that you "don't want to be," but there is only speculation from a theological standpoint about the actual degree of punishment offered in Hell, and how it corresponds to the amount of evil commited on Earth, just as there is a lot of speculation about the degree of reward offered in Heaven, and how much it correlates with good deeds done on Earth.

First off, this is what I mean by anecdotal evidence. The second definition: "Paul said that Jesus walked on water." That's anecdotal evidence. And that's what historical documentation consists of.

But there's an immense problem with religious documentation that historical documentation doesn't have. When we see the Greeks say things like 'We can do a 100 yard long-jump', we figure that the ancient Greeks are fucking liars and move on. When we see Plato commenting on Socrates' views, we accept it because it's a believable claim. The amount of evidence that Socrates existed and that the Greeks could do a 100 yard long-jump are essentially the same (see: almost nil), but we accept one claim and throw away the other because, well, one of the claims isn't incredible.

But religion is accepting the incredible claim. "Jesus walked on water" has about as much evidence as a statement as "Socrates existed"; one is an incredible claim, the other isn't. This is why historians accept anecdotal evidence that Socrates existed and may not accept anecdotal evidence that Jesus walked on water. The evidence is the same, but the claims are not.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. If you're going to say "Socrates existed", I'm willing to accept anecdotal evidence to that end; if you're going to say "Jesus returned from the dead", I'm going to need something more. It's a mistake to provide the same amount of evidence for Jesus' resurrection as Socrates' existence (i.e., anecdotal historical documentation), because the claims are no where near equal.

Any particular religion is an incredible claim. It does take faith to accept it, but this doesn't mean that religions can't be less or more valid than others based on the ... anecdotal?... evidence, or the examination of the reliability of the original authors and an examination of counter-evidence.

Admitedly, I need to do a lot more research into the history of the Bible and Christianity. It is a very complex field to be sure. I think I've exhausted my best knowledge of the matter, and this thread has made me want to go back and re-look at the evidence again. I just need to remind myself that it's impossible to come to Christianity solely through an onslaught of logic, and that it's still a very personal decision. Although, if there is some evidence that shows up to make Christianity a load of tripe, I am all ears, and I would need to re-fashion my faith accordingly.

[alexh123456789]

This has kind of been talked about, but bears repeating: There is absolutely no (real) evidence that any miracles have ever occurred, that god exists, or that god has talked to somebody. Proof that the people in the bible existed or wrote something say absolutely nothing about the validity of the religion. A religion "resonating" with you or making sense to you doesn't support it either, and neither do passages in religious books which seem to say true or meaningful things. If someone witnesses a "miracle" the only reasonable conclusion is that they are hallucinating or seeing some unexplained (but natural) phenomenon. This is why it's essentially impossible to provide evidence of a god: it's always more likely to be a hallucination then something supernatural, and the reasonable conclusion is always against god.

[Phill]

Why would you expect that unless you were assuming a very specific God from the start? If you start with the general idea of a creator, there are many possibilities: It doesn't care whether humans believe in it, it only needs a very of small number of humans for its purposes, it doesn't have enough control over the universe to ensure it has enough believers, it's too busy dealing with other things to pay much attention to its human believers or keep up the numbers.

I'm working backwards from the religions that exist. If a religion is true, it's likely to be one of the major ones (if God does in fact exist). Obviously there's the possibility that God exists as you describe, but if that is the case then we will never know so you might as well not bother.

That's a pretty strong contention: "far better supported by logic and evidence". What's your basis for the claim, I mean, how comprehensive a study of major religions have you made to come to that conclusion? I could see saying: "Christianity is the first religion I encountered, and I think it has enough evidence to warrant belief without considering alternatives", but to say that it is "far better supported by logic and evidence" and be justified would take a huge amount of historical/philosophical study of all the religions.

