"The reason I don't believe in ANY supernatural beings is because there is no evidence for their existence."
Are you claiming Jesus and the apostles and/or disciples didn't exist at all? They were made up figures? Your logic is flawed.One example:
You have heard of Julius Caesar and I am sure you believe that he existed right? Well there were 10 manuscripts of antiquity that explained who he was as we know him today. 10 that is it, in one language, everything we know today about him came from just those 10 manuscripts, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph
By contrast, the New Testament antiquity of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was claimed to be written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000+ known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.
"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.
Homer's Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. 8 In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare's 37 plays (written in the 1600's), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD." (Bible Manuscripts)
You believe that Caesar existed and a real person but not Jesus, hmm. But again your presuppositions will determine if you will accept documented historical proof or not. I perfectly understand that there is always someone that loses on the other side of truth but I have said many times to others that it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, perfect love is a constant confronter. So I confront with love.bit.ly/Bibleisproof
I noticed that you included the "doubt" image from despair.com. Christianity tends to make me think of the "consistency" image.
ReplyDeleteA few notes. Some of the things attributed to Caesar were probably fictitious. There is a decent chance that there really was someone named "Jesus" around whom the legends formed. But it is also likely that they are fictitious. I trust you are aware that Homer's Iliad and Shakespear's plays were entirely fictional.
In addition to what pvblivs said, Dan, all this proves is that Christianity became popular very quickly. If popularity alone is an indicator of existence, then Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse must be more likely to exist than you and I.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of atheists it reminds me of Delusions and Despair an even Dysfunction and Hazard
ReplyDeleteI could go on.
"Shakespear's plays were entirely fictional" Valid, but not relevant. The fact that he wrote the plays is the relevance here. Nice spin though. You should work for Fox News.
"If popularity alone is an indicator of existence" It isn't just another factor. Santa Claus does exist thanks to the marketing of Coke-a-Cola but Santa Claus was real, his name was Saint NIckolas.
Try thinking before typing; it's slower, but much more efficient. Relax, I'm just playing.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIn reference to your Santa/St. Nick thing....this is my response:
http://raytractors.blogspot.com/2008/07/debunking-dan-part-ii.html
Dan:
ReplyDeleteThe plays clearly exist, and are quite good. This leaves three possibilities: The plays came to us ex nihilo and attributed to Shakespeare (which is contrary to experience;) the plays were written by an unknown author and attributed to a real or imagined Shakespeare; or they really were written by Shakespeare. That they really were written by Shakespeare is (in my mind) the most plausible account. Even then, I wouldn't bet my life on it.
It can be taken as given that some people produced the writings of the new testament. The gospels were originally anonymous; but you find little dispute that they were written down. What is disputed is whether they are factual or fictional accounts. I, therefore, thought quite relevant that most of the other accounts you brought up were known fictions.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI explored this blog a bit, and so far, I cannot see any atheism debunked. So, maybe you should close it. It has not served its supposed purpose.
You do not give readers even something to think about. Well, sorry, I exaggerated, you do give the reader something to think about, I am thinking you will never have something we can call an argument so that we can start the "debunking."
Maybe you should sell flowers instead.
G.E.
"I perfectly understand that there is always someone that loses on the other side of truth but I have said many times to others that it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, perfect love is a constant confronter. So I confront with love."
ReplyDeleteDan, you tell atheists you are going to "debunk" them...and this is how you "confront with love"? Listen, maybe we are trying to help you as well. Non-belief is possible, it doesn't make life any less grand, and if anything, one has an actual shot at arriving at morals on their own-without the threat of physical violence after death. You admit yourself that there is no logical reason to believe what you are preaching...why do you beleive it?
get_education,
ReplyDeleteI have already been banned in four of the atheists blogs. I was told to play in my own yard, now you want me to stop playing in my own yard. Forget it!
I won't stop until you are saved or I die, either one you have no control of so get_lost or get_education if you stay.
Clostridiophile ,
Dan, you tell atheists you are going to "debunk" them...and this is how you "confront with love"?
Shhh, don't tell everyone. Besides, who said intellectual conversations can't turn into a discussion of the conscience and/or our mortality?
