Forum Topic

Laurance,Here's what you got wrong in your reply...."I can show you the effects of God"No you can't. If you do then god wouldn't be supernatural."You want me to prove God in a way that YOU WANT. "Maybe - but I'd like to see you prove anything without evidence."you say that all that can be known can ONLY be known through what we see, taste, touch, feel etc etc..."Nope. Our senses are untrustworthy - we can only know what can be known through independent means of measurement. Our senses are dependent on our perception and that's easy to fool. Proper measurement that can be independently verified is much more trustworthy.  "You state that unless you can prove a statement is either false or true, then it is meaningless. "Nope. I have never stated that in any way what so ever. "The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the clincher"As we don't have evidence it definitely happened then no it's not."You cant see the wind - you can see the effects of the wind - but you cannot see the wind.Does that mean the wind does not exist?"No because we can MEASURE the effects of the wind. It is not about what we can see, feel etc. We can measure the wind in many different ways, make predictions about the wind, build up a historical record of the wind etc. Using these we can build up hypothesis about wind that we can test and that leads us through to a theory about how wind works. We can then use that theory to predict the weather and make air travel safer.Own goal Laurence."Somewhere in History - people have assumed that science has disproved the supernatural and therefore mircales and God does not exist. "Wrong again. Science can only disprove things that can be tested. Because of that science says NOTHING about religion because there's nothing to test.I am open to change - and that requires evidence, the type all agnostics wait for before reaching a different conclusion. "You say you are open to God showing Himself to you - but you are not actually."He'd have to do a lot of explaining if he did, he'd have to explain the bible for a start." The resurrection is this sign... "What resurrection? I have no way of knowing that happened unless I believe in god and to believe in god I have to accept it happened. That's faith for you - belief without evidence. There are thousands of other things I could beleive in if I choose to throw logic and reason out of the window and think like you do."Therefore - you reject God, ultimately without logic or reason"And the resurrection is logical? Really? Seriously? You'll have to explain that one.  So far, logically, I can say it did not happen because I have no evidence for ANY resurrection EVER happening.

Stewart Dean ● 5080d

Stew - what you want me to do is provide scientific and 'human' evidence for something/someone that is supernatural...You I cannot do that.I can show you the effects of God - His creation - constants and perfect balance - in philosophy and personalities - I can show you Jesus - the history and the teaching - the claimed miracles - His death and resurrection - etc etc... all of which are signs for you.The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the clincher - and you still have not yet given me a historic or scientific counter argument that is watertight to disprove it. I am waiting...But you have set up a hughe strawman argument. You want me to prove God in a way that YOU WANT. You have limited the evidence/proof bit to your empirical/scientic bubble... because you say that all that can be known can ONLY be known through what we see, taste, touch, feel etc etc...You state that unless you can prove a statement is either false or true, then it is meaningless. This is a very recent 20th century school of thought. It holds some credibility - but DOES NOT answer or even begin to address the big undergirding philosophies of 'how can we know anything at all?' and these big questions will shake the very foundation of your 'empirical evidence/science evidence' bleatings... Since many of the great claims of the Bible concerning God and Salvation are not capable of being proved in scientific terms, (which you well know!) then you assume and conclude that much of/all of the Christian faith is nonsense.Silly thing is if we turned the tables and philosophically examined your absolute faith (because your position is a faith position underneath all of the 'science') position - we would see that it is not based on a rock solid foundation like you think it is. You cant see the wind - you can see the effects of the wind - but you cannot see the wind.Does that mean the wind does not exist?Somewhere in History - people have assumed that science has disproved the supernatural and therefore mircales and God does not exist. They have done no such thing - and cannot either.You show that in some way you are open to change - on an agnostic footing. However, there is no neutral space a human can occupy when it comes to belief and philosophy. You say you are open to God showing Himself to you - but you are not actually. He has shown Himself to you in His way - but you choose to reject that. The resurrection is this sign... and you have not come forward with any logical reason why it is not true.Therefore - you reject God, ultimately without logic or reason... but rather based on your preference or philosophy.

Laurence Truett ● 5080d

I never said Jesus existed, that I cannot know.  I can say he probably existed, which is different. But who Jesus actually was is, again, unknowable, other than that he created a stir, as you said. Miracle worker is dubious.The non christian evidence supports the claim he existed but is not conclusive. You cannot say that he definitely existed or definitely was the the messiah / son of god. The reason you can not say it definitely is that it is a historical event that has no physical evidence. Therefore it is knowable. Conversely we know there was no global flood because that event would have left a clear global marker.So you ask..."How on earth did Jesus become so famous some time after his life and death in relative obscurity?"The answer to that is due to his followers and the oral tradition that passed down his story. The story could have faded in to obscurity.  We are talking about a classic case of Martyrdom - a very powerful thing. That's all you need know to make the rest make sense. The detail of the reseration could have been added later. We have a charismatic leader who is crucified. Add to this some exaggerations and various power struggles in the early years between different groups and you get early Christianity. No god or miracles needed.No supernatural event has ever had anything more than anecdotal evidence for it . I can say with complete confidence that no supernatural event will ever have non anecdotal evidence because if it did, it would stop being supernatural!  The super in super natural means "above, in addition" to nature. If something is related to or interacts with nature it is part of it. Therefore if you consider nature to mean reality then the supernatural is not real.I have offered no account of what happened to Jesus as there is no way for me to know what happened to Jesus.  The only way to know is by using a time machine - and then you have to know that the history you go back to is the same as actually happened!!!So - to enlighten you I believe the only correct answer is - we cannot know.

Stewart Dean ● 5082d

Stew says 'There are no references to Jesus of the period.'OK here we go with a few starters...Jewish Historian Josephus, born around AD 37. He defected to the Romans in the Jewish/Roman war which started in AD 66, and which is referred to in the Gospels in the Bible. His most fmaous quote from his famous 'Antiquities':'Now there ws about this time, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as recieve the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians so named after him, are not extinct at this day.'OK so some scholars believe this to have had later Christian insertions - however fro Stews sake I have removed them in the passage above so it only quotes the undesputed bits... But most scholars believe the rest to be authentic, for there is no textual evidence against either of Josephus' 'Jesus' passages. The importance of what the Rabbi's didnt say is good to look at too. From the Tannaitic period of Jewish history (AD 70-200) we have a few references to Jesus. By this time Jews and Christians were in dispute, and it would have suited Jewish teachers to be able to cast doubt upon the existence of Jesus. However, they did not do so. Quite the reverse in fact. In the Jewish Talmud, Jesus is acknowledged as existing and as a Jew. He is described as an executed false teacher. His miracles, teachings and disciples are referred to. Prof. FF BRuce sums this up 'the Rabbi's of this period, then, were not unacquainted with the story of Jesus and the activity of His followers, vigourously as they voiced their dissent from all that he and thay stood for.'There is more evidence for Christians than Christ. Those roman officials and historians who took an interest in the Christian movement did so reluctantly. For the word Christian semed to be spelt 'TROUBLE'. So Pliny the Younger (Roman Govenor of Bithynia AD 110-113) Suetonius (A roman historian who wrote around 100 AD) and Tacitus (A roman historian born in AD 56) were more interested in the antics - as they regarded them - of the early Christians than of Jesus himself. But they NEVER doubted that behond it all was a man called Jesus Christ. For example, in his Annals, Tacitus describes how the Emperor Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat for the burning of Rome:'Therefore, to scotch the rumours, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled 'Christians' (Christianos). Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the Procurator Pontius Pilate.'Of course, Tacitus never met Jesus. He knew about Jesus from the Christians of His day... and perhaps from another important source too. Tacitus enjoyed high status, and might have had access to official Roman records! Who knows...I acknowledge that there is not vast quantities of detailed information about Jesus from these early NON-CHRISTIAN sources. IN THE NATURE OF THE CASE THOUGH, WE WOULD NOT EXPECT THIS! It was only when the Christian movement would not lie down - despite slander, scorn and persecution - that politicians and historians began to take notice.However, the lack of detailed information is far from being a problem. It actually lends weight to the Christian case. How on earth did Jesus become so famous, some time after his life and death in relative obscurity? This fact points quite clearly towards His resurrection. On the basis of the evidence we do have, we can be quite sure of 2 things: 1) Jesus existed. 2) Jesus was a notable teacher, that he gained a reputation as a miracle worker, that he offended authority, and that he was executed. This evidence from non-Christian sources is supported in two other sets of data... Early Christian evidence and modern witnesses...

Laurence Truett ● 5082d

"The 4th line of evidence is, to my mind, the most compelling (and I have written on this forum about it before - and as of yet no one has come forward with a counter claim that is watertight or compelling!) - the resurrection of Jesus Christ."I've actually lost track of what exactly you're trying to prove. Are you trying to show that there is a god or that Jesus was the messiah or Jesus, in some form, existed or just that there where early Christians?So far you reasoning has partly shown the last and hints at Jesus existing in some form and that's about it. So if we have early Christians does that show we have Jesus Christ? Not really. Likewise validating the broad historical context of the Bible does not validate the stories that happen in that setting.So what is you evidence, validation for your 4th attempt?Bit by bit..."numerous apparently sane people claimed to have SEEN Jesus risen from the dead"That is not verified - it is according to the bible. So we don't know if anyone saw anything unless we know the accuracy of the bible. It is certainly not historical fact."Secondly, there is the empty tomb."This is fairly meaningless as we have no way of knowing where Jesus was entombed. "Thirdly, according to all four Gospels, the first witnesses to the resurrection were women."Again - fairly pointless unless you can prove the validity of the gospels."How is it that a group of several hundred Jewish nobodies came, not only to believe that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, but to announce this fact widely and tenaciously all the way to trials, torture and, for many, death?"Can you produce several hundred independent claims of such or are you basing this upon someone saying that several hundred folks claimed the same?Even if this was true that several hundred believed it this simply does not mean the events are in anyway true.You have to verify the claim before you can use it as a source of verification.To die for something not a sign it is any more valid, it just shows the level of belief in something - this in it's self is not validation for something."Sixthly, the resurrection is often supported by appeal to the existence of God."No sh*t sherlock. That's not evidence is it?Please don't attack 'naturalism' or 'logic' if they don't agree with your definition of evidence.'Naturalism' is effectively science and logic (all science is secular, all science is based on logic etc.)  It goes like this.  Can something affect this universe? Then it is 'natural' and can be explored by science. Does something not affect this universe?  Then why do we care?  Therefore anything completely 'supernatural' we can never know about and cannot have any effect on this universe.  If it's not supernatural then it is measurable directly or indirectly and can be proved to exist.QED.

