Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Sargon The Grape]

Time to break out my favorite argument.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

[Baruch]

Warning ... rhetorical abuse or logic error ...
"If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?"

If a human and a cat are both living, why have separate terms at all?
If a desk and a human are both made up of atoms, why have separate terms at all?
If (in theory of everything) EM and Grav have the same ultimate material cause, why have separate terms at all?

The point you may be trying to make is if "natural" is a good enough explanation, then per Ockham's Razor, why add more explanations?  Given that a monotheistic god and the universe are "nearly the same thing".

The idea of pantheism et al ... is that one can view the whole of human experience in more than one way ... and that one of these ways is theistic.  As opposed to something less in size/importance.  An atheist would say ... there is only one way to view things ... which coincidentally happens to be my way (interestingly theists often say the same).  This is a question of objective/subjective and egomania.  Besides ... an actual pantheist (such as myself) does not view the universe and G-d as indistinguishable ... that is putting a false statement in an opponent's mouth, it is rhetoric.  G-d is metaphysical, the universe is physical, these are not identical.  The etymology of "universe" aka everything is a term that doesn't actually include everything, just everything a materialist is willing to consider.  This is also a logical mistake, like including the color wheel but ignoring white/black.  It is also a logical mistake to admit there is physics, but deny there is metaphysics (the basis for human discussion as per Aristotle).  I am willing to admit both.

Both theism and atheism as exclusive views are ideological ... a discussion that isn't honest, no more than a discussion of capitalism vs communism.  I admit I am ideological ... but I also admit there are other ideologies.  By the nature of ideology, there is no one true ideology ... because there is no one true truth.  Truth comes from the barrel of a gun ... because polite honest discussions in fact, never get anywhere.

[Sargon The Grape]

Warning ... rhetorical abuse or logic error ...
"If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?"

If a human and a cat are both living, why have separate terms at all?
If a desk and a human are both made up of atoms, why have separate terms at all?
If (in theory of everything) EM and Grav have the same ultimate material cause, why have separate terms at all?

Cats and humans are distinguishable.
Desks and humans are distinguishable.
EM and Gravity are distinguishable.

For awhile in paleontology, brontosaurus and apatosaurus were ruled indistinguishable, and lumped under the same name. It is only since last year that brontosaurus has become its own thing again.

I chose my words carefully, Baruch. You should do the same. ;)

[stromboli]

Cats and humans are distinguishable.
Desks and humans are distinguishable.
EM and Gravity are distinguishable.

For awhile in paleontology, brontosaurus and apatosaurus were ruled indistinguishable, and lumped under the same name. It is only since last year that brontosaurus has become its own thing again.

I chose my words carefully, Baruch. You should do the same. ;)

Don't need to be on here anymore. You got it covered, bro.

[Sargon The Grape]

Don't need to be on here anymore. You got it covered, bro.

Hey now, even I need backup from time to time!

[reasonist]

"Both theism and atheism as exclusive views are ideological ... a discussion that isn't honest, no more than a discussion of capitalism vs communism.  I admit I am ideological ... but I also admit there are other ideologies.  By the nature of ideology, there is no one true ideology ... because there is no one true truth.  Truth comes from the barrel of a gun ... because polite honest discussions in fact, never get anywhere."

I've heard so many times that atheism is just another religion...no, it's actually a simple negation without content. No dogma to defend, no claims made, nothing to prove and yet ample of evidence. Maybe 'ideology' is even too strong a word.

[Mike Cl]

"Both theism and atheism as exclusive views are ideological ... a discussion that isn't honest, no more than a discussion of capitalism vs communism.  I admit I am ideological ... but I also admit there are other ideologies.  By the nature of ideology, there is no one true ideology ... because there is no one true truth.  Truth comes from the barrel of a gun ... because polite honest discussions in fact, never get anywhere."

I've heard so many times that atheism is just another religion...no, it's actually a simple negation without content. No dogma to defend, no claims made, nothing to prove and yet ample of evidence. Maybe 'ideology' is even too strong a word.

Like you, I tend to see atheism as a simple negation--no god/gods.  There is no 'content', as you put it.  There is no ideology attached.  After an atheist says there are no god/gods, everything else is open to discussion.  No two atheists think alike.  There is no default position; no ideology to refer to or lean on.  So, all claims or thoughts or reasoning need to be looked at and evaluated on their own merits.  I like that.   

[Baruch]

Hijiri and and Stromboli ... you didn't understand what I said ... but lets just pass on it ;-)

Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way).  Is this too difficult?  Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.

It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't.  But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.

[Sargon The Grape]

Hijiri and and Stromboli ... you didn't understand what I said ... but lets just pass on it ;-)

Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way).  Is this too difficult?  Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.

It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't.  But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.

We can recognize that no one is truly unbiased, while still making an effort to inject as little bias as possible into a conversation.

My favorite arguments are the ones most likely to start a fight. I reserve them for the most ardent believers, because there is no point trying to convince them. Arguments like this are for fence-sitters in the crowd, and not the person I'm actually speaking to.

[reasonist]

Hijiri and and Stromboli ... you didn't understand what I said ... but lets just pass on it ;-)

Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way).  Is this too difficult?  Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.

It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't.  But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.