Well, I haven't studied other religions in great detail. But from what I've read, Christianity still makes the most sense. What I meant was, it is far better supported by logic and evidence from my point of view! I can't make that claim objectively (although I think it's true). Christianity is different to a lot of other religions though - it describes events that took place on earth, historically, rather than "I've just received a revelation from God, and here it is..." Jesus claimed to be God, rather than just having received a revelation from him which we have to take completely on trust.

And Christian theology, IMO, hangs together pretty solidly. I'm not saying that there aren't some things which are difficult or even impossible to understand, but on the whole it's remarkably consistent for a book which was written over a couple of thousand years. I don't know if you've looked into theology much but it might be worth doing. I studied a unit called 'Introduction to the Bible', from the Moore Theological College in Sydney (it was a correspondence course) - it was probably the most helpful thing I've ever done with respect to my understanding of the Bible.

Islam is full of grace as well as the Jewish faith.

Are they? Judaism perhaps, to a limited extent, but you're going to have to back up what you say about Islam. As I understand it, Muslims are still required to earn God's favour by what they do. Perhaps BeerBottle could explain a bit more.

Right, except there were significant differences, portions that were completely changed, new portions added in - so on, etc. Can you cite a source that shows that the Dead Sea Scrolls are miraculously closer to our current documentation than what we would expect from a historical document, i.e., proof that a miraculous preservation took place? I imagine this would be a Pretty Big Dealtm if it was true, so.

It's hard to find good resources on the Dead Sea Scrolls. But none of the sources I've read are using the DSS as evidence that the Bible has been heavily edited, indeed most argue the opposite: apparently the scrolls found of Isaiah match up 95% with the proto-masoretic text (the 'canonical' version) and most of the variants are spelling or 'slip of the pen' kind of errors. In fact I could find nothing which claimed that the DSS invalidated the Biblical canon in any way.

Historical documentation is always suspect. ... You need to prove that the Bible - the gospels, in particular - are special in some way. That they're 'magical'; that they avoided the process by which all historical documents are rendered suspect. You need to prove that a miracle happened. And I'm not seeing any evidence.

I've given all the evidence I have. The earliest manuscripts we have match up with the later ones. There are lots of copies. I will look into the manuscripts from isolated cultures, but can't promise anything But I think the fact that the Bible has over ten times as many manuscripts available as other ancient documents counts for something. I also think one can apply other disciplines such as textual criticism to see if there have been edits or variants. Luke and Acts, for example, we believe were written by the same person (in fact I think most theologians call them Luke-Acts). This is because of very similar style... Matthew, Mark and John also have a similar 'voice' and emphasis throughout their gospels.

Any edits would have surely diluted this style down, and yet we find that all of the gospel writers (and NT writers) have a distinct style. It just seems to me that the gospels display a remarkable consistency - both internally and with each other, as well as with the rest of the Biblical canon - to have been edited.

Additionally, if the Bible has been edited, do you think it would have ended up in the state that it did end up in? There are stories, for example, where the disciples don't look good. In fact the picture we get of them is that despite Jesus' best efforts they manage to miss the point on a fairly regular basis. Do you think they would have left those stories in?

Except, you know. God didn't actually sacrifice himself. Going "I'm going to kill myself, then resurrect myself, then go back to Heaven where everything rocks forever" doesn't count as a sacrifice. It's a momentary inconvenience.

Depends what you think of as sacrifice. I don't think it's as simple as you make out.

This has kind of been talked about, but bears repeating: There is absolutely no (real) evidence that any miracles have ever occurred, that god exists, or that god has talked to somebody

What do you call 'real' evidence? I have already argued that anecdotal evidence cannot be dismissed a priori.

A religion "resonating" with you or making sense to you doesn't support it either, and neither do passages in religious books which seem to say true or meaningful things.

Why not? If Jesus was indeed the Son of God you would expect him to say true and meaningful things. Which he does, IMO. The miracles he did can't be separated from the message, they were part of it. If what Jesus said was misheard or edited or exaggerated, it seems to me that what we would have is a series of vague, inconsistent platitudes or sayings. If Jesus' teachings make sense, it doesn't prove the miracles but I do think it makes them more likely.