"I have already been banned in four of the atheists blogs."
ReplyDeleteWhich ones?
Now, I wouldn't tell you to close up shop. Although I might recommend renaming it to something more fitting. Unless, of course, dishonesty is how you want to portray christianity. That's how Ray portray's christianity when he names his blog "atheist's central."
ReplyDeleteYou act as a representative of your beliefs. One person "lying for Jesus" doesn't necessarily mean anything. Perhaps that person doesn't understand what your faith is about. But I see a pattern.
"Which ones? "
ReplyDeleteDo I have too? Alright [reluctantly]
Debunking Christianity, Atheist Experience, Friendly Atheist, (I know), and Ex-Christians,
Wait I almost forgot there is one more it was Richard Dawkins chat room. I was having a blast at that one, can you say 'kicking a hornet nest'? Didn't want to be kicked off that one.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteOne person "lying for Jesus" doesn't necessarily mean anything. Perhaps that person doesn't understand what your faith is about. But I see a pattern.
Prove that I have lied. Name one person here that doesn't understand what my faith is about. I am beginning to see a pattern with you also.
Dan, you suggest I should "Try thinking before typing; it's slower, but much more efficient."
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I do try. I'm perfectly aware of the story of St. Nikolas. In fact, I chose it because it has a great deal in common with the story of Jesus: a (possibly) real person becoming a legend, and picking up all kinds of supernatural attributes. Even Mickey Mouse is similar: based on real mice, but augmented with human or superhuman characteristics.
People do this all the time with stories, which thus become more interesting, or compelling, or salable. Of course, this process is not always consciously invented fiction, but simply the result of embroidering the yarns through retelling.
The story of Santa Claus is instructive in this regard. You say that Santa Claus exists because of Coca-Cola. But while Santa's current popularity certainly owes a great deal to his having been thus marketed, many features of his story were already in place long before the soft drink existed: in one legend, St. Nikolas placed a bag of gold in a stocking hung by the fireplace, or dropped it down a chimney (sound familiar?). Medieval children got gifts on his name day (Dec. 6). The reindeer are apparently the invention of the anonymous author of "T'was the Night Before Christmas" in 1823. The red suit was a touch by Thomas Nast in 1863. And so on.
By the way- children here in Austria do not get presents from St. Nikolas or Santa on Dec. 6, but rather from the Christ Child on Dec. 24. This Christkind, usually depicted as a girl or an angel (probably because there is ambiguity about whether the "Christ child" is the baby Jesus, or rather a child who has come to adore Him) and originates from an old Alsatian legend. Marin Luther deliberately commandeered the Christkind to this new duty in order to spite the "Papist" custom of St. Nikolas. That's why most Americans give gifts at Christmas and not on Dec. 6.
(last try)
ReplyDeleteZilch,
"In fact, I chose it because it has a great deal in common with the story of Jesus: a (possibly) real person becoming a legend, and picking up all kinds of supernatural attributes."
If I am wrong so be it. At lest I will die with a full life and I have had some great conversations with people such as yourself. It's been a pleasure talking with you, would be an understatement.
Is that all there is though? Don't you long for something more then just this life? Isn't your conscience yearning for more substance? Mine is. Which reminds me, when are you do back in the states?
Blessings (like it or not)
You call your blog "Debunking Atheists" For it to be accurate, you would have to produce rational arguments against the atheist's claims. I see nothing of the sort. Indeed, you seem to be of the mind that rational arguments are to be avoided on the topic. The title of your blog looks like a lie designed to draw in through curiosity.
ReplyDeleteOh, and by the way: St. Nikolas probably has Dec. 6 as a name day, because Dec. 6 was the pagan goddess Diana's birthday. One of the stories about St. Nikolas has him cutting down the trees sacred to Diana. An old ploy of religions is to co-opt the stories and dates of competing religions, and Christianity has of course excelled at this: the December birth of Jesus, not mentioned in the Bible, comes from the pagan Winter Solstice celebration, and Easter (the word itself is from the Anglo-Saxon "Eostre", the pagan goddess of fertility) is connected with equinox celebrations. The Devil's cloven feet and horns are borrowed from Pan. And so forth.