Stewart Dean ● 5082d

The 4th line of evidence is, to my mind, the most compelling (and I have written on this forum about it before - and as of yet no one has come forward with a counter claim that is watertight or compelling!) - the resurrection of Jesus Christ.The Apostle Paul made this his climactic statement. "God has given proof of this to ALL MEN by raising Him (Jesus) from the dead".The resurrection of Jesus is the event by which Christianity stands or falls. It is the 'assurance', as Paul says, that this man is God's appointed judge and King over all the world.  This is THE divine signpost, says Christianity - the proverbial 'X marks the spot' for Gods activity on the world stage. Dan and Stwe - this is where - if you are trully looking for signs/evidence or whatever - you should be looking.The resurrection of Christ is Gods proof and pledge that, in Jesus, salvation from divine Judgement is secured, satisfaction for the soul may be enjoyed, and eternal life (our own resurrection if you like!) is assured.Did you know that the Washington based world news service, United Press International (UPI) recently reported:'In a dramatic turnaround from post Enlightenment skepticism, historians are now inclined to give much more credence to the New Testament accounts of the resurrection than their predecessors. (Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Historians say Resurrection a reality", United Press International, 11th April 2001).'So what is this scholarly credance based on? What lines of 'verification' relate to the resurrection? I can see 5 immediate ones - but there is plenty more reading to be done!First, there is the claim itself. This may sound strange at first but in any historical or legal argument, one of the first pieces of evidence to consider is always the testimony concerning the events in question. That numerous apparently sane people claimed to have SEEN Jesus risen from the dead is a fact of history. And its a fact that requires explanation. It may be that after all the other facts have been heard one will discredit the claim, but the claim itself must be admitted provisionally as evidence.Secondly, there is the empty tomb. Historians working in the field will generally concede the veracity of the empty tomb of Jesus. There seems to be no other explanation for why, when the Apostles began to proclaim Jesus' resurrection in the city of Jerusalem itself,the body of Jesus was never produced to counter the claim. It was not as if opponents could not have found the tomb; it belonged to one of Jerusalems elite politicians, Joseph of Arimathea. Furthermore, we knoe from two seperate sources from the period that the Jewish leadership conceded the empty tomb. They just raised questions about how it got that way.Thirdly, according to all four Gospels, the first witnesses to the resurrection were women. This does not sound significant until one realises that in this ancient culture a womans testimony was regarded as spurious and carried little legal weight. Hence, if one were making up a story or myth about a resurrection and wanted people - like the Jews - to buy into it and be convinced - one would not include women as the initial witnesses, unless of course it just happened to be (embarassingly) true.Fourthly, the slight but significant divergence in the various accounts of the resurrection supports their credibility. Like Police assessing the evidence of witnesses, historians look not only for general agreement between various accounts of a particular event ('convergence') but also for small individual variations ('divergence'). The few divergences tell you that the witnesses have not just copied each others stories. The Gospel accounts certainly fare well in the quest for a level of convergence/divergence.Fifthly, perhaps the most compelling line of verification for the resurrection of Jesus is the transformation of Jesus' followers. How is it that a group of several hundred Jewish nobodies came, not only to believe that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, but to announce this fact widely and tanaciously all the way to trials, torture and, for many, death? It is one thing to die for an ideology you simply believe to be true - plenty of people have done this - but is entirely another thing to die for a claim you, as an alleged eye witness, KNOW to be a lie. So compelling is this transformation of Jesus' followers that a leading German Historian (recently passed away), Dr. Pinchas Lapide, writes:'How was it possible that his disciples, who by no means excelled in intelligence, eloquence, or strength of faith, were able to begin their victorious march of conversion?.. I a purely logical analysis, the resurrection of Jesus is 'the lesser of two evils' for all those who seek a rational explanation of the worldwide consequences of that Easter faith. Thus, according to my opinion, the resurrection belongs to the category of the truly real.' ('The resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish perspective.' London:SPCK, 1984).I should add that Prof. Lapide was a Jewish Historian, not a Christian believer, and the rest of his book is an attempt to 'cope' with this historical conclusion as a believing Jew.Sixthly, the resurrection is often supported by appeal to the existence of God. Many people (historians included) object to teh resurrection of Christ, not on historical grounds but on philosophical grounds. DAN MURPHY DOES THIS WHEN HE SAYS 'ITS SIMPLE - DEAD MEN DONT RISE!'They insist that despite the direction in which the historical evidence appears to point, dead people simply do not come back to life; it is a fact of nature!Philosophically, many things can be said about this 'naturalistic' objection, and Prof. Richard Swinburne from Oxford University has written a comprehensive critique of it. 'The existence of God' by Swinburne. Clarendon Press. 1991.However, there is a more basic point that deflates the force of the objection.If there is a God who creatde all things, raising someone from the dead would hardly be difficult to pull off. The fact that great majority of westerners do believe in the existence of God means that, for most of us at least, the resurrection of a person claiming to be God's agent on earth cannot be dismissed simply on the grounds that resurrection cannot happen. If the historical evidence points decisively in the direction of Jesus' resurrection, our belief in the existence of a powerful creator gets us philosophically 'back over the line'.Of course, for those that do not accept the existence of God this philosophical reasoning will be of no value. However, such persons are still left with the rathe difficult task of explaining how, historically speaking, it looks as though Jesus did rise from the dead.

Laurence Truett ● 5082d

So, when we turn to a third line of evidence, the Biblical Gospels themselves, we can be confident that in broad terms they are good historical sources. Several things add to our picture of integrity of the gospels. First is the date when they were composed. The manuscript copes of the Gospels (as I mentioned in a post earlier) we possess are quite close to the time when the original was penned. But equally impressive is the fact that the original time of writing was very close to the actual events themselves. The first gospel was written in the mid 60's AD just 30 years or so after Jesus death. ALL of the gospels were written within 50 years of His death. FOR ANCIENT HISTORY THIS IS ABOUT AS GOOD AS IT GETS!!Tacitus for instance, the greatest of Rome's historians, wrote his account of Emperor Augustus' reign over 00 years after the emperor's death. But even this poses little problem for the historian since we know that such works were not composed out of thin air but relied on existing sources dating back closer to the events.Secondly, to write any work of history (ancient or modern) an author uses various sources, whether eye witness testimonies, log books, court records, or previously written histories. The same is true of the Gospel writers! Most New Testament scholars discern behind the gospels at least 5 separate sources, each composed prior to the Gospels themselves.when these sources are independently analysed, the picture of Jesus which emerges from these is strikingly similar across the sources: Independently of each other, they describe a teacher, a healer and one know as the promised Messiah who died and rose again. When independent sources say basically the same thing about an event or person of history, its a good indication of historical reliability!Thirdly, the incidental historical accuracy of the Gospels is also important. When the Gospels say something in passing about, say, the architecture or politics of a town Jesus visited, we can quite often confirm these details by modern archaeology and literary analysis. A classic example is the story in John 5  where mention is made of a bathing pool Jesus visited in Jerusalem which, according to John, had 5 rows of columns. Because Archaeologists had dug up all over Jerusalem without finding such pool, there was initially some scholarly doubt cast over the accuracy of Johns Gospel. Then, as digs progressed, a pool was found in the north east quarter of the Old City and the remains of five colonnades could still be seen. Many, many other such examples are available to the interested enquirer!! Read up on it! A good book for further reading is 'Jesus outside the New testament: An introduction to the Ancient evidence' by Robert E. Van Voorst (Eerdmans, 2000).  See http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=pd_lpo_ix_dp_am_us_uk_en_jesus.020outside.020the.020new.020testament.020by.020robert.020e.020van.020voorst_gl_book?keywords=jesus%20outside%20the%20new%20testament%20by%20robert%20e%20van%20voorst&tag=lpo%5Fixdpamusukenjesus.020outside.020the.020new.020testament.020by.020robert.020e.020van.020voorstgl%5Fbook-21&index=blended    ...to purchase!!

Laurence Truett ● 5084d

This is a huge subject and may I suggest further reading on the historicity of Jesus: ‘The Truth about Jesus’ P Barnett. Aquila. 1994. ‘Who was Jesus?’ N.T Wright. SPCK, 1992 – one of the UK’s top New Testament historians looking at the critics of Jesus, A.N Wilson/Bargbara Thiering and John Spong.  Or for the serious scholar of historian – go for ‘Jesus outside the New Testament: An introduction to the ancient evidence’ by Robert E. Van Voorst. Eerdmans 2000.Ok on with the subject in hand... here is Christianity with its head on the chopping block of transparent verifiability (but I am not trying to ‘prove’ the Christian claim here – my hope is far more modest – I want to simply illustrate the broadly verifiable nature of Christianity):The quality of the document evidence. Here it is copied and pasted from my last post which no one has commented on:However, the openness of Christianity to rigourus scrutiny is one of the most exciting things about it. Jesus existed, Mamy people experienced him. He died and the claims are that he rose back from the dead and appeared to over 500 eye witnesses (including women) - not just 12 or so disciples. God has left this world with a tangible sign post - something verifiable and able to be brough under analysis and scrutiny. Firstly - when studied - one can be fully reassured that what we read in the Bible today is a modern english translation of what was written in the 1st century.Secondly - th age of the documentation is impressive. Scholars never expect to find the original document itself BECAUSE they are so ancient. But they hope to find the oldest copies that are as close to the original as possible.For example - the oldest available manuscript of the works of Plato (who died in 347 BC) is a copy made in 895 AD!! That is a gap of more than 1000 years! Because ancient copying techniques were on the whole so precise, historians have few qualms relying on such a document as an accurate copy of the original. But by comparison - the earliest copies of the New testament Gospels are dated around 200 AD - only 120 years after they were first written!Thirdly - the volumes of the copies we possess is overwhelming. For the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Julius Caesar, Tacitus and other ancient giants, we possess only a handful of seperate manuscripts. For the gospel books alone (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and not including the rest of the New Testament, historians have apprx over 2000 manuscript copies with which to work.Fourthly - the stability of the copying process is very clear. Because we can compare copies of the Gospels  produced say in 600 AD with those from 200 AD we are able to confirm the high accuray of the copying process. Historians in this field have no problem conceding that what was originally penned has been carefully preserved. To quote Encyclopedia Britannica "Compared with other ancient manuscripts, the text of the New Testament is dependable and consistent."For this quote - go to link http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literatureDont even get me started on non-Christian sources, the integrity of the Gospel accounts, the resurrection of Jesus Christ etc etc...So before I go into these other things – does anyone wish to comment?

Laurence Truett ● 5086d

So what of Christianity?The first thing to say in order to understand the faith of one third of the world is that Christianity did not arise as a counter movement against another. Buddhism and Sikhism originated as off-shoots and rejections of Hinduism. In the same way, Islam and Baha’i were counter movements to prior traditions: Islam to Judaism and Christianity, and Baha’i to (Sh’ite) Islam.Not so with Christianity! It goes without saying that Jesus and His disciples and most of the earliest believers were devout Jews. In no sense, was the early movement surrounding Jesus a rejection of Judaism. Rather, it was proclaimed throughout the Med as the very fulfilment of the Jewish Scriptures. The Torah, written centuries before Jesus, promised a number of things about the coming kingly Messiah. He would be a descendant of King David. He would be born in Bethlehem.  He would emerge from Galilee in the North. He would rule by the power of His teaching, not the sword. He would die as an atonement for the wrongs of the world before rising again to life. It was the presence in the Torah of prophecies such as these that led, in part, to the early successes of infant Christianity. Christianity (as we now cal it) was seen in its beginning as a Jewish renewal movement. Later the Jewish Leadership rejected Jesus as Messiah, demanding that the followers of Jesus be excommunicated from the Synagogues and regarded as blasphemers (this took place shortly before AD 100 during the Councils of Jamnia, a city near the coast of Southern Palestine). Why this took place is a very complex question, but it largely had to do with Jesus non-fulfilment of the militaristic hopes of first century Jews. Many Jews wrongly hoped for a Messiah who would destroy the occupying forces of Rome and establish the Kingdom of God on earth.My big point is that Christians did not reject Judaism: Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as their Messiah.When I speak of the claims of Christianity, I am not setting them against the claims of Judaism according to the Torah. From the Christian point of view, Christian teaching only affirms ancient Judaism. Modern Jews may wish to set their beliefs against Christianity but this is not because of anything gin the Jewish scriptures themselves – how could it be as the Torah was completed centuries before Jesus? It is rather a result of a tradition codified at Jamnia and practised ever since. One may even say that the Christian feels no need to establish the validity of Biblical Judaism since Christianity takes for granted that Judaism is true! Establishing the Christian claim automatically establishes the Jewish one. Or more cheekily put, verifying the truth of Christianity kills two historical birds with one ‘rolled away stone’!! Baaaaduuummm!!So what is the claim of Christianity and what makes Christianity verifiable? Next post...