If someone witnesses a "miracle" the only reasonable conclusion is that they are hallucinating or seeing some unexplained (but natural) phenomenon. This is why it's essentially impossible to provide evidence of a god: it's always more likely to be a hallucination then something supernatural, and the reasonable conclusion is always against god.

If one person sees a miracle, perhaps. If several people see a miracle, close up, independently, I'd think it was at least worth investigating. Especially if there was a good reason for that miracle having happened - i.e. Jesus claiming that he would be killed and in three days rise again, the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel, etc. So I guess miracles can't just be evaluated on their own merit, they have to be evaluated in the framework in which they are set.

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough now

[Ixtellor]

I keep seeing the argument that "Christianity is consistant and old, and a lot of people talk about it... therefore its more valid"

I thought you might be interested in the Egyptian God Horus. Horus predates Jesus by over 1000 years and writing about Horus predate all christian writings.

Here are some thing written about Horus prior to the emergence of the Christian Religion..

Horus was the only begotten son of the god Osiris.
Horus's mother was named Isis-Meri = Mary
Horus' father was named Seb = Jo-Seph = Joseph
Horus's future birth was announced to his mother by an angel.
Horu's birth was herelded by the Morning Star = A star in the east.
Horus's birthday is the Winter Solstice = About Dec 21
Horus's birth was witnessed by shepards.
Horus's birth was attended by 3 solar deities = 3 wisemen.
Herut (an evil king) tried to have Horus murdered = Herod (an evil king) tried to have Jesus...

Its goes on and on and on and on....

For a full list check out this website
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

I thought this might give you something to think about and possibly question the events about the life of Jesus, and maybe except the possibility they just cribbed it.


Ixtellor

[rat4000]

Everyone who's making points which include one "correct" religion is... well, wrong. Furthermore, I don't see anyone here saying that Christianity is the one and only and that all others should burn.

All religions say that there is a divine entity, one or more. Also, all religions have certain rules that one has to abide to and certain punishments and boons for following or not following said rules. What one should do in order to choose a religion is to pick the set of rules that one most likes. I see no other reason, in fact, to have a particular religion, be it Christianity or Buddhism, other than agreeing with its rules, which is why no religion is superior to another objectively.

Also, the biblical passages about Hell and the idea that the Bible was edited do a very nice job of disproving each other. I'll go with the Bible having been edited and Hell being a later addition.

On the FSM argument: it is no argument. Why? Because religion, as said above, is not just about believing in God or FSM. I would have no problem with someone worshipping the FSM as long as their behavior was not antisocial in some way because of that belief.

[Heisenberg]

If someone witnesses a "miracle" the only reasonable conclusion is that they are hallucinating or seeing some unexplained (but natural) phenomenon. This is why it's essentially impossible to provide evidence of a god: it's always more likely to be a hallucination then something supernatural, and the reasonable conclusion is always against god.

So your argument is that assuming there is no God, no miracles, and no visions, then the logical conclusion is that there is no God, miracles are natural phenomena, and visions are hallucinations. That's a pretty shitty tautology.

[Ixtellor]

If someone witnesses a "miracle" the only reasonable conclusion is that they are hallucinating or seeing some unexplained (but natural) phenomenon. This is why it's essentially impossible to provide evidence of a god: it's always more likely to be a hallucination then something supernatural, and the reasonable conclusion is always against god.

So your argument is that assuming there is no God, no miracles, and no visions, then the logical conclusion is that there is no God, miracles are natural phenomena, and visions are hallucinations. That's a pretty shitty tautology.

I think he is suggesting that since there is no evidence of miracles or god, there are no miracles or god.
Then he added in, the only reason we believe in miracles is because people claimed to have seen them. Since it is more likely that they made it up or hallucinated than a miracle actually taking place, there are no visions or witnesses to miracles.