ReplyDeleteWhen am I due back in the States? Not until next year, I'm afraid- I just came back from there. And as far as longing for more than just this life: as Michael Shermer says when asked what he thinks about an afterlife, he says "I'll take it". I can imagine all kinds of things I would like: an afterlife, ultimate justice for wrongdoing, reward for suffering, and so forth. That doesn't mean I believe these things exist, but I can see how desiring these things makes religion attractive. But I'm happy, more or less, with the life I have, warts and all. I'll go along with Hobbes.
What are you doing up so late, Dan? It's after midnight in your longitude. And thanks for the blessings- it's the thought that counts.
Oh, yes, there is also this exchange (from your thread "Have you put Jesus on like a parachute?")
ReplyDeleteMike aka MonolithTMA said...
Let me ask you one question Dan. Do think I'm telling the truth when i say I don't believe God exists?
July 18, 2008 4:25 PM
<Tag removed> Dan said...
In a word...No
July 18, 2008 6:34 PM
<Tag removed> Mike aka MonolithTMA said...
I have given you no reason to call me a liar. I have given you no reason to distrust me.
Being called a liar is one of the things I won't tolerate. Have a nice life Dan. I still have hope for you.
July 18, 2008 6:45 PM
<Tag removed> Dan said...
You call it being a liar, I call it being in denial. Enjoy your life
July 18, 2008 6:51 PM
<Tag removed> Dan said...
Mike, let me apologize for offending you and being curt 'again.'
I fully understand you really believe that God doesn't exist and that whatever evidence you seek, you seek it to back up your presuppositions.
To engage you in a discussion I said 'no' but possibly it back fired. I am one to believe that we all have that knowledge of God burned into our conscience but when we suppress that knowledge it becomes dangerous. I wish everyone to stay and get informed but mainly Mike, I want to see you convicted.
When Mike asked if you thought he was telling the truth when he says he doesn't believe god exists and you said "no," that was a lie. You later admitted that you know he doesn't believe god exists. So, you knew he was telling the truth.
Is that sufficient proof for you?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that your comparison of the bible to both the works of Shakespeare and the life of Caesar is flawed. While we can not point to any written document and say conclusively that it is not a forgery or error, there is much corroborating evidence for the existence of Caesar. Contemporary accounts (people writing about him while he was alive), official documents, and monuments. Shakespeare also has these supporting facts. The first account of any of the occurrences in the bible, however, occurred at least 40 years after the fact. It is also very telling that those writings, the ones of Paul, describe so little of the actual life of Christ that they forget to mention the place he was born, his mother, or the location of his death. I find it very telling, in fact, that Paul declines to mention Jesus ever went to Jerusalem at all! We must also consider the Hellenic traditions which had emerged in the Hebrew world in the centuries following Alexander the Great. Many religious themes were explored using fiction, portraying religious icons in the real world. It would be no surprise, then, if a group of proselytizers, attempting to appeal to the cosmopolitan Greeks and Romans, were to adopt this same style which derived from those traditions. So, while the bible may be a valid spiritual guide for many people, as a source of historical truth about the life of Jesus, it remains so suspect as to be useless.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, there is also this exchange...
Valid point, but it was only in retrospect I backed down to engage. I still believe that we deny our own conscience but after his reaction I should of said I fully understand 'now' you really believe that God doesn't exist
"To engage you in a discussion I said 'no' but possibly it back fired." (as an open reflection of my own motives)
You still could be right though, but I don't believe so, I have lied in the past so I am fully capable. I don't believe I was being deceitful but you make a valid point. I can only correct future actions though, but thanks for rubbing salt in my already open wound, I do feel bad I hurt his feelings. He is a kind man, and I felt like a boob. I deserve it though, bad Dan! Bad, bad. Sorry Mike.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI am not looking to pour salt in an open wound. Nor am I looking to say "bad Dan, bad." You issued a challenge, one that I thought unwise, but a challenge none the less.
It should be noted (in case that it's not clear) that when I said "perhaps that person doesn't understand what your faith is about," I was talking about the person "lying for Jesus" (assuming examples of such people were rare.)