Laurence Truett ● 5086d

The three religions I believe to be verifiable are Judaism, Christianity and Mormonism. Mormonism is verifiable and can be shown, via scrutiny, to be unwarranted. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism (or more accurately, the church of the latter day saints) at the age of 22, in 1827, claimed that an Angelic being had led him to buried golden plates. Upon these plates was inscribed a ‘history’ of the American Indians, who, according to the account, were really descendants of the Ancient Hebrews who had emigrated from Palestine to North America centuries before Christ... though Christ was said to have visited these American tribes soon after His resurrection. Smith translated these plates with the help of special reading lenses made of diamond and published his work under the title ‘The Book of Mormon’, named after the ancient prophet who was said to have originally inscribed the plates.Now at one level, Josephs claim is unverifiable. No one else met the angelic being and no one else was there. Smithy alone was the only one able to translate the plates from a supposed dialect of Egyptian. However, because the book of Mormon is essentially historical in its claims it is, to a high degree, open to historical and archaeological scrutiny (in a way not possible in the 1800’s).The language which the plates were written on – ‘reformed egyptian’ – has never been seen before or uncovered by any other archaeologist or  Egyptologist anywhere in the world.  Moreover, the cities, tribes, battles and practices described in the book of Mormon find no support in the extensive archaeological data relating to the history of North America now available. The claim that the native American descended from Hebrews has been undermined by modern anthropological studies which trace the ancestry to Asian Mongoloids – not semites.In short – what claims to have taken place  in North America between 600-400 AD  appears to simply not have happened. A tangible sign post of Gods dealings in the world does not appear to be present in the Mormon faith.What about Judaism? The Jewish scriptures – the Torah – contain numerous ethical laws, prophecies and theological pronouncements. However, the basis of the book, the thing upon which everything else rests, is an event said to have occurred 1200 years or so before Christ. The Jewish people, who had for years, been a slave nation under the Pharaohs of Egypt, are said to have miraculously escaped the clutches of Rameses II and travelled to modern Palestine (Canaan or the promised land) where they settled and became the nation of Israel. This ‘Exodus’ was intended to demonstrate for Jew and Gentile alike God’s intention to involve Himself with the World through the Jewish People. It was Gods Signpost. Historical investigation in to the Exodus produces some interesting results. The names and placed recounted in the Biblical narrative correspond with what we know of Egyptian culture at just this time. This at least implies that the Exodus story arose out of an Egyptian context, not a later Jewish one. Moreover, Egyptian records place Semitic peoples (of whom the Jews were one) in Egyptian slavery at the time, and the building works said in the bible to have been the focus of the Israelites slave labour, the cities of Python and Rameses, were indeed built by Rameses II at this time.In addition, although Egyptian annals make no mention of a Jewish exodus – Pharaohs tended to only record victories over their subjects – one hieroglyph from about 50 years later does place the Israelites not down in Egypt but up in Canaan instead. This corresponds well with the time the biblical record has the Jews occupying that territory.Please be clear: my point here is not that the exodus, and therefore Judaism, can be proven. I am simply underlining the fact that at its heart, and by its very nature, Judaism is one of the only three religions premised on VERIFIABLE CLAIMS. And, unlike Mormonism, when scrutinized, the claims of Judaism arouse not suspicion but a degree of confidence.

Laurence Truett ● 5086d

Like the scenarios I made up before – imagine a friend came to you this time with the unusual claim that last night his great, great grandmother appeared to him offering new insights into the spiritual realm. This time, however, the revelation came not in the form of a private dream of vision but in that of a giant apparition in the middle of Oxford Street, London. In fact, the Matriarchs appearing, it was claimed, was so public it stopped rush hour traffic for 2 hours. Several hundred pedestrians and drivers stood dumbfounded as she explained that her visitation was a kind of signpost from God designed to point the residents of London in the direction of spiritual truth. Being closest to the old lady, your friend hurriedly writes down notes and then later interviews other eye witnesses to gain their accounts and verify his. These insights were then compiled in a note book and offered to you for your consideration.Again, leaving aside the bizarre nature and content of this visitation – and the miraculous element – the claim itself is a verifiable one. The ‘truth’ or ‘falsehood’ of the claim can be tested to a degree. You could listen to news reports and see if the alleged event rated a mention. You could do an analysis of the scene itself to see if incidental details in the witness reports matched up. You could assess the traffic congestion reports of the police. You could perhaps even do background checks on the witnesses to see if their testimonies were reliable. YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE THE EVENT BEYOND ALL DOUBT – BUT YOU COULD CERTAINLY ARRIVE AT A GOOD OR REASONABLE CONCLUSION regarding the credibility or otherwise of the claim.A claim such as this is verifiable.‘Verifiable’  does not mean true – just as verifiable does not mean untrue. It simply mean that something can be tested. It is open to scientific and historical scrutiny. It may be, for instance, that after investigating the scene in Oxford Street and interviewing various witnesses, you conclude your friends claim is false. Perhaps the witnesses recollections were too hazy to be of use or so precisely similar as to arouse your suspicions. Perhaps the claim of a 2 hour traffic jam found no support in either police records or the public transport logs. This being the case, your friends verifiable claim may be verified as improbable and, therefore, not warranting your devotion.So how do I respond to the often repeated question: ‘If the Creator of the Universe were the least bit interested in our devotion, he or she would surely do something concrete to grab our attention, something we could all assess for ourselves and from which we could draw our own conclusions. Surely he/she would make himself/herself clearer!’I think this seems reasonable. It just doe snot seem reasonable that the Almighty – if indeed He exists – would have left the world without a signpost to His presence, without some tangible moment on the world stage which turns the ‘unknown god’ in a known one. My hunch is that if there is a spiritual reality to which we are all invited, claims about that reality would be of a verifiable nature, not an unverifiable one.So which religions are premised on verifiable claims? Claims which can be investigated and found to be incredible or credible? I reckon there are three... I will write about these in the next post...

Laurence Truett ● 5086d

Imagine a friend came to you today with an unusual claim that last night his great, great Grandmother appeared to him in a dream offering insights into the nature of the spiritual realm and if the best path to reach true spirituality. These insights included detailed descriptions of the afterlife, advice on which foods to avoid and a collection of prayers that ought to be said in order to attain enlightenment. Imagine that a friend wrote down in a note book all that he could remember of the matriarchs words. He asks you to read the notes and consider embracing this new spiritual perspective for yourself.Suppose now another friend came to you tomorrow with the equally unusual claim that her great, great Grandfather appeared to her in a dream offering insights into spiritual reality. These insights were radically different from the ones recounted by your other friend. The afterlife was repudiated, all foods were deemed edible and mantras, not prayers, were promised to hold the key to spiritual truth.  This friend also wrote down the contents of the dream and ask you now to consider her revelations as the new path for your life.So what do you do? How can the truth or falsehood of one's claim be tested?Both cannot be true. The contradictions between the two ‘revelations’ would indicate that both could not be true, but how could you test which – if, indeed, either – were actually true? Quite simply, you could not. The character of the revelations means that they are beyond the scope of human enquiry. Of course, you could subject your friends to lie-detector tests but this would demonstrate only whether or not the claims were made up. Even if both claimants could be shown not to have lied, this does nothing to indicate the truthfulness or otherwise of the content of the dreams. Dreams and visions are, by their very nature, imperceptible to all but the visionaries themselves.But Philosophically speaking, claims such as these may be deemed ‘unverifiable’. However, ‘unverifiable’ does no mean ‘untrue’. It simply means that a thing can’t be tested one way or another. They are beyond scientific or historical scrutiny.Most of the worlds religions are, at their core, ‘unverifiable’.Again, this is not to say they are untrue – only that they cannot be verified one way or another. The two examples I gave at the beginning of this comment provide quite a close analogy to the nature and content (though not the significance) of the worlds major religious claims.Buddhism – rests entirely on the insights gained by Siddhartha Gautama, the 6th century Indian Prince. He was personally enlightened. Neither the fact not the content of that enlightenment can be tested. Nevertheless, the Buddha soon gathered around him a small group of disciples who with him began to promote these teachings throughout the land.Islam is likewise grounded in a revelation of a private and mystical nature, the content of which is beyond analysis. Muhammad, 7th century nobleman form Arabia in 610 was visited by an angelic being who told him he was ‘the messenger of God’.The same conclusion. I am not having a go at these religions – but I am just dawing attention to the nature of their claims. Even if Muhammad or the Buddha did not make up the claims of their visions (which is perfectly feasible) this tells us nothing about the truthfulness or otherwise of the content of their revelations. By nature, they are beyond verification. Confucianism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Baha’i and Shintoism all share this basic premise.For the faithful of these religions the unverifiable nature of their beliefs actually provides for them something of a shelter from the arguments of critics and cynics. For no matter what science and humanity discovers about the physical universe or the events of history, claims such as these will remain untouched. The belief that Allah requires prayer 5 times a day cannot be disproved. The claim that life’s goal is a removal of desire via the Buddha’s 8 fold path cannot be shown to be false. Neither of these beliefs may take your fancy, but nor could you demonstrate them to be untrue. To all of the followers of these other religions, their religions and faith is unassailable. It is unprovable! Yes. It is  a matter of pure blind ‘faith’,Yes! But with this unverifiability comes an invincibility not enjoyed by those few traditions which dare to make verifiable claims.In the next post I will write about that handful – that includes Christianity – that dare to make verifiable claims.

Laurence Truett ● 5086d

We are addressing these questions with two events this summer. The first is an 'open to question' lecture and question time on the reliability of the Old Testament. And the second is a debate between two scholars on the subject 'Is the Bible historically reliable?'On Sunday 10th July at 6.30 PM, there is the 'Open to question' talk and question time at Gunnersbury Baptist Church.This time, the subject is 'The Bible, an authentic book?'  The speaker will look at the subject of whether or not the Bible is historically reliable.The speaker is Brian Edwards. Previously a Pastor of an Evangelical Church in Surrey for 30 years, Brian now is an Author and lecturer on the subject in hand. Brian has written in excess of 15 books. His relevant titles include, 'Why 27? How can we be sure we have the right books of the New Testament?' and 'Nothing but the Truth - The inspiration, authority and history of the Bible explained'. Brian has co-authored with Clive Anderson 'Through the British Museum with the Bible'. This guide centres on the items in the British Museum that are related to the Bible records.The structure of the evening is simple. At 6.30 PM Brian will be introduced and then he will talk for 30-40 minutes on the subject. Then there will be a break for refreshments and a chance for you to write down a question for Brian to answer. After the refreshment break, Brian will go through and answer all the relevant questions on the subject given to him.These events are popular so come early to guarantee a good seat. The event is completely free of charge. This is not a church service. There will be no singing, praying, liturgy or collection.The event is open to anyone of any age or belief/worldview. Any relevant question will be attempted to be answered.If you missed the last big, live debate at Gunnersbury Baptist Church entitled 'Is a secular society a more tolerant society?' then you can listen to it free at http://www.gunnersburybaptistchurch.org/events/viewmp3.php?mp3=39-0

Laurence Truett ● 5088d

Prove it, provide objective evidence for Christianity.If you where serious about studying the bible objectively you'd soon come upon hundreds of alternative theories. For example if Jesus existed was he or did he even claim to be the Messiah or 'god'?  Many early Christians did not appear to believe he was.Also the early historical references appear to reference Christianity - so it's safe to say that early Christianity existed  - yet this does not appear to validate the existence of an actual Jesus Christ.The idea of Jesus as a historical figure has been doubted by many biblical scholars - this showing that studying the bible heavily does not lead to one conclusion.So it looks like Christianity might be able to be shown to have existed early on -  but not an actual Jesus Christ who was the Messiah. What few scraps exist are either ambigous or tell a different version of things, some time after the events, to those found in the modern bible. For example one example says there where only five disciples.So essentially the more you dig, the more you find divergent stories with only a few facts matching and all kinds of alternative names that may or may not have referred to the same man and many are filtered through early generations of Christians.The complete lack of any contemporary historical writings alone are enough to enable us to say that the events of the new testament cannot be verified. Only through a bad case of positive confirmation bias could you get close to saying that there is actual verification for an actual real Jesus. Some figure with some things in common with the Jesus in the bible probably existed by the chances of the bible telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth looks about zero.We simply have no way of knowing if Jesus existed and if he did just how accurate the bible was.