Ixtellor

[alexh123456789]

It's not really circular: if we start assuming we don't know whether god exists or not, it's going to take some amazing evidence to prove that god exists, especially because everything we've ever seen is explainable by natural events. Stories told by some people thousands of years ago isn't any amazing evidence, especially when there are many contradictory stories (other religions). The point is, as far as we know, no miracles have ever occurred outside of 2,000 year old stories, and, unless you're raised as part of a religion, it seems irrational to assume that miracles are possible.

If you saw some extraordinary occurrence would you assume it was an action of god or just some new phenomenon? I think that most rational people would assume the second, so why does the event occurring in the distant past change this?

edit-ninjad

[Heisenberg]

I think he is suggesting that since there is no evidence of miracles or god, there are no miracles or god.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

everything we've ever seen is explainable by natural events

That's a ridiculous assertion. However, equally ridiculous is the idea that unexplained phenomena prove the existence of God.

The point is, as far as we know, no miracles have ever occurred outside of 2,000 year old stories

A vast majority of the world's population disagrees with you. At the very least, I know that the Catholic Church has been canonizing saints for the past 2,000 years based on evidence of miracles. Well-documented evidence. Simply because you haven't seen a miracle, and assume that anyone who claims to have seen one is wrong, doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course, it doesn't mean they do exist, either.

[Ixtellor]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Which is why I believe the Flying Spegetti monster is just as likely as the Christian God.
I assume you give the Flying Spegetti monster a lot of consideration as well, since you can't disprove it.

A vast majority of the world's population disagrees with you.

Logical fallacy.
The vast majority of the worlds' population believed the earth was flat and sea monsters would sink ships.
In 2003 the vast majority of Americans believed Saddam Houssain was responsible for 9/11.

The vast majority of the world's population believed in the "divine right of kings".

The vast majority of humans are ill informed, uneducated morons.

At the very least, I know that the Catholic Church has been canonizing saints for the past 2,000 years based on evidence of miracles. Well-documented evidence

Yea like Mother Teresa. A young girl in Calcutta India was wearing a locket with a picture of Mother Teresa in it. The young girl had an abdominal tumor and was at the hospital seeking and receiving medical treatments. Then the girl "miraculously" recovered!!!!!

A Vatican commission made up of "miracle experts" determined this event was a miracle done by the Mother Teresa. Pope John Paul quickly confirmed the Miracle and submitted the papers for her Sainthood.

I defy you to find a single "proof" of a saint performing a miracle. Here is the complete list of Catholic Saints. Good luck finding any evidence of miracles. (Unless you consider "Mr. X says he saw Mr. Y perform a miracle!!!" evidence)

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

[alexh123456789]

everything we've ever seen is explainable by natural events

That's a ridiculous assertion. However, equally ridiculous is the idea that unexplained phenomena prove the existence of God.

Ok, let me rephrase that: There's no evidence (besides anecdotal) to think that anything supernatural exists. Therefore it's a valid conclusion that there is nothing supernatural. Of course, if some new evidence comes up we would have to modify that conclusion, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Phill]

I keep seeing the argument that "Christianity is consistant and old, and a lot of people talk about it... therefore its more valid"

I thought you might be interested in the Egyptian God Horus. Horus predates Jesus by over 1000 years and writing about Horus predate all christian writings.

It's an interesting idea but has been exaggerated more than a little.

[The Great Hippo]

Well, I haven't studied other religions in great detail...

You should have stopped here. Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism all involve real people doing real things in real history, and they're all mutually exclusive from Christianity. Also, Jesus claiming to be God is as much a revelation that we have to take on trust as Muhammad claiming to have spoken to one of God's servants. Both are revelations we're being told about by dead people in copies of copies of copies of documents written many centuries ago. This is about personal choice and belief, not evidence.