I see you (and not just you) using deception in an effort to attract non-christians so that you can try to convert them. I am not here to tell you that that is good or bad. I only suggest that it casts an adverse reflection on the christian faith. Is this what "following Jesus" leads people to do? On my own blog, I recently posed a question to christians. "What do you mean when you say your god is good?" I go on to explain what I mean by the question. You might do well to consider it.
Thanks Dan, I will get_lost. No atheist debunking going on here at all. Just blabbing aimlessly.
ReplyDeleteG.E.
You are what we call "Cherry Picking" Christians in that you pick and choose what sounds good to you in the bible...and then state it as if your chosen verse is the only verse in the bible. But, we atheists know better.
ReplyDeleteMany of us atheists are former christians who became disillusioned and appalled at what the bible really says. You have since chosen to ignore all the bible verses which says to "kill" infidels, rape their wives, kill their children, and cut/abort the babies of infidels out of the bellies of women.
I am not going to let you ignore what your bible says...for your convenience, so you can continue to pull a smoke screen over people's eyes. People are waking up and you are losing a sum game in trying to continue to promote your religion as a religion of peace.
We know from your history, that once you are in power, you christians will pull the verses out of the bible that say to kill "infidels" or anyone who disagrees with you...and its off to the Inquisition again. I've mentioned the Inquisition and you have yet to denounce it...meaning that you approved of murdering those who don't believe like you.
Christianity has killed more people than Pol Pot, and is second only to Stalin the number of mass murders generated by christians in the "name the name of god." One more time, if you want to see all the "murder" in the bible that are god's laws, go to www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm.
By the way, there are many, many more of god's laws than just the Ten Commandments. Stop Cherry Picking!
I really suggest that you are an amateur in the business of religious propaganda, and have yet to realize that most atheists, such as myself know the bible better than you do...which is why we became atheists.
Here is a good editorial as to how we perceive religion and why we atheists are more moral and ethical: (dwilson phd)
Three arguments, I think, can be made for the proposition that the irreligious (those who are not religious) are actually more moral than the religious:
1. That religions have actually encouraged violence because such intensity of conviction can lead to intolerance or crusades. Zizek (playing on the Dostoevsky line): "The lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted." The Christian bible including the Old Testament has a history of murdering thousands upon thousands who did not believe the correct dogma.
2. That atheists are more moral because a moral law resides in Nature or Humanity, and the atheist's view of this law is not obscured by ancient texts, rituals, tribal feuds or other forms of religious mumbo jumbo. Zizek alludes to this when he talks positively of "merely human constraints and considerations."
It was a major theme when the pro-Atheism argument first showed itself in Europe with Baron d'Holbach and, later, young Shelley:
There needeth not the hell that bigots frame
To punish those who err; earth in itself
Contains at once the evil and the cure;
And all-sufficing Nature can chastise
Those who transgress her law; she only knows
How justly to proportion to the fault
The punishment it merits.
3. That the religious do good only to cozy up to God (as discussed here). Zizek: "Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do."
My comments: I have always thought that so-called "Christian values" are simply human values that have put on their Sunday clothes. Since I don't hold that a supernatural being gave humanity the Golden Rule, I must conclude that it emerged out of human nature/society, and so no faith system can lay exclusive claim on it. (In fact, I understand that Confucious offered a similar version of this rule 600 or so years before Jesus.)
Humanity gives rise to 3 types of morality. The lowest is the morality of means, whereby a person does what is right simply to reap rewards and evade negative consequences. The second is the morality of both means and ends, whereby a person does what is right both because it is right and because he expects to reap rewards/evade negative consequences. The highest and most rare is the morality of ends, whereby a person does what is right solely because it is right, pursuing moral/ethical perfection as an end for its own sake.
The religious too often do good, because they "fear" god. The religious do not do good because it IS the right thing to do. One may ask that if the religious did not "fear" to do the right thing, what they would indeed be like?
Secondly, once a religious person no longer "fears" god...what becomes of them. Atheists do the right thing because its the right thing to do on its face...and doing the right thing allows peace, freedom, and tranquility in a society.