Stewart Dean ● 5088d

Dan you say 'I need a bit more evidence from you to prove that something so unique, so supernatural, so staggeringly UNBELIEVABLE happened. It is obvious surely, that I am not required to prove it didn't happen. The fact that it has never happened EVEN ONCE in all of human history is proof enough for any sane person. 'This is evidence of the extraordinary nature of Jesus. That He was fully divine. You are right - these things like virgin birth and resurrection do not happen naturally and usually. THATS THE POINT! And thats the Bibles point. All of these things are fulfillments of hundreds of independent prophesies that - when come fulfilled - would show the Messiah's arrival.The reason that you wont have another virgin birth today or resurrection from the dead (until the final judgement day that is when ALL the dead will be raised) is that it A) wouldn't be Jesus B) Doesn't need to to happen as its happened already C) would not be a fulfillment of any Jewish prophesy... and therefore would not be in line with the Bibles teaching.Its funny - but it seems you think that these miracles were just random events according to the Bible. They weren't. They were all a systematic fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.God would have no reason to make another virgin birth - or another resurrection from the dead. The signposts are there. You don't want to look at them but keep demanding new ones - but in fact if those new ones happened, they would not be as powerful or as symbolic or meaningful as the ones that happened 2000 years ago.It is not that 'God raises people from the dead' and we all stand round and go wow. God did not raise Jesus from the dead to prove He was God!!!! Is that what you think? And therefore you say 'Come no God - lets have another!!!!'This alone shows how little you know about the Christian faith and therefore you have very little clout when it comes to disputing it.God raised Jesus from the dead so that all who trust in Him have victory over sin and death through faith in Jesus - their substitute. The Bible never sets out to prove Gods existence as its biggest theme and purpose. Never.

Laurence Truett ● 5088d

Laurence - let me be clear again. I am not calling the existence of Jesus into question, he may well have existed. He may even have been the son of carpenter and lived in Nazareth, and walked around shopping centres every weekend telling everyone he was the son of god. This is of no interest to me, any more than the hundreds of other "prophets" who have lived and claimed messiah status.However, when we get to the bit where it is claimed that his mother was a virgin and he came back to life, well THEN Laurence, I need a bit more evidence from you to prove that something so unique, so supernatural, so staggeringly UNBELIEVABLE happened. It is obvious surely, that I am not required to prove it didn't happen. The fact that it has never happened EVEN ONCE in all of human history is proof enough for any sane person. If you were to claim that your next door neighbour flies unaided around the roof of his house every morning, you would have to provide some evidence of this, it would not be incumbent on me to prove that it is nonsense.And you also state that all the historical evidence, the bible, etc are a "signpost" from god that all this actually happened. Well, if god is in the business of leaving "signposts" as evidence, don't you think it would be jolly useful for him to leave another one? Like giving u another virgin birth, or another resurrection? Or someone walking on water, or changing water into wine, or feeding five thousand people with a few fish? Or whatever. Anything would do. Without it, you must see that the position is hopeless. As Groucho Marx was find of asking: "Who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?"

Dan Murphy ● 5088d

All claims to revelations from God in various world faiths are similar to some degree. However, most are unverifiable. Some major world revelation based religions can find security in the knowledge that their claims to truth through personal one to one revelation can never be put to the test - as they were one to one and private.(eg Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc...)...Christianity is verifiable - unlike the private revelations and claims of Mohammed, the Buddha's etc etc... Also the book of Mormon is open to verification as well - but you can soon see that Joseph Smiths claim of his meeting with an angelic being is inverifiable. Also the language claimed to be used in the revelation was reformed Egyptian - which no one else could understand. Unverifiable. Untouchable. He was told that the descendants form the American Indians were from Hebrew roots.. this has been historically and anthropologically disproved after finding out that the American Indians roots were from Asian Mongoloids - not semites!!!However, the openness of Christianity to rigourus scrutiny is one of the most exciting things about it. Jesus existed, Mamy people experienced him. He died and the claims are that he rose back from the dead and appeared to over 500 eye witnesses (including women) - not just 12 or so disciples. God has left this world with a tangible sign post - something verifiable and able to be brough under analysis and scrutiny. Firstly - when studied - one can be fully reassured that what we read in the Bible today is a modern english translation of what was written in the 1st century.Secondly - th age of the documentation is impressive. Scholars never expect to find the original document itself BECAUSE they are so ancient. But they hope to find the oldest copies that are as close to the original as possible.For example - the oldest available manuscript of the works of Plato (who died in 347 BC) is a copy made in 895 AD!! That is a gap of more than 1000 years! Because ancient copying techniques were on the whole so precise, historians have few qualms relying on such a document as an accurate copy of the original. But by comparison - the earliest copies of the New testament Gospels are dated around 200 AD - only 120 years after they were first written!Thirdly - the volumes of the copies we possess is overwhelming. For the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Julius Caesar, Tacitus and other ancient giants, we possess only a handful of seperate manuscripts. For the gospel books alone (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and not including the rest of the New Testament, historians have apprx over 2000 manuscript copies with which to work.Fourthly - the stability of the copying process is very clear. Because we can compare copies of the Gospels  produced say in 600 AD with those from 200 AD we are able to confirm the high accuray of the copying process. Historians in this field have no problem conceding that what was originally penned has been carefully preserved. To quote Encyclopedia Britannica "Compared with other ancient manuscripts, the text of the New Testament is dependable and consistent."For this quote - go to link http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literatureDont even get me started on non-Christian sources, the integrity of the Gospel accounts, the resurrection of Jesus Christ etc etc...

Laurence Truett ● 5089d

Laurence, thanks for answering. Shame you decided to deliver your usual personal insults (I am on a polemical crusade; I have no idea what I am talking about; I failed to include Allah in my list as I am scared of reprisals, I didn't have the balls to look at Mohammed; etc).Anyhoo, I had a look through your responses and as soon as I saw stuff such as:"Krishna’s existence was a myth. There is no evidence for his existence" (whereas of course the existence of god is a proven fact, it's in the bible)"compared to Jesus physical existence, there is no evidence for Mithra’s existence. No contest.""Zoroaster was murdered, He did not come back to life. Therefore he is mortal – not divine""Xamolxis - Since this story was one of mere trickery and did not involve any sort of actual physical resurrection, any comparisons to Jesus are pretty minor". (because of course, Jesus did really come back from the dead, didn't he Laurence?)"Mithra… again just a myth… compared to Jesus physical existence, there is no evidence for Mithra’s existence. No contest."So, this just reminds me Laurence what a pointless waste of time it is trying to talk to you. Your answer is that all these other gods are false, and your god is the real one because all the other gods are just myths whereas your god is the true one. There is no evidence for these other gods, whereas you have the BIBLE!!!!And just to wrap it up, I'm not scared of reprisals from followers of Allah, I think they are just as deluded as any other religion. They amuse me, they don't scare me, although I do have to admit that you lot don't go round killing people who don't share your beliefs - well, not for the last 900 years, anyway.So Laurence, once again I admit defeat. I have absolutely no sensible response to your argument that your god is really the true god because you believe it, and it is written in the bible. There really is no response to it.

Dan Murphy ● 5095d

Stew - you say 'To then say that a religion that is very clearly man made is absolute and everything, no matter how much you believe in it, is just flat out delusional. The bible has no single meaning because of it's origins. It was created by multiple humans and has been pulled this way and that through time. It's a mess of contradictions, poetry, myths and human scale stores. The god in the bible acts like a not so intelligent egoistical dick. Theology is the study of a particular myth - and it's study that bible historians repeatedly show as a shifting target.' Ok lets go there... chapter and verse. You make some MASSIVE unproved assumptions. You clearly did not read my response to you in your 'ten commandments' thread about the Bible's authorial origins.You believe it is written by man. So do I. However you see that as a bad thing. Why? Its simple. You dont believe, and refuse to believe in God. And you cannot prove that God doesn't exist - therefore your view of the Bible is based on a 'belief' ... not fact.I, however, believe what the Bible says about its authorial origins. Written by man/men who were inspired and carried by God/Holy Spirit to write exactly what God wanted them to write. I believe this is true because God exists. And this is my starting point. No one has been able to disprove God and the Bible never sets out to prove God ... as He just is and always has been.Actually, the main message of the Bible has not been changed. Sure,translations change the odd words etc. But the main message of His Holiness, covenants, prophecy, Messiah, Jesus and eschatalogical teaching has always stayed the same.