It's hard to find good resources on the Dead Sea Scrolls. But none of the sources I've read are using the DSS as evidence that the Bible has been heavily edited, indeed most argue the opposite: apparently the scrolls found of Isaiah match up 95% with the proto-masoretic text (the 'canonical' version) and most of the variants are spelling or 'slip of the pen' kind of errors. In fact I could find nothing which claimed that the DSS invalidated the Biblical canon in any way.

That's not what I said. I did not say "Find me sources that show the DSS invalidated the Biblical canon, and thus prove me wrong by your inability to do so". I said "Find me sources that show the DSS validates the Biblical canon".

I'm guessing you got the 95% number off of here, a Christian Apologetics website. I direct you to a little blurb near the bottom (parts highlighted are key):

Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only
seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsb
differ from the Masoretic Text (Geisler and
Nix, 1986, p. 382).

Now, if I was a nice guy (and I sometimes am), I might assume that the reason they're comparing such a small portion of the overall text to the DSS is because they don't have any other Hebrew texts that correspond to the Dead Sea Scrolls (cough, cough, BOOK OF SAMUEL, cough). If I were nasty, though? I'd say they're cherry-picking. So, yeah, '95%' is a highly misleading figure.

This is not evidence that the Bible was unedited. This is evidence that a very small passage of the Bible managed to survive with only spelling errors and a few divergent word choices. That's something I would honestly expect. Again - the burden of evidence is on you, here. You need to provide evidence that a miracle happened - that the Bible persevered as a document in a manner no other ancient historical document has.

Any edits would have surely diluted this style down, and yet we find that all of the gospel writers (and NT writers) have a distinct style. It just seems to me that the gospels display a remarkable consistency - both internally and with each other, as well as with the rest of the Biblical canon - to have been edited.

You're well aware that edits would be made to maintain that consistency, right? And that contradictory texts are often actively destroyed? Because, y'know, people don't like being contradicted?

Additionally, if the Bible has been edited, do you think it would have ended up in the state that it did end up in? There are stories, for example, where the disciples don't look good. In fact the picture we get of them is that despite Jesus' best efforts they manage to miss the point on a fairly regular basis. Do you think they would have left those stories in?

Yes. The apostles weren't the ones necessarily editing this. Why would we want to make the apostles look good? Especially when, through making them look like they weren't 'getting the point', we could better demonstrate that Jesus did?

Depends what you think of as sacrifice. I don't think it's as simple as you make out.

It's a great story and possesses a lot of mythical flavor, but--yeah, it's pretty simple. Jesus died a horrible death then got better. That isn't how sacrifices work; you have to actually give something up.

[Phill]

You should have stopped here. Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism all involve real people doing real things in real history, and they're all mutually exclusive from Christianity. Also, Jesus claiming to be God is as much a revelation that we have to take on trust as Muhammad claiming to have spoken to one of God's servants. Both are revelations we're being told about by dead people in copies of copies of copies of documents written many centuries ago. This is about personal choice and belief, not evidence.

I don't think one has to be an expert on other religions to not believe them. For example, why am I not Jewish? Because I believe Jesus was the promised 'Messiah', prophecied in the OT. Similarly I'm not a Muslim for similar reasons - what they believe about Jesus doesn't add up with any other evidence that we have (they claim that Jesus was a prophet, but he wasn't God and didn't die on the cross. In other words, it seems to go against all the evidence that we do have. Whatever you think of the Bible as evidence, I think the testimony of one person writing 600 years after the fact is probably going to be even less historically reliable...)

One thing I like about Christianity is that it was at least conducted in the open. Jesus said, essentially, "Here is your revelation from God. It's me." None of it happened behind closed doors, with writings on tablets or dictations from angels that no-one could ever verify. Christianity was verifiable in the sense that if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, it was true. Now what we're discussing is the quality of the evidence for that actually happening. Which leads neatly into your next point

That's not what I said. I did not say "Find me sources that show the DSS invalidated the Biblical canon, and thus prove me wrong by your inability to do so". I said "Find me sources that show the DSS validates the Biblical canon".