The religous however, in just looking at their history, find the "right" thing to do...easily negotiable to "defend" their religious beliefs, such as they are attempting now to do in deconstructing the US Bill of Rights, whereby "religion" will have more rights than the average citizen. Already, the religious are special, protected class in that they pay no taxes, and can say the most outrageous statements...without expecting their beliefs to be examined for truth and reality.
There cannot be anything more Darker...than a Christian who believes, lives, and promotes his/her religion based on massive fear of going to HELL....if someone does not believe in your imaginary god.
ReplyDeleteAnd, its amazing that you speak for Atheism and Atheists, but don't know any atheists. How do you do that? Have you taken Miss Cleo's place in the world of scam artists?
I've noticed that those like yourself who claim to be christians, often then come to have extraordinary powers of perception. You can see through walls, read people's minds, make statements about quantum physics theories or any natural law...and become the most narcissicistic people on this planet. Your religion is all about you.
God and jesus become not just your buddy, but your bodyguards...and your lucky charms that protect you from harm. However, in reality, Jessica Lynch and four other children who were murdered, all wearing crosses around their necks were all christians, and were all murdered, pleading god and jesus to save them...who didn't. Why? Because god and jesus do not exist.
And...because you don't like what I am saying, the next thing you will do on your list of "christian excuse making" is to attempt to attack me as "unhappy, dark, I have no soul, god doesn't like me, and so on." The list of your excuses does not lead up to anything rational that refutes anything I've said.
In response to PVBLIVS...who said that Homer and Shakespear's plays were fictitious...well, yes they were but at least Homer and Shakespear were honest enough to state...that they wrote works of fiction.
The bible, however, claims its the word of god...but can't prove it. We can prove Homer and Shakespear wrote their fictional plays...but when the religious are required to prove who wrote what in the bible...they either lie, ignore the question, or make irrational statements...that you have to "believe" its true, because christians say so. Nope, that doesn't work in the real world.
Diana Wilson PhD
Diana,
ReplyDeleteYou are making broad sweeping unfounded accusations. Cherry Picking? How, Where, Who? Have you been to my blog about Hermeneutics?
" its amazing that you speak for Atheism and Atheists, but don't know any atheists." Again broad and sweeping, do you have proof of this accusation? Explain yourself. Get honest and stop c/p'ing and all you seem to do is yell things instead of converse. Please use your own blog to yell at people. This is your second warning with all due respect. Get into the conversations please.
"I've noticed that those like yourself who claim to be christians, often then come to have extraordinary powers of perception. You can see through walls, read people's minds, make statements about quantum physics theories or any natural law...and become the most [narcissistic] people on this planet. Your religion is all about you."
Are you asking me something? Are you claiming that I claim to have extraordinary powers? Isn't this conversation about you, really? Can you say the word civility?
Dan- "hermeneutics" is just Christianese for "cherry picking". Or perhaps more accurately: "cherry pickling, dyeing, and genetically manipulating". You can massage the Bible all you want, but you are still left with some fairly indigestible cherry stones. Jehovah is, by any modern civilized standard, a barbarian. That, of course, does not prove that He does not exist. But it gives a whole new meaning to the word "good" in "God is good".
ReplyDelete"By contrast, the New Testament antiquity of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was claimed to be written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000+ known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages."
ReplyDeleteThe total number of copies of a book mean it's any more accurate. By your logic, if someone made 1B copies of the bible then god would somehow be more real? What about if I made a billion copies of the Koran, or the Talmud? Or the God Delusion?
This is argumentum ad populum in disguise.
You didn't include the complete argument here. I was providing evidence against his fallacious argument. The original argument was this:
Delete>>"The reason I don't believe in ANY supernatural beings is because there is no evidence for their existence."
What I then proceeded to do was provide the extensive amount of evidence for Jesus Christ. That was the original purpose of the post. He was proclaiming that there was so few amounts of evidence that it's to be rejected because it's so minuscule, that was the fallacy he originally used, I just included all the evidence that was available.
Incidentall, this was a very old post, I would answer with, as Sye would put it, "that's not what the Bible says". Then, "What evidence would convince you of the God, who says you already have all the evidence?"