Laurence Truett ● 5096d

Dan - one of the reasons why I have never answered your question is that I just simply have not had enough time or energy to look through that long list of gods. I do not know enough about them... however I will now endeavor to go through your list.  And yes if this is your great Christian God killing argument – I will “bother” to take time to answer it, refute it and show that you have no idea what you are talking about other than the fact that you seem to be on a anti-God polemical crusade based on nothing more than the fact that you cannot stand the idea of Him being real.So your question is two fold: 'What makes the God of the Bible the real one? And what makes Him so Great?' Also do these other gods feature your following points:Born 25th December… just for the record – the Bible does not say Jesus was ever born on the 25th Dec…Born of a VirginAdored by 3 Kings??? Er you mean visited by 3 magi wise men?Birth accompanied by a StarBaptised at 30 yearsWorked with 12 disciples (aprx)Performed miraclesWas betrayedWas crucified / killed (or as the Bible says ‘willingly gave up his life’)Was dead for 3 days and then rose again (came back to life) Interestingly you haven't included many other gods in your list, including Allah. Is this because you are scared of reprisals? Or is it because you know He is very different from the God of the Bible?  Oh and just in case you have been plundering – and believing Graves’ book, ‘The worlds 16 crucified saviours’ which it looks like you have got most of your material from – then check out this website where the author goes through each one – plus many more – and proves that none of these demi-gods or false idols can be compared credibly to Jesus or God Almighty of the Bible. So check out http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.htmlThe guy from this website refutes all of the gods Dan lists (23 of them to be precise) plus 55 more… and he has the balls to also look at Mohammad. So check him out. OK here goes - a crash course for me and other readers who are ignorant of these gods (with a little help from wiki):  Horus (Sun God, Egypt):  Horus was the national god of the ancient egyptians. Their Kings were said to be incarnations of Horus in life and Osiris in death. However He was not the only god. The ancient egyptians were pluralists and worshipped many deities. This, on a purely theological level has never worked when looking at The Almighty God. This also shows that this idea of god was fully inferior to that of the Almighty God talked about in the Bible. The only thing that you could possibly show as a similarity to the God of the Bible is Horus’ incarnation… but that is really stretching it. No 25th Dec (not that that was Jesus birthday anyway according to the Bible!!), no virgin birth, no 3 Kings, etc etc etc…So who does Dan say is up next?  Addis (Greece): No mention of this god at all on any major websites.Next…Krishna (India) Krishna is the second person of the Hindu Trinity. He is considered to be one of the incarnations of the God Vishnu. There are some things that seem similar to the God of the Bible (as you would expect if trying to describe an Almighty deity! This is basic theology) but much that is absolutely, fundamentally different. God Almighty can only be mono-thiestic. Pluralism does not work when it comes to God in the ultimate sense.Oh and by the way – Krishna’s existence was a myth. There is no evidence for his existence. There is plenty for the physical, dated existence of Jesus.Dionysus (Greece) He was the god of the grape harvest. A god only responsible for a tiny part of creation… not God Almighty as the Bible describes. My God wins…Oh… and don’t want to sound like I am repeating myself, but ‘His existence was a myth. There is no evidence for his existence. There is plenty for the physical, dated existence of Jesus.’Mithra (Persia) …is the Zoroastrian divinity… again just a myth… compared to Jesus physical existence, there is no evidence for Mithra’s existence. No contest.Budha Sakia (India) Not actually a god – but a tradition founded by Drogmi – a Buddhist monk… no similarities to Jesus’ life and evidence of existence or indeed the Almighty God described in the Bible.Salivahana (Bermuda) I cant see anywhere on the net that this was a god/divinity or indeed similar to Jesus.Odin (Scandinavia) A major God in Nose mythology. But that’s the problem – One of many gods – not God Almighty AND he is rooted in mythology – not fact and physical evidence. Go see Stew Dean for a good telling off.Zoroaster (Persia) An Iranian/Persian prophet and philosopher who is the founder of Zoroastrianism. Zoroaster was murdered> He did not come back to life. Therefore he is mortal – not divine. And certainly not akin to an Almighty God.Indra (Tibet) Indra is one of the chief deities in the Rigveda. King of the demi-gods and Lord of heaven. But again one of many Gods – not God Almighty. This is just mythology – not like Jesus at all.Bali (Afghanistan) ????? Tell me about these, Dan… nothing online about them.Jao (Nepal) ??????  Tell me about these, Dan… nothing online about them.Wittola (Balingonese) ??????  Tell me about these, Dan… nothing online about them.Thammuz (Syria) Errr he died. His followers have a festival to recognize he died. He cant be God Almighty… and also there are no similarities between him and Jesus.Atys (Phrygia) He was originally a local semi-deity of Phrygia, associated with the great Phrygian trading city of Pessinos, which lay under the lee of Mount Agdistis. Legend and myth – hardly God Almighty equivalent stuff and definitely not as much evidence there as Jesus.Wow this is boring! I thought Dan had something there for a minute….Xamolxis (Thrace) A so-called divinity of the Getae… The Zalmoxis story was written by Herodotus around 440 B.C., so, yes, it does pre-date Christianity.  Herodotus wrote that Zalmoxis was a man who pulled a fast one on the "poor, ignorant" Thracians.  According to Herodotus, Zalmoxis preached to them while building an underground chamber, which he eventually disappeared into.  The Thracians "regretted his loss, and mourned over him as one dead".  After three years, Zalmoxis emerged from his chamber, making them think he'd come back from the dead.  Since this story was one of mere trickery and did not involve any sort of actual physical resurrection, any comparisons to Jesus are pretty minor. There are no claims of evidence for his resurrection.Adad (Assyria) The Sumerian god Adad also known as Ishkur. A god of ‘thunder’ storms. But not an ultimate Divinity. Once again. A lesser amongst others. The Sumerian Ishkur appears in the list of gods found at Fara but was of far less importance than the Akkadian Adad later became, probably partly because storms and rain are scarce in southern Babylonia and agriculture there depends on irrigation instead. Also, the gods Enlil and Ninurta also had storm god features which decreased Ishkur's distinctiveness. He sometimes appears as the assistant or companion of one or the other of the two.Mikad (Sintoos) Can hardly find anything about this one on the web – so hardly an influential ‘God Almighty’ at large today.Beddru (Japan) This is an anti-Christian hoax. A mis-spelling of the word ‘beddo’ or ‘Buddha’ as more commonly known. What, exactly, are the Beddru stories?  Skeptics claim that this was a Japanese god who influenced Christianity, but Japanese mythology shows no such god.  Neither does the mythology of any other country.  In fact, the name 'Beddru' couldn't be Japanese, since the letter combonations of 'ddr' and 'dru' do not exist in the Japanese language (and 'dd' itself exists only in words borrowed from other languages).  Some sites note that his name is also 'Beddin', but the combination 'ddi' doesn't exist and, again, the 'dd' itself is problematic.  The Encyclopedia Mythica lists over 200 Japanese gods, and there's no 'Beddru' or 'beddin' on the list.  Unless anyone out there can familiarize me with past or present worshippers of 'Beddru/Beddin', this can be safely written off as an anti-Christian hoax.Cadmus (Greece)Cadmus was a Greek god from mere mythology that some critics say parallels the Jesus story, though once again they don't say how.  Cadmus was the son of Agenor.  His story is that when his sister, Europa, was kidnapped by Zeus, Agenor ordered Cadmus and his two brothers, Phoenix and Cilix, to find Europa.  All three failed.  Cadmus consulted the oracle at Delphi, which told him to follow a cow around and, when it laid down, to found a city at that spot.  Following these orders, he founded the city of Thebes.  The city had some trouble with a serpent or dragon, and Cadmus slayed it.  As punishment for killing the serpent, he spent eight years serving Ares.  He eventually married Ares' daughter, had five kids with her, and then somehow got transformed into a serpent.  He was also the first person to combine consonants with vowels, thus created speech as we know it.  As you can see, this doesn't parallel the Jesus story at all.  Quexalcote (Mexico) Quetzalcoatl was a South American Aztec god.  This causes one very strong problems for critics trying to claim that the Jesus story borrowed from the Quetzalcoatl story.  How do they suppose the Israelites heard about Quetzalcoatl?  Yet another problem is that many historians believe that the Quetzalcoatl stories sprang up in the Americas around the 10th century A.D., roughly 900 years after Jesus walked the Earth.  Another serious problem for the critics here is that almost everything we know about Quetzalcoatl comes from documents written after Europeans started visiting the Americas.  Since the Europeans were there to spread the Christian religion, it's likely that the religion of Quetzalcoatl would have absorbed much Christian influence, making any similarities between Jesus and Quetzalcoatl most likely the result of Christian influence on Quetzalcoatl, not the other way around. Critics are fond of pointing out that Quetzalcoatl was a white man.  When Cortez arrived, the Mesoamericans apparently thought that he was Quetzalcoatl returning to them.  However, it should be noted that Jesus was not white, but Jewish. Some critics claim that Quetzalcoatl also wore a white robe like Jesus, but the only references to Quetzalcoatl's clothing refer to a cloak with green feathers.  Quetzalcoatl's mother was Coatlicue, and in some versions of the legend she was a virgin somehow impregnanted by a ball of feathers.  But again, his 'virgin-born' status likely arose from Christian influence.  Another similarity that critics point to is that Quetzalcoatl was tempted as Jesus was.  There's no indication that this story predates Columbus, and, besides, in Quetzalcoatl tradition, he gives into his temptations, committing incest and getting drunk. All things considered, the idea that the Jesus stories borrowed from the Quetzalcoatl stories is one of the least likely to be valid. Fohi / Fu Xi (China) More commonly known as "Fu Xi", Fohi (as the critics tend to call him) was a mythological emperor who ruled somewhere between 2900 and 2700 B.C.  He supposedly taught mankind the use of fishing nets, the breeding of silk worms, and the taming of wild animals.  He also supposedly invented the Chinese family names and first forbid marriages within families (though he himself married his sister, Niu-Kua).  He was sometimes depicted as being half-serpent, or as having four faces so that he could look in every direction.  Some unbiased sources claim that he had no father, but only a mother.  This would likely mean a virgin birth (assuming his mother hadn't been with anyone prior to Fohi's miraculous conception), though I cannot find an unbiased source specifically claiming that she was a virgin.  Of course, this doesn't exactly compare to the Jesus story, since Jesus DID have a father, which was God.  I'll leave it up to you to decide how close this is.  But it is rather unlikely that the Israelites had heard of Fohi, and since the differences between Fohi and Jesus far outweight this one similarity, it's really not possible that the Jesus story was based on the Fohi story.Quirinus (Rome)Not much is known about Quirinus, a god worshipped by the Sabines, people who lived north-east of Rome.  He was believed to wear a beard, and have clothing that was semi-military in style.  He had a festival, the Quirinalia, which was celebrated on February 17th.  I haven't seen any parallels between him and Jesus.  Some critics claim he was born of a virgin, but this claim does not exist in any writings.Dan this is a long post as I always will answer a question – even if the poster can’t be bothered to listen to the answer. I hope you have the (Christian) decency to read the answers and check out the website so you can come to an informed scientific change in your thinking.Love,L

Laurence Truett ● 5096d

Just spotted this.So - objective evidence for the non existence of any kind of god?  Here are a few things to start off with. Although bear in mind that these are based upon a very plastic and uncertain concept for what an ironically absolute god is supposed to be. Religion is deliberately vague so that it can always say 'but you don't understand God'.  You'd be right - but then no does any religious person either (which in a way is evidence in it's self).So:If there is only one absolute God then why are there so many religions and why does God himself keep on mentioning other gods in the bible?If god actually did or has done anything - then it would be detectable in some scale. Where is the examples of miracles that have been observed happening objectively?  If prayer worked then, experimentally, you would see it's effectiveness given a large enough group of people. All attempts to see if it works have come to zilch.If religion makes you moral then why is the percentage of religions to non religious higher in prisions around the world than outside of prisons?Going back to the idea of 'one truth' - why is it that everyone has their own personal take on their religion - for a something based on a simple text why don't we see homogeny?Why is it the more we know about the world the less likely we are to be religious? Amongst scientists there is a lower percentage of religious to non religious than elsewhere.The bible is just a feast of contradictions - who actually inscribed the 10 commandments on the tablet - was it God or Moses? Also is God merciful or merciless? The Bible can't make up it's mind.  And also why does the whole of science not even get one mention - didn't god think it might be a little bit useful rather than getting his followers to break the necks of his sons that didn't worship him?Or how about evolution? God could have created everything through evolution but he doesn't mention it in the bible - nor does he really mention the 99% of the rest of bio diversity that is on the Earth (when did he create the Algae or Funghi?) It mentions plants and animals but that's only a small percentage of the life on the tree of life! I guess god didn't know about how diverse his own creation was or the people keeping the notes where not paying attention.Why can't any religious person I know answer the simple question 'what does god do?'Also the origins of the universe and this planet get replaced with a rather simplistic seven days argument that has no relation to reality.  And the flood - there is no physical evidence that a global flood happened - and if it did it would leave a great big dirty mark across the world you would be able to find in any country. And you can't start a population from two animals.So given that how much of the old testament is parable rather than actual reality?Why are people without religion as moral, if not more moral than those with?Why do people take the religion of the place they grew up in and the people that are around them. Atheism is global - religion appears to be very localised culturally speaking.  If a given religion is true why does god not tell people of the other religion and get them to convert?  So much for the concept of 'a calling'. Why do atheists tend not to start 'tribal' wars? Well except from the exceptionally political. So there is no evidence or knowledge in the bible about how we got here, no information about the nature of the universe at all from any religious source, no signs that god is doing anything at the moment (prayer doesn't work and morals arn't religions strong point). We see secular countries prosper, we see science continue to discover new and interesting things about the universe and uncover gaps the religious have only just tried to cram god into (quantum theory for example) and we see religion becoming more fractured day by day as it runs out of places to hide.God can be explained as an anthropomorphic reaction to the universe - the same bit of our brain that makes it okay for Disney to have talking cars and the North Wind to have a character.  It is, in simple terms, an invisible sky ape and appeals to our evolved sense of social structure. The more prone you are to authority the more likely you are to want to worship the ape at the top of the pecking order.  When we didn't know - we filled in with a human type thing 'in our own image'.  And as we know more god moves further and further away. There will always be gaps in people's understandings where a god can dwell, and also gaps in man kinds understanding as well, but if you prey, god will no heal you. We know that and we now punish those that turn down medical treatment for their treatment and instead use the power of prey because it is child abuse.if you can give me one valid argument for some kind of god (and I know of several myself by the way) then I will be amazed. If you can give one valid argument for you God then I'll be even more amazed as I can't think of a single one for that and have never heard one despite over twenty years of asking.Objective evidence for God. Be the first.