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But every source that I've looked at so far seems to think the DSS does validate the Biblical canon, which is why I said what I said. What would you consider validation of the Biblical canon?

I'm guessing you got the 95% number off of here, a Christian Apologetics website.

Ah, the 95% number might have come from there, but I was actually reading this. That seems to confirm that the vast majority of the mistakes are slips of the pen, spelling errors, that sort of thing.

I think the reason the website you link to pulls out Isaiah 53 in particular is because that is a key passage in the OT with respect to the Messiah. For example:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

This is not evidence that the Bible was unedited. This is evidence that a very small passage of the Bible managed to survive with only spelling errors and a few divergent word choices. That's something I would honestly expect. Again - the burden of evidence is on you, here. You need to provide evidence that a miracle happened - that the Bible persevered as a document in a manner no other ancient historical document has.

Well, I'm sorry, I cannot provide further evidence. If (in terms of the New Testament) nearly 6,000 manuscripts (in Greek), plus 20,000 translated, plus over a million quotations by the church fathers does not make evidence for you than nothing will. The Bible is just unparalleled in documents coming down from antiquity.

You're well aware that edits would be made to maintain that consistency, right? And that contradictory texts are often actively destroyed? Because, y'know, people don't like being contradicted?

If a number of people had edited the document, I would have thought it would display signs of that in terms of both inconsistency of theme and terminology / style.

The apostles weren't the ones necessarily editing this. Why would we want to make the apostles look good? Especially when, through making them look like they weren't 'getting the point', we could better demonstrate that Jesus did?

Why would you want to make the apostles look bad? - after all, they were the ones who were 'leading' Christianity at the time. In the sense that, if what they were saying wasn't true it would invalidate Christianity. Why would you, if you wanted to support Christianity, leave those stories in? Another example - the women finding Jesus' tomb empty. In those times, a woman's testimony was inadmissable in court. Why would you have a woman finding out when it would have been trivially easy to make it a man, one of the disciples perhaps?

But on the above two points - it seems that this is getting beyond what we actually know into the realms of speculation. You can't say definitively the gospels were edited, I can't say definitively the gospels weren't edited. All we can look at are the manuscripts that we do have, and I just don't think there is any evidence of tampering or editing. And I know what you'll say here, and I'm thinking perhaps this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree.

It's a great story and possesses a lot of mythical flavor, but--yeah, it's pretty simple. Jesus died a horrible death then got better. That isn't how sacrifices work; you have to actually give something up.

Who says that is how sacrifices have to work? I have an exam on Mark's Gospel in a couple of weeks, so I will look up sacrifice in my Bible Dictionary (will be good revision) and get back to you. I understand what you are saying but it didn't work in the way that you or I might make a sacrifice. Like I said, it's much more complex than that

[The Great Hippo]

Who says that is how sacrifices have to work? I have an exam on Mark's Gospel in a couple of weeks, so I will look up sacrifice in my Bible Dictionary (will be good revision) and get back to you. I understand what you are saying but it didn't work in the way that you or I might make a sacrifice. Like I said, it's much more complex than that

If you don't understand the situation enough to explain it to me, it's reasonable enough to assume you don't understand the situation enough to claim 'it's more complex than that'. If you can't handle a discussion on this issue without reverting to a "You're wrong but I don't know why" position, leave it to someone who can. I will happily take it up with them.

Why would you want to make the apostles look bad? - after all, they were the ones who were 'leading' Christianity at the time. In the sense that, if what they were saying wasn't true it would invalidate Christianity. Why would you, if you wanted to support Christianity, leave those stories in? Another example - the women finding Jesus' tomb empty. In those times, a woman's testimony was inadmissable in court. Why would you have a woman finding out when it would have been trivially easy to make it a man, one of the disciples perhaps?

