Goliath

DivineOb,

Yes, I did.

You are correct in that I didn't specifically bring up the supposed existence of Jesus in any post that I've made to BT. However, that doesn't change the fact that the unproven assertion that Jesus existed is just that--an UNPROVEN ASSERTION.

Now, have you read what I wrote? Specifically the words "UNPROVEN ASSERTION?"

Just because I didn't bring up the unproven assertion of Jesus' existence in a post to BT does not mean that the topic is not relevant in my post to you now. Understood?

Almost correct. I made a comparison between the alleged belief of the alleged apostles and modern day muslims.

Note the word "alleged." Did you read that? (Are you getting sick of the condescending questions? Good, then please stop asking them of me).

Absolutely incorrect. See above. I made no assumptions about the existence of Jesus or his apostles. I merely compared the beliefs that these people allegedly had with muslim beliefs.

"Because I KNOW that I am SAVED by the Lord Almighty, through God's Holy Word. God said it, I believe it, that settles it! Now, STOP CONFUSING ME WITH FACTS AND BELIEVE!!! BELIEVE OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER!!!"

*sigh* I can't decide whether it's amusing or depressing to play theist.

Good.

Ah, but if you assume (for the moment) that Jesus existed, then how can you refute my theist alter-ego above? After all, he KNOWS, and that's all that he cares about!

Also, what if Jesus came to earth twice, died twice, and was resurrected twice? Would it not stand to reason that even more people would be in this "not-so-unique" position to witness his alleged resurrection(s)?

Sincerely,

Goliath

DivineOb

Quote:

Yes, I did.

Well, obviously you took offense at me asking that so I'm sorry. I only asked because you did what I asked you not to do without providing any explanation.

Quote:

You are correct in that I didn't specifically bring up the supposed existence of Jesus in any post that I've made to BT. However, that doesn't change the fact that the unproven assertion that Jesus existed is just that--an UNPROVEN ASSERTION. Now, have you read what I wrote? Specifically the words "UNPROVEN ASSERTION?"

Yes, and I responded to those words

Quote:

Just because I didn't bring up the unproven assertion of Jesus' existence in a post to BT does not mean that the topic is not relevant in my post to you now. Understood?

Of course. But your response to him still assumed the existence of Jesus and his followers, and I'm only interested in understanding your thought process assuming that Jesus and his followers existed.

Quote:

Absolutely incorrect. See above. I made no assumptions about the existence of Jesus or his apostles. I merely compared the beliefs that these people allegedly had with muslim beliefs.

Can you allege something about the thoughts of someone without also alleging that person's existence? Maybe I'm using this word wrong...

Quote:

"Because I KNOW that I am SAVED by the Lord Almighty, through God's Holy Word. God said it, I believe it, that settles it! Now, STOP CONFUSING ME WITH FACTS AND BELIEVE!!! BELIEVE OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER!!!" *sigh* I can't decide whether it's amusing or depressing to play theist.

This doesn't answer my question.

Assume that Jesus existed.
Assume Jesus had followers.
Would these followers have had a better or worse chance of witnessing Jesus' execution and resurrection than modern day believers? This question is not meant to be insulting, but how I interpret it when you compare the alleged beliefs of the apostles to modern day believers is that you are answering that the apostles would have been in no better of a position to witness these events than a modern day believer. So, it would answer this whole issue if you just answer yes or no and, if the answer is no, explain why that is the case. If the answer is yes, then why is the comparison to modern day believers valid, given that they could not possibly have witnessed the alleged death and resurrection of the alleged Jesus.

Quote:

Ah, but if you assume (for the moment) that Jesus existed, then how can you refute my theist alter-ego above? After all, he KNOWS, and that's all that he cares about!

Because a modern day believer could not possibly have witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus. Given that, the modern day believer could not possibly know for certain whether Jesus did die and resurrect. (Assuming that we treat things seen visually as absolute proof that they occured and that no one hallucinates).

Quote:

Also, what if Jesus came to earth twice, died twice, and was resurrected twice? Would it not stand to reason that even more people would be in this "not-so-unique" position to witness his alleged resurrection(s)?