Stewart Dean ● 5098d

"Stew - because you cant abide by the possibilities of absolutes existing - you cant face the truth that the Bible has one message - but some people receive bad bible teaching and get the wrong application."Absolutes do exist - they just exist on a universe scale, not on a human scale. Confusing the human scale with the universe one is much like saying a grain of sand is a planet. We all see the world from a human perspective, through human eyes using the human ability to comprehend. If we evolved, which we know we did, then we are not 'perfect' and are limited in are comprehension, perception and only see a minute part of the world with our eyes.To then say that a religion that is very clearly man made is absolute and everything, no matter how much you believe in it, is just flat out delusional. The bible has no single meaning because of it's origins. It was created by multiple humans and has been pulled this way and that through time. It's a mess of contradictions, poetry, myths and human scale stores. The god in the bible acts like a not so intelligent egoistical dick. Theology is the study of a particular myth - and it's study that bible historians repeatedly show as a shifting target. The bible does not have an absolute meaning because the bible is not static, it has changed over thousands of years and it's origins stretch out before that. It evolved. And like us, it is far from perfect.And as for science disproving god in the future - something I've never said by the way - well let's say that if you religion says the world is only a few thousand of years old then it has been disproved. Most christians don't take it that seriously.Anyway you can never disprove god any more than you can disprove the existence of a china tea pot in orbit between Earth and Mars. You can only say that no evidence exist for it - as with god. There is no evidence that any kind of god exists, not signposts etc. And even if there was then it is highly unlikely it is your particular god. Remember that we humans have believed in thousands of gods in our history, each as much as you believe in yours. You simply cannot ignore that very telling fact. That is why I say to you if you believe in a god then which one? And if you say 'the god of the bible' then you've missed the point.The universe simple does not need a god to work. Evolution doesn't need a god to work. A human giving birth to another human does not need a god to work. The sun coming up each morning does not need a god to work. Love does not need a god to work. And yes the god of the bible is a dick. He's a mass murdering, egotistical, hot headed idiot who, despite claiming to create the universe, didn't even make it to his first science class. Read the bible objectively and you'll see what I mean. Read it with the veil of religiosity and you won't, you'll only see what you want to see. And please stop mentioning Dawkins. I don't like the guy much to be honest. I believe in religous freedom and freedom from religion. People should be able to believe what the want and be able to express their views in the appropiate forums, this I consider one of them. You won't get me saying 'there is not god' to a dying person or at someone's wedding as it is unjustified. Nor will you catch me saying all people of a religion (or no religion)  are evil - that is inexcusable in a tolerant society and simply is not true.For this reason if you want religious freedom you better hope for a secular society because otherwise you'll have some other Lawrence with better connections, more enigmatic, but with a different set of experts telling him that the bible says X or Y who, somehow, gets the power to give that religious view political or social privileges above others. Your religious freedoms would then be curtailed.I don't hate the idea of a god, I simple don't think one exists, based upon everything I know.Now if you have some new knowledge that will challenge that point of view then I'm all ears - but it better be good, objective and not bible related.

Stewart Dean ● 5099d

Morals, being relative, change and alter all the time. Try to live by the rules set by the Bible and you'd quickly end up in jail. You ask if there are people who are doing things that I think are wrong. The answer is of course there are. There is a moral standard that people should abide to regardless of their individual convictions. I would never argue anything other.  Morals are relative to society, as that is what sets them. When people break the law we often call this anti-social behaviour. We all have moral feelings because we they are a definite evolutionary advantage and we couldn't have complex social groups without them. It's evolution baby!These standards are not absolute as there is or never can be a fixed standard that will work for everyone all the time. It's a defacto standard effectively. Any attempt at an absolute standard will result in that standard becoming anti-social over time. In the coming years we will have to adapt the standards again if we want to see the human race continue to exist. The future challenges are often talked about but you won't find a single mention of any of these in any religion in the world! Therefore to use the bible as a guide is pointless as it lacks any information to do this. It falls short of what we need today so it can only fail for tomorrow.  Relativism is not about free floating morality - it's the oposite - it is rooted very firmly in a web of interconnections between humans. It's more solid in that way than the arbitrary lessons of religions. After all why is it some religions don't eat Pork but it's okay for Christians? The answer is fairly obvious if you look at where the religions came from.

Stewart Dean ● 5100d

"Stew - you have just made a staggering comment. 'If someone does not believe in god then there is no god in their lives.'.....????? Really? So you are saying that if I choose to not believe in something that exists - it just disappears or vaporizes or history changes and that thing then transpires to have never existed... "There is 100% not god in my life. What does effect my life is religion and those that follow it. I'm not religious and have no faith other than that I have in my fellow humans so why would I say I have any god at all in my life. There is no god so why worry about it?"You then say 'morals are the product of culture and society'...The laws of this land are based on Christian values - or they used to be... but now have evolved and are floating away on a tide of encroaching secularism and relativism..."And before Christian values they where based on other religions. To be fair there has always been a secular element to our values. Secularism is not encroaching - it is the basis for our country.  We are a secular nation, not a Christian nation. We still may sing God save the Queen (well some might) but that's history for you."I think people in our culture know unavoidably that there is a God, but they are repressing what they know."Which God? We are are, and always have been multi cultural as a nation. Even our language is a mixture of cultural origins. A increasing amount of people simple do not believe in god. I know there is no god with at least as much certainty, if not more, that you hold there is a god. Only difference appears to be you don't have any evidence for your position (or signposts or whatever you want to call them).

Stewart Dean ● 5100d

Good grief, another 130 post marathon about Laurence and the eternal argument about why we should all believe in god and the bible.I have one question for Laurence which I have asked him 3 or 4 times before but never received an answer. The question is this: The god you desperately want us all to believe in has a number of distinguishing characteristics, including:Born 25th DecemberBorn of a VirginAdored by 3 KingsBirth accompanied by a StarBaptised at 30 yearsWorked with 12 disciplesPerformed miraclesWas betrayedWas crucified / killedWas dead for 3 days and then rose again (came back to life)My problem is that your "god" is only one of about 40 or 50 "gods" with remarkably similar stories recorded throughout the ages, most of which have now been discarded as the ridiculous superstitious fantasies of unsophisticated societies. I have listed below the ones which were quite widely believed in.So what is it that makes you think that your god is the “real” one, when all these others also had tremendous followings in their own times? In many other respects they are all pretty much the same (born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles, had 12 disciples, was betrayed, crucified, and rose again after 3 days), so what's so great about yours?Here is my list:Horus (Sun God, Egypt)Addis (Greece)Krishna (India)Dionysus (Greece)Mithra (Persia)Budha Sakia (India)Salivahana (Bermuda)Odin (Scandinavia)Zoroaster (Persia)Indra (Tibet)Bali (Afghanistan)Jao (Nepal)Wittola (Balingonese)Thammuz (Syria)Atys (Phrygia)Xamolxis (Thrace)Adad (Assyria)Mikad (Sintoos)Beddru (Japan)Cadmus (Greece)Quexalcote (Mexico)Fohi / Fu Xi (China)Quirinus (Rome)

Dan Murphy ● 5100d

No I am fine with using he term 'real Christian'. You establish whether or not you are a real Christian by whether or not your beliefs, experience and faith are in line accurately with Biblical scripture.This is easy to do. Read the Bible. Study it hard or listen to someone who has. Don't bring in your own framework or man made traditions.  And see what it says.Then it is simple to discern and draw a correct and accurate judgement.Just because you have met people who claim to be real Christians (and they may well be) it doesn't mean they are.However, real Christians can all differ on more peripheral things. To be a real Christian you must have had a conviction of sin and unbelief before God. Turned to Him and asked for forgiveness. Received that forgiveness in full through and ONLY through Jesus sacrifice on the cross. You must believe that Jesus is God, that He lived, died and rose again. And live a life of obedience/worship and repentance/holiness with God. This must be done in anticipation of the coming judgement day when God will come again and judge the earth and take all who are repentant and born again to be with Him for eternity, Those found unrepentant and unbelieving will not be atoned for by the blood of Jesus (God Himself) and will come under the direct judgement of God Himself - which no one wants!Oh and the Bible is not a guide as to how to live in the middle east 2000 years ago. That is a complete misunderstanding of how to interpret it today. The stories of the Patriarchs and Jesus and His disciples were often stunningly counter cultural!So the Bible tells us how to live Holy and Blameless lives - not ones linked to a particular ancient culture Stew. Sorry your view is so wrong about that.I am not the only one therefore with massive misunderstandings Stew. Touche.

Laurence Truett ● 5101d

It is common to hear people say "no one should impose their moral views on others, because everyone has the right to find truth inside him or herself."But this leaves things open to some very uncomfortable questions. Aren't there people in the world who are doing things YOU believe are wrong - things that they should stop doing no matter what they personally  believe about the correctness of their behavior? Stew - if you do (and everyone does, so don't deny it!) doesn't that show you and others that there IS some kind of moral standard that people should abide by regardless of their individual convictions? This raises another question. Why is it impossible (in practice) for anyone to be a consistent moral relativist even when they claim that they are? I believe that the answer is that we ALL  have a pervasive, powerful and unavoidable belief not only in moral values but also in moral obligation...All human beings have moral feelings. Isn't that a conscience? When we are faced with doing something that we feel may be wrong, most o us tend to refrain. But our moral sense does not stop there. Surely we also believe that there are standards that exist apart from us by which we evaluate our moral feelings. Surely moral obligation is a belief that some things ought not to be done regardless of how a person feels about them within themselves, regardless of what the rest of their community and culture says and regardless of whether or not it is in their self interest or not.It seems, like it or not Stew, that you inevitably treat some principles as ABSOLUTE standards... If all moral beliefs are relative then what gives you the right to do that? Nothing gives us the right - however we cant stop it. You may laugh at me when I say that there is a transcendent moral order from God - but I bet you think that racial genocide is wrong - rather than  just impractical or self-defeating. ???Sorry to all the Godwin's law people here - but the Nazis who exterminated Jews may have claimed that they did not feel it was immoral at all. Actually, we don't care. We don't care that they sincerely felt that what they did was a service to humanity. They ought not to have done it! End of...We do not just have moral feelings but also an ineradicable belief that moral standards exist, outside of individuals, by which our internal moral feelings are evaluated. Why, Stew, do you think those moral standards that are exterior to human beings exist? 