The existence of non-typical passages does not create evidence that historical texts could not have been edited. The evolution of historical documents is an organic process, not one guy in a room trying to make everything perfect.

Well, I'm sorry, I cannot provide further evidence. If (in terms of the New Testament) nearly 6,000 manuscripts (in Greek), plus 20,000 translated, plus over a million quotations by the church fathers does not make evidence for you than nothing will. The Bible is just unparalleled in documents coming down from antiquity.

You provided evidence for the book of Isaiah. Look up the Book of Samuel and it's reflection in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Again, '95%' is a very, very misleading figure.

I don't think one has to be an expert on other religions to not believe them. For example, why am I not Jewish? Because I believe Jesus was the promised 'Messiah', prophecied in the OT.

I was replying to this:

Christianity is different to a lot of other religions though - it describes events that took place on earth, historically, rather than...

This supremely ignorant statement can only be a product of you not having any grasp on other major religions. The ones I mentioned all involve real history, real people, and real things - as real as you can get in the field, anyway. It is very disconcerting to see someone make that statement and not realize just how utterly wrong they are. I think it cuts down to the core misconception you are operating under. And, frankly, for someone who loves history, it's more than a little frustrating.

Biblical history is not magical.

[Heisenberg]

I assume you give the Flying Spegetti monster a lot of consideration as well, since you can't disprove it.

Belief in the FSM is far more rational than, say, athiesm.

The vast majority of humans are ill informed, uneducated morons.

"I'm right because I'm smarter than you" is a fallacy.

I defy you to find a single "proof" of a saint performing a miracle.

Well, since you've conveniently defined miracles as impossibilities and decided that anything unexplainable must have a mundane cause, you've already shown that you will refuse to acknowledge any evidence of miracles, and will instead cling to your unproven, irrational belief that they simply cannot exist.

[Terebrant]

I don't think one has to be an expert on other religions to not believe them. For example, why am I not Jewish? Because I believe Jesus was the promised 'Messiah', prophecied in the OT.

Without knowing the context (religious and cultural), you won't be able to argue that point effectively. The word messiah itself didn't have the meaning which was ascribed to it latter.

Whatever you think of the Bible as evidence, I think the testimony of one person writing (...) years after the fact is probably going to be even less historically reliable...

You know how much of christianity was based on Paul of Tarsus' work, how it differed from the Jerusalem school and how he supposedly received the gospel, right ? I think Simon Magus deserves a mention for trying too (I would be interested in an alternate history novel in which simonians became an important part of the church, anyone knows of one ?).

Early christianity was not a unified whole, various agendas and opinions competed.

Christianity was verifiable in the sense that if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, it was true.

You can claim that it was perceived as true but that's really the best you can try for.

Ah, the 95% number might have come from there, but I was actually reading this. That seems to confirm that the vast majority of the mistakes are slips of the pen, spelling errors, that sort of thing.

Considering how much interpretation is necessary, even that weakens the miracle thesis. Also, for instance, the comma Johanneum is a bit more than a mistake... and that is enough to reject the idea that a miracle happened.

Well, I'm sorry, I cannot provide further evidence. If (in terms of the New Testament) nearly 6,000 manuscripts (in Greek), plus 20,000 translated, plus over a million quotations by the church fathers does not make evidence for you than nothing will. The Bible is just unparalleled in documents coming down from antiquity.

Have you tried examining some of the church fathers texts ? I would say that it hints at editing, especially clementine litterature.

If a number of people had edited the document, I would have thought it would display signs of that in terms of both inconsistency of theme and terminology / style.

The pauline epistles is one example of that, 2 Peter is a classic too. The lost epistles and the choice of the canon ones seems to indicate that the miracle was quite selective. Another problem is when the texts are too similar... The synoptic problem is not an easy one for the gospels.

I really should stay away from this thread, this was just one post and not one of the worst. I will post this as I think some of this might be of interest for some.

EDIT : I tried to edit it to make it less about particular quotes.