I think that would stand to reason.

K

lisarea:

That was exactly my point. You and I together offer a counter-example to Breeze's correlation (although I grant that it is only one data point).

We came from two different families, one Christian and the other largely atheistic - yet other than that, the families could be indistinguishable. Therefore we are a counter-example to Breeze's assertion that there is a correlation between Christianity and a good home life.

K

After reading about BreezeinaTree's promise of empirical data showing the existence of God, I started thinking about how people with sight could provide empirical data to a blind person to prove that colors exist.

I came up with the following crude experiment. This is just an overview and would need a bit of work to remove all other variables.

1. A sighted person could provide the the blind person with cards of identical size and weight, but different colors.

2. The blind person would then label the back of each card with a code (maybe in Braille).

3. The fronts of the cards would then be shown to a random sampling of sighted individuals. They would be asked to name the color of the card.

4. The blind person would take data indicating the number of people associating a given color with a given card.

If colors actually exist as claimed, there should be a very high percentage of people who label each of the cards in an identical manner.

This is really empirical data. It is experimental, it is repeatable, and the results can be predicted ahead of time if the hypothesis is correct.


I am looking for a test for God that might work similar to this. God is often claimed to be experiential. Colors are also experiential. Yet there are still ways to provide empirical evidence to those who can't experience them (and I'm sure most of them are much better than the way listed above). Since I don't experience God at all, I'm wondering what type of experiment could be created to provide empirical data that He exists. Any Ideas?

Starboy

Depends on how you look at it.

Starboy

BreezeinaTree,

Lets get down to brass tacks. What is your purpose here? Your first post indicated curiosity with atheism but your last post seems to indicate that you intend to witness and proselytize. Is that why you are here?

If you’re selling Christianity for the lord, be polite enough to say so.

Starboy

Glory

Welcome.



Interesting. In my very limited experience religion discourages thinking. The emphasis I have seen is on belief.



I am very existentially certain as well. I don't, however, consider myself open minded. I don't reject ideas out of hand, but there are certain things I have made my mind up about and it would take something substantial to change it. I am always willing to consider another's arguments though.

1. What do you think happens to you after your death?

Me meaning the entity seperate from my body? I have no idea. I don't think that there is a me seperate from the physical me but if there is, I haven't the slightest idea what will happen after death.

2. To me, atheism ultimately implies that there is no greater meaning to life. Yes, you can give your life some meaning by contributing to society, having children, etc. But ultimately, there is no higher force to create meaning.

I don't desire higher or greater meaning. The only existence I can percieve is the current one. It has plenty of meaning for me. I'm fairly certain it has meaning for my family. Frankly, the idea that there is a higher purpose for each of us seems rather like delusions of grandeur. I know and am relieved that I am not that important outside of my immediate surroundings. My nightmares often involve my having a very important job to do and no idea what it is or how to accomplish it. If a deity has something in mind for me he should have the decency to let me in on the plan. So far this hasn't happened.

This gets back to question 1 above, but in the atheist view as I understand it, personal meaning ends upon your death. Martin Luther King Jr. did some great things in his life, but he does not reap the benefit himself because he was martyred for his pursuit of meaning.

Do you believe that Dr.King was motivated by personal gain? The only reason to do something is because you will be rewarded? I think King saw something that needed doing and did it. He wanted to make the world better. I can't see him thinking about how great it would look on his spiritual resume as it were. By the way, he was murdered not martyred. He did not allow himself to be shot for his cause. He had no idea that it was going to happen. I doubt he would have decided to walk out of his hotel that day if he had known.

So, why do atheists try so hard to deny or reject God? Seems to me that people would rather try to prove God exists. Forget about organized religion, why not try to prove that there is a God?

It is not an effort to reject something that seems ludicrous to me. It would be a huge effort to try to prove something that is by its nature unprovable. As has been said so many times before, I could try to prove that there is a giant invisible pink unicorn in my living room but why should I? Do you attempt to prove everything that is at odds with what your rational mind tells you is true before rejecting it? Do you realize that that is what you are asking us to do?

3. Among religions, Christianity is most often targeted by atheists. Do atheists really see Christianity as a threat? Why?

Same answer as everyone else. Familliarity and proximity. I am just as sure that the Jews and Muslims are as wrong as the Christians. I don't know enough about the beliefs of Buddhists and Hindus to form an oppinion on them but what I know doesn't ring true to me either.

Christianity as it exists in this country right now is most definitely a threat. Christians are threatening to halt scientific research(stem cells), bastardize education( creationism and young earth theory), condemn women to lives of misery and poverty(antiabortionists and bans on birth control), and enslave half the population(submit to your husband). This is only the tip of the iceburg though. The really scary stuff is more subtle. Christians are trying to funnel money away from public schools. By doing so they set up a situation in which the public schools are destitute and private school is the only option for parents who want their children to recieve a decent education. At the same time they make sure that religious schools keep tuition low enough that they become the only option for the vast majority of people who cannot afford private schools. Make no mistake. They are after our children. I consider this a threat of the highest order. I will not have my daughter preached at in exchange for education.

4. What do you think Western society would be like without its bent toward Christian beliefs? Would it be better or worse?

I think it would be different in ways we can't imagine. If all those people weren't christian they might be adherents to another of the five major religions or something that doesn't exist in this reality. They might be atheists in which case I think the world would be a better place. I have the impression that that last one is the one you are looking for.

I think western society should stop taking its cues from a book which promotes intolerance, hatred, bigotry, tribalism, slavery and the subjugation of entire races as well as half of their own population. I think Christianity gives people a messed up view of sex and that alot of tragedies would be averted if people weren't so repressed. I think Paul was the worst thing to happen to Western society in all of history.

I hope I haven't put you off too much. Talk to me about almost anything else and you would see a different side of me. Unlike you, I don't try to remain unemotional in my arguments. I have strong feelings about this stuff and I think that feelings are relevant. I know there are alot of folks around here who believe that emotions have no place in rational discussions. I think that to deny your emotions is fruitless and misleading. I am an emotional being being and as such I manage to be rational as well. Emotion and rationality are not polar opposites.

You're welcome.

Glory

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

Glory

Breezeinatree,

Every time someone mentions an atrocity committed by Christians, you claim that they are not acting in a Christian way and that christianity should not be judged by their actions. This is a logical falacy. We are told not to judge Christianity by what Christians do? You deny the actual effects of the Bible and Christianity on its adherents in favour of what you believe the effects should be. It doesn't work that way. It is the actions of individuals that we have to deal with. Their beliefs are their business. Actions are the only things by which people can be judged and the actions of its adherents are the only things by which we can judge Christianity.

I have no problems with Christians. I simply have never met one.

Glory

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

BreezeinaTree

I have a couple of minutes before work, so I wanted to post a response.

First, I'm reading through all of your responses. Thanks for them.

Second, in my discussion of my home life I merely wanted to describe how I originally became attracted to Christianity. I make no bones that there was an emotional element to it. I also do not declare that my sample set was large enough to be statistically significant. I simply responded to what I observed.

This does not make my experience invalid, BTW.

Third, of the four Gospels about Jesus, two were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and the other two were written by interviewers (Luke and Mark). I encourage you to read the opening of the Gospel of Luke. Doesn't read like a myth to me.

Fourth, several of you have mentioned that I have an embedded assumption that the Bible accounts are true. You are correct. I knew that one was coming and I'll share more info on this over the next few posts.

Finally, can you all describe what sorts of data you are looking for?

Gotta get to work...

--Breeze

DMB

Breeze: enough people have commented on your poor idea of correlation, to say nothing of any deductions you may make from this "correlation". I would just mention that my husband and I are not religious believers, that we have been together for over 30 years and still love one another, and that our children get on with one another and with us and keep in regular touch with us. I know other families of whom all this is true. Being European and well educated, I don't know many xians at all, so I can't comment from my personal experience.

The more I see of this thread, the more I think it is a bit too rich: it provides material for about a dozen single-subject threads. I can see how as a newcomer here you wanted to ask all your questions, but you will never manage to reply on all the issues that have been raised here!