Laurence Truett ● 5101d

Stew - you have just made a staggering comment. 'If someone does not believe in god then there is no god in their lives.'.....????? Really? So you are saying that if I choose to not believe in something that exists - it just disappears or vaporizes or history changes and that thing then transpires to have never existed... You also say 'The norm for any belief is no belief until it something changes it.'Er no it isn't... not according to the Bible. We are made in Gods image and have eternity 'written on our hearts'. Gods existence is something that is in every persons heart - albeit for some buried right down at the bottom. However, a broken existence and relationship with God is the normal starting point for Christianity and an acknowledgement of that.You then say 'morals are the product of culture and society'...The laws of this land are based on Christian values - or they used to be... but now have evolved and are floating away on a tide of encroaching secularism and relativism...I read about a Pastor who was chatting to a couple. They said that 'they didn't believe in much of anything.' They could not figure out if there was a God. The Pastor asked them to think of something they thought was really, really wrong. The woman immediately spoke out against practices that marginalized women. The Pastor agreed and said that, since he was a Bible believing Christian then he believed that God made all humans and Adam and Eve as a partnership. But he was curious and asked the woman why she thought it was wrong. She responded 'Women are human beings and human beings have rights. Its wrong to trample on some ones rights.' The Pastor asked her how she knew that was wrong.She said 'everyone knows it is wrong to violate the rights of someone.'The Pastor replied 'Most people in the world don't "know" that.  They don't have a western view of human rights. Imagine if someone said to you 'everyone knows that women are inferior.' You would say 'that is not an argument, that is just an assertion.' And you would be right. So lets start again. If there is no God as you believe, and everyone has just evolved from animals, why would it be wrong to trample on someone's rights? 'Her husband responded 'Yes it is true we are just bigger brained animals, but I would say animals have rights too. We shouldn't trample on their rights either. ' The Pastor asked whether he held animals guilty for violating the rights of other animals if the stronger ones ate the weaker ones. The man responded 'no I couldn't do that.' So he only held humans beings guilty if they trampled on the weak? 'Yes' replied the man. The Pastor asked, 'why the double standard then?' Why did this couple insist that human beings had to be different from animals - so that they were not allowed to act in the same way as the rest of the animal world. Why was it that this couple kept insisting that humans had this great, unique individual dignity and worth? Why did they believe in human rights? The couple replied 'I don't know. I guess they are just there, thats all.'This Pastor said that the couple laughed at the weakness of their arguments. Our culture differs from others and from cultures that have gone before. People still have strong moral convictions, but unlike people in other times and places, they don't seem to have any visible basis for WHY they find some things to be evil and some things to be good. This is the problem with free floating relative morality...I think people will definitely go on holding their beliefs in moral human dignity even when their conscious belief in God has gone. I think people in our culture know unavoidably that there is a God, but they are repressing what they know. I will try and explain this in the next post...

Laurence Truett ● 5101d

"You can say you hold one framework with your words - but completely deny that with your lifestyle."And this I totally agree with. I can't see your issue with atheists. They have a framework (some called humanism) that is altruistic, moral and realistic. "no real Christian blames God for their selfish acts and immorality"Be very careful about how you use 'real' Christian.  Every Christian I have met claims to be a 'real' Christian even though they hold totally different views at times. If you claim to be real and someone else also claims to be real then we have stalemate and both claims are suspect. And lets not get into bible quotes as a tie breaker."Whereas, humanists standards for morality and holiness are set according to human standards which are far lower."Lower?  Compared to what?  If the bible is the work of humans (which it is) then it's the same but older origins. I'd prefer a more up to date and comprehensive standard of morality than a guide to how to live in the middle east 2000 years ago."The other distinction is humanists are self centered."No, no and thrice no. All humanists I know are not self centered. Given a choice of a team of Christians or humanists to achieve something I'd have far more trust in the humanist team as they are likely to be more altruistic, honest and open. There's far few catches and not double guessing about what their purpose is (and no claims of any special duty handed down from above). Humanists tend to look down on the superstitious and enjoy a rant but self centered? No. As for only being interested in the human race - compared to what exactly? Humanists like cats and dogs so it's not as if they don't care about animals. Also they are more likely to vote Green so they care about our environment. You can't put a non existant God in first place can you?  I know you believe in a god but, just to remind you, you currently are out of signposts or evidence for any kind of god, let alone your particular god. You don't undersand evolution, atheists or, as it turns out, humanists!  Try some other questions, but this time take out the misunderstandings. You'll get answers from the less confused amongst us.

Stewart Dean ● 5101d

Laurence says..."Well - God does exist and His existence is the default norm."Which god?  Some kind of god is believed by the majority but the christian god is believed in my a minority. The norm for any belief is no belief until it something changes it."Therefore, there can be no lack of God."That makes zero sense. If someone does not believe in god then there is no god in their lives. If god does exist for that god to make a difference to he unbelievers life it needs to be able to influence that person either directly or indirectly. If god did anything it would be measurable directly or indirectly. Therefore you could have objective evidence for a god.To go back to that even if there was some kind of evidence for a hyper intelligent / powerful entity it would still not give a signpost to the existing ofthe god of the bible.To say that God is a default is to ignore all the thousands of other deities that people have hold to exist. Also morals are the product of culture and society. This is why the laws of this land are secular in nature. The fact that various religions also agree with these morals is not surprising as most religions are about building social cohesion.I know where I get my morals from and yet I don't believe or need any kind of god. I also know I was not created by the biblical god (or any other existing deity). Why do I know this? Because there exists no explanation of creation that even starts on the journey that science has taken in terms of answering where we came from. We know the idea of the world being a few thousand years old, as taught by young Earth creationists, is utter rubbish. I repeat we KNOW that. Yet some folks claim it's true with as much belief as you state that you particular God is the source of morality. In your case you have no evidence, in the case of the world being billions of years old we have vast oceans of evidence. The sheer gulf between the religious answers and scientific answers is truly awe inspiring.  Science may be wrong but the changes of a theological solution to the existing of the universe being true would be, based on what we know, such an outside shot that they stand less chance than other theories like the Universe is just a computer model.So you state God does exist and you claim there are many signposts. Name a signpost - not a misunderstanding of something but an actual signpost.  But before you do, remember value, worth and purpose are man made concepts and arguments from incredulity don't count as evidence.  Also please don't say that evolution is a process based upon blind chance again as it makes any question that needs that to be true a non question.Morality is relative - but it is relative to all humans alive. As we only live in a world of humans that means morality is everywhere as far as we're concerned. It is pinned down by the way we lives our lives and is given substance by the actions and thoughts the billions of people who are alive and those who came before.  It's just you don't get a neat packaged answer from a single 'authority'. Just as well really.

Stewart Dean ● 5101d

Re-write 13. Home run. Finally.13) If humans are no more than grown up germs. why are we the only species preoccupied by death? Why should approaching it - or delaying it - be of the slightest concern to us? If we began as a fluke, liv eout (sic) a farce and end as fertilizer, what hope or help can we give to someone who is dying?Another way of asking this question might be – given the incredible intelligence required to take that greatest of intellectual steps – the awareness of one own’s mortality – why have some retards been left in the gene pool that struggle with basic concepts?Failed to adhere to any reasonable standard of courtesy - sorry. I’ll try again.Re-write v2: what is better – giving hope for the young or giving hope for the dying?Re-write 14. Last, thank goodness. Oops, that’s a bit like thanking god. So thank feck.14) Why is our sense of spirituality so strong that man has been called a 'religious animal' ?? Is this something we should expect to happen to dust left around for millions of years?Actually the correct phrase is “man can become one of two things in life – a religious animal or a human with intelligence and tenderness – and unfortunately the two are incompatible”. (I made up this quote btw. Good innit?)Can’t be bothered with a re-write for this one. It is too annoying. To use the concept of religious animal (i.e. an inherent predilection for religious feelings – see question 4 – as opposed to a confirmation that any deity actually exists) to challenge the notion of evolution – this is dumb. Only the very confused would come up with this. So it is like saying:Man has an inherent tendency towards religious feelings. This stems from the make-up of the brain. This comes from man’s evolution. Life evolved from mere particles and elements. So the inherent tendency for religion came from dust. Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.

Alan Clark ● 5102d

Fifth. Can’t see how this can beat number 4.5) How can shrink wrapped bags of biological elements have any rights to justice, freedom, possessions or happiness - or even to life itself? What gives humans any greater value than rocks or reptiles? Trees or termites?This question has me completely lost. No idea what the point is – explain, please? Isn’t this merely a confusion over human created rights. Rocks have no awareness and certainly no known ability to communicate their views on their rights. Otherwise they might have suggested that human’s predilection for dynamiting their kith and kin is really quite bad.But here’s the possible re-write: is it good that human kind’s many varied notion of rights of beings all tend to give preference, in order, to the rich & powerful, then all men, then all women, then all children, then all mammals, then all other animals, and then we stop caring? Is it fair that the termites and the rocks get such a raw deal?Number 6. The last one was disappointing – can this one be better?6) How did the products of a succession of genetic flukes learn to remember the past, evaluate the present and wonder about the future?Better than ‘5’?  No. This is a really dumb question. It is taking one concept of evolution (the randomness of generating new biological mixes; ignoring another (the selectivity based on success in any one context) and joining the first with the outcome of the second, and throwing the error that genes have memories.The simple re-write has to be: can a new species know why its new form came about and anticipate future forms? See, another dumb question.

Alan Clark ● 5102d

Third in a series of corrections.3) How can godless evolution account for the universal and invariable laws of logic, on which all our thinking depends? On what basis can we study the world in any coherent way and come to sensible conclusions about it?This appears to be two unconnected questions – until you note that the first one is aiming to influence the answer to the second one. Lets ignore the (meaningless) second question and suggest, for the first, something like – evolution is a law in its own right; and evolution does not dictate other laws (entropy, gravity, chemistry, mathematical, etc.); so should a theology student claim that evolution has impacted these other laws?Fourth. This is fun.4) If the brain is nothing more than an accident of biological evolutionary chance, why should we trust its ability to tell us so? How can chance accumulations of atoms and molecules decide that that is what they are?I like this question – very “The Matrix”. It also applies equally well to a premise of ‘if the brain is nothing more than a construct of a greater intelligence’.  So while it is pleasant to discourse on the concepts of a misinformed brain … it does not really get us anywhere. Unless you like dressing in black latex and carrying big guns.Nonetheless, I promised a re-write so here goes: might the selection process that has resulted in the human brain influence the way the human brain thinks and perceives things?This I really like. Mainly because the answer is ‘yes’. And the consequence of that influence is the topic being discussed in this thread.