Ideology (from Greek 'idea') seems to me more of a dogmatic approach to an issue. Atheism, or antitheism to me is more a rejection than an ideology. I reject the claim of a celestial dictator with supernatural powers. Therefore the 3 'good books' are rejected as the divine inspiration of a deity. I reject the violence and bloodshed they caused over thousands of years but have no political agenda. I reject the meddling of religion in people's private lives but have no platform to advocate. Just simple negation, rejection, declination whatever one wants to call it.

[Mike Cl]

Hijiri and and Stromboli ... you didn't understand what I said ... but lets just pass on it ;-)

Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way).  Is this too difficult?  Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.

It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't.  But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.

I guess.  But with your definition of ideology everybody has one.  But since none of them are identical that definition isn't of much use.  My point was that atheism isn't attached to any ideology; each person would have one, but that is true of an atheist or theist.

[LittleNipper]

Like you, I tend to see atheism as a simple negation--no god/gods.  There is no 'content', as you put it.  There is no ideology attached.  After an atheist says there are no god/gods, everything else is open to discussion.  No two atheists think alike.  There is no default position; no ideology to refer to or lean on.  So, all claims or thoughts or reasoning need to be looked at and evaluated on their own merits.  I like that.

You seem to take issue with the thought that man designed various methods to please God. God on the other hand (biblically) says that man can NOT please God. Man wants to placate God. It can be understood that the wages of any sin in any form is DEATH and eternal separation from GOD. God had to pay the penalty Himself and suffer in our place ---- the perfect for that which is imperfect.

There is no ideology involved. I believe God sent Christ to suffer and die in my place. I admit to God that I'm imperfect and thank Him for His gift and ask God to continue His transformation of me towards the model of Jesus. It doesn't cost me anything. I don't have to go to a particular building on a particular day. I don't have to conform to the opinions of anyone else. I don't have to be politically correct. I don't have to perform penitence. And I don't have to be concerned with what others think.

[LittleNipper]

                                                                                                                                                                                                      I want some of what you are smoking. Seriously Jesus will never fulfill the " Davidic " promise because Jesus isn't the jewish Messiah. Tribal affiliation is determined by the father side according to the Bible and the new testament claims Jesus never  has a human father. The new testament genealogy  is ridiculous. Joseph "davidic" ancestry is irrevelant because he wasn't the father of Jesus.  Old testament prophecies about " Jesus " are mostly based in mistranslations.  The Isaiah " prophecy " about virgin birth is horseshit.  The original Hebrew Text says young woman and it's mistranslated virgin in the Christian Bibles.  The suffering servant songs in Isaiah  are NOT about Jesus. It's actually about the nation of Israel.  Infact in the previous Isaiah chapters ( previous Isaiah 53 ) Israel is identified as the suffering servant several times.  According to Judaism Jesus isn't the Messiah because he never fulfilled a single prophecy: A) There isn't world peace .B) There isn't universal and direct  knowledge of the  Israel god. Most people are debating the existence of god and atheists are winning the debate by the way. C) There isn't resurrection of the death. D) In the messianic era the third temple will be build and what about the ingathering of Israel ? In the messianic era all jews will return to Israel.   The concept of the second coming is horseshit. The jewish messiah is supposed to accomplish everything in one coming.  Also the jewish Messiah will  be married and have offspring.  I don't believe in Judaism but I can understand why the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah.

The objection that tribal affiliation is only through the father is not always true. If a man has only daughters, the tribal inheritance is through the daughters (Num. 27:7ff, 36:6-8). This might well have been the case with Mary, since only her sister is mentioned (John 19:25), and not a brother. But even so, since Mary was still living at home and Joseph was not the father of her child, there would be no one else to trace the child’s heritage through other than Mary and her father. This is exactly the implication of Luke 3:23: that Jesus was a descendant of Eli.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is no ideology involved. I believe God sent Christ to suffer and die in my place.

Your belief IS your ideology.  Those two words mean the same thing in this context.

You make a very poor ambassador for your beliefs if you don't know enough about your beliefs to express them coherently.

And I don't have to be concerned with what others think.

If you want to continue posting to this forum, you do have to be concerned with what others thing.

[Mike Cl]

You seem to take issue with the thought that man designed various methods to please God. God on the other hand (biblically) says that man can NOT please God. Man wants to placate God. It can be understood that the wages of any sin in any form is DEATH and eternal separation from GOD. God had to pay the penalty Himself and suffer in our place ---- the perfect for that which is imperfect.

There is no ideology involved. I believe God sent Christ to suffer and die in my place. I admit to God that I'm imperfect and thank Him for His gift and ask God to continue His transformation of me towards the model of Jesus. It doesn't cost me anything. I don't have to go to a particular building on a particular day. I don't have to conform to the opinions of anyone else. I don't have to be politically correct. I don't have to perform penitence. And I don't have to be concerned with what others think.

If you are unconcerned with what others think, then why are you here? 

The key word in all of this is 'believe'.  You have belief.  And you have no critical thinking, no evidence, no facts, no proof. 

I don't take issue with your god--that would be like taking issue with Bugs Bunny, or Pecos Bill or Superman.  They are fictional, so how can I have an issue with them???  What I have issue with is that people who believe as you do want to tell me how to believe and they want to control all of my actions so I act as they deem to be the moral or correct way.  In my view, that is vile.  And immoral.