Alan Clark ● 5102d

Okay, I've got some time. Lets have a go at answering the questions. I don't believe these come from Satre but none the less....1) Can we seriously and consistently live as if we owed our existence to millions of mindless accidents, as if there were no rational or moral order, and is if were ultimately just manure in the making?We don't owe our existance to millions of accidents. That's a false start.2) If anything came into being by chance, how can we know that anything is true?Sounds like the same as 2. The universe is causal, to say use terms like 'accidents' and 'chance' really does not help to understand how things work. Also because something is not designed does not mean it is random or happens by chance. Given the right environment many say that life is inevitable.  3) How can godless evolution account for the universal and invariable laws of logic, on which all our thinking depends? On what basis can we study the world in any coherent way and come to sensible conclusions about it?Cause and effect. Because everything is connected everything has an effect on something else. Behind this lies a pure logic that would need to be in place BEFORE any entity could exist. If you have one object and add another you have two objects - that's effectively the most simple form of logic I can think of and has no god user serviceable parts.4) If the brain is nothing more than an accident of biological evolutionary chance, why should we trust its ability to tell us so? How can chance accumulations of atoms and molecules decide that that is what they are?The brain is not an accident. It evolved. Evolution is a process of cause and effect that employs a very low level of mutation that is filtered by interactions with the environment to add new genetic information over many generations. Nearly all genetic information is the product of recombination of existing information to create new forms - the possible combinations being more than the stars in the universe. Understand evolution and you'll not use the term chance or accident.5) How can shrink wrapped bags of biological elements have any rights to justice, freedom, possessions or happiness - or even to life itself? What gives humans any greater value than rocks or reptiles? Trees or termites?Value is a human concept. We assign value to things in an arbitrary way. We use value to add order to our world in order to better negotiate it. So what gives humans greater value than rocks? We do.6) How did the products of a succession of genetic flukes learn to remember the past, evaluate the present and wonder about the future?They don't remember the past, are filtered by current events and have no concept of the future. Evolution has not goal and is driven by existence only.  If you don't exist you don't get to reproduce. The force of existence interacting with a complex environment produced complex results, such as ourselves, but the driving force is 'mindless' as you would describe.7) If we are what someone called 'computers made of meat', how did we acquire an aesthetic dimension, enabling us to appreciate beauty in nature and art, when in doing this it makes no contribution to evolution or survival?We don't work the same way as computers and the aesthetic dimension DOES contribute to our survival.  Culture is a highly important part of social cohesion and aesthetic sense is tied heavily into culture. Too much to explain in one answer but our judgment of what is 'good' in art and music is both objective and subjective but is largely relative to the culture we are part of. For simpler forms aesthetics see our animal relations.8) Why should we ever look for purpose or meaning in life? What is the snese in genetically programmed machines talking about 'quality of life' and 'values', or concerning themselves with aims and aspiriations?Simple answer to that is 'why not?' 9) As it is impossible to jump from atoms to ethics and from molecules to morality, why do we have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong? How can we decide, weigh up or pass judgement? Where did conscience come from, and why does it have such amazing power? Why do we sometimes feel guilty or ashamed?It's not impossible - just ill-advised to go from the micro to the macro without going through all the in between stages.In simple terms the evolution of the brain has included motivational factors to keep us moving along - these factors are what we call emotions, they motivate and drive our actions so we survive. We have morality to ensure that our social groups are better structured so we have a better chance of survival. And consciousness is an emergent property of all the different cognitive aspects of the brain interacting. It is not centralised and neither can it either be independent of the machinery that runs mind (aka the brain) - well not unless we created something that worked in the same way as the brain. Also consciousness is very limited - it's not quite as amazing as you might think if you explore how easily it is to be fooled.10) Why do we have a sense of obligtion or responsibility to other people? Why should mere blobs of animate matter be concerned with the temporary well-being of other blobs if both are on their way to extinction?Social groups. Next.11) How can we live - or die - with dignity if our existence is meaningless? Why do we take ourselves so seriously if Richard Dawkins is right to say we are nothing but "jumped up apes"?Who says it's meaningless?  We can put any meaning to it we choose as all meaning and purpose is man made.  Why does that meaning has to come from outside of the human race? We're deeply deeply complex enough without trying to add mystical X factors.And we are indeed jumped up apes! We are very similar to other apes in many ways.12) If the survival of the fittest is godless evolutions greatest prize, why should we not encourage the non-survival of the unfit? Why should we care for the frail? Why sign a petition to save Chiswick day centre? Why should we care for the mentally defective, the chronically sick, the senile, or the starving? Should we not give godless evolution a helping hand and get rifd of them - andf the sooner the better???Social groups again. Evolution is about competition and cooperation. Understand evolution better and you'll see why it's not just an all out selfish battle to a mystical finishing point. Eugenics is not what Darwin recommended as we simply do not know what the 'fittest' is - that's for the environment (which we are part of) gets to decide every second of every day.13) If humans are no more than grown up germs. why are we the only species preoccupied by death? Why should approaching it - or delaying it - be of the slightest concern to us? If we began as a fluke, liv eout a farce and end as fertilizer, what hope or help can we give to someone who is dying?That's a non question. We are not just grown up germs, we did not begin as a fluke and don't live out a farce. Understand evolution and you'll understand how astounding our existence is yet it still needs no somewhat simplistic god to explain things - if anything it completely fails to explain everything. You can't use any religious teachings to uncover more detail of the universe our ourselves beyond a very thin human level. This is probably why these questions are so misinformed. 14) Why is our sense of spirituality so strong that man has been called a 'religious animal' ?? Is this something we should expect to happen to dust left around for millions of years?Religion is a product of our early cultural development - it is dying out as the nature of our cultures become more advanced and we have a better understanding of the universe. We simply no longer need superstitious answers. An understanding of evolution, for example, will stop you thinking that evolution is all about random chance. To answer the other question. Life will happen given the right conditions and the right amount of time. We are talking about hundreds of millions of years and, in the case of our form of carbon based life, a fairly stable environment capable of sustaining water and with an external energy source that can be used to fight entropy. The 'dust' will have to contain the building blocks of organic chemistry (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen etc..) and that's about it. Life is inevitable under those kinds of conditions and will be present in many places in our galaxy in various forms.  These questions I can safely say, without reference, did not come from Sartre and is not why he was saying Atheism is a cruel, long term business. The knowledge that values are relative and our existence a local issue only and knowing that the universe is not answerable are some of the 'cruel' aspects of atheism. It is not about being comforted by make belief but seeing the world for how it is, including the ego crushing aspects of it.I'd love to see the source of your questions and I'd like to have external confirmation of if these questions are in any way related, or not, to Sartre. They do read like fairly standard theist misunderstandings of atheism.

Stewart Dean ● 5103d

Sartre says Atheism is crule because (and this is just the start)none of these questions and problems can ever be answered by it:1) Can we seriously and consistently live as if we owed our existence to millions of mindless accidents, as if there were no rational or moral order, and is if were ultimately just manure in the making?2) If anything came into being by chance, how can we know that anything is true?3) How can godless evolution account for the universal and invariable laws of logic, on which all our thinking depends? On what basis can we study the world in any coherent way and come to sensible conclusions about it?4) If the brain is nothing more than an accident of biological evolutionary chance, why should we trust its ability to tell us so? How can chance accumulations of atoms and molecules decide that that is what they are?5) How can shrink wrapped bags of biological elements have any rights to justice, freedom, possessions or happiness - or even to life itself? What gives humans any greater value than rocks or reptiles? Trees or termites?6) How did the products of a succession of genetic flukes learn to remember the past, evaluate the present and wonder about the future?7) If we are what someone called 'computers made of meat', how did we acquire an aesthetic dimension, enabling us to appreciate beauty in nature and art, when in doing this it makes no contribution to evolution or survival?8) Why should we ever look for purpose or meaning in life? What is the snese in genetically programmed machines talking about 'quality of life' and 'values', or concerning themselves with aims and aspiriations?9) As it is impossible to jump from atoms to ethics and from molecules to morality, why do we have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong? How can we decide, weigh up or pass judgement? Where did conscience come from, and why does it have such amazing power? Why do we sometimes feel guilty or ashamed?10) Why do we have a sense of obligtion or responsibility to other people? Why should mere blobs of animate matter be concerned with the temporary well-being of other blobs if both are on their way to extinction?11) How can we live - or die - with dignity if our existence is meaningless? Why do we take ourselves so seriously if Richard Dawkins is right to say we are nothing but "jumped up apes"?12) If the survival of the fittest is godless evolutions greatest prize, why should we not encourage the non-survival of the unfit? Why should we care for the frail? Why sign a petition to save Chiswick day centre? Why should we care for the mentally defective, the chronically sick, the senile, or the starving? Should we not give godless evolution a helping hand and get rifd of them - andf the sooner the better???13) If humans are no more than grown up germs. why are we the only species preoccupied by death? Why should approaching it - or delaying it - be of the slightest concern to us? If we began as a fluke, liv eout a farce and end as fertilizer, what hope or help can we give to someone who is dying?14) Why is our sense of spirituality so strong that man has been called a 'religious animal' ?? Is this something we should expect to happen to dust left around for millions of years?And so Sartre says 'Atheism is a cruel, long term business'...

Laurence Truett ● 5106d

"Stewart, before you use phrases like 'objective evidence', 'series of hypothesis' [sic] and 'logical falacy' [sic] I suggest you invest in a dictionary to find out what they actually mean"I do know what the mean and am happy to describe them in detail and why I use them. By the way fallacy was mis spelt but I find it interesting you use [sic] when I'm using the terms correctly and can expand on anything you'd like to explain why I'm using those terms in the way I am. I also did not say Russell's teapot was proof there there was no god. I was talking about trying to prove a negative and trying to demonstrate how the burden or proof comes down on those who would want others to believe in their particular god. And now we get into a big problem. You use the term God - indicating that you believe in a particular God as described by one of the major religions or have respect for those that follow that given religion.God and a god are two different concepts. It is possible to disprove God but not the existence of some kind of god, as in a supernatural entity beyond our understanding. So for example if you look at the teaching of a given religion you can then, hopefully, draw up some hypothesis about the nature of the universe that can be tested - even to the point where you start going into human nature and social structures (where science often does not go but it is possible for it to go if you're less squeamish).  That is assuming that a given religion has a identifiable set of ideas that can be turned into something that can be tested against. For example if a church claimed that prayer achieve results that can be tested (and it has in the past and so far there is no positive evidence for this). On the other hand to prove there is not some unknown and undescribed hyper intelligent entity that is in part responsible for this universe is impossible - but that entity is not going to be what is described in any current world wide religion.From a standing start if I decided to believe in a god I'd have to choose which one I'd want - either an existing God or a new composite based upon my own personal view of the world. For example I may decide that my god is the creator of the simulation of a universe that we are all part of. That belief is totally possible and cannot be disproved. This does not mean that I am right or I have proved my argument. It just sits on the same realm as millions of other personal beliefs. Also that god would be secular. As soon as you start going into the supernatural then you have another logical problem I can expand on some other time.So you can see believing in some god is not the same as believe in one of the currently popular Gods that dot mans cultural present and past.I don't see this stuff as being easy.

Stewart Dean ● 5107d

I can cite many bits of objective evidence for the non existance of god that are not based upon faith but a series of hypothesis. Proving a negative, as you require, some hold to be a logical falacy. Technically that's not 100% true it it is fairly difficult and the logical default position between something existing without evidence and something not existing without evidence is that that thing does not exist.A common example is the example of Bertrand Russell's tea pot first used in 1952. The argument is that there is a china teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars (so the tea is likely to be cold by now). This argument cannot be disproved even with the most powerful telescope so how can we know that such a teapot does not exist? The assertion cannot be disproved so therefore what is the logical conclusion to be reached?  If the teapot was also refereed to in ancient books would that make the teapot any more likely to exist?It's okay to be open minded but there gets to a point where being too open minded leaves you in danger of you brain falling out. To say that it requires faith to not believe there is a teapot in orbit around the sun is as much a non argument as saying it requires faith to not believe in which ever god or religion or supernatural belief system you choose to mark out for special treatment.Now to disprove religion is possible, but only if a religion has a clear, unabiqous statement of beliefs that, in some way, can be tested. But, objectively, even within religion we find wildly divergent beliefs. That in it's self I hold as strong objective evidence for the non existance of a god. If there was a god and he was guiding and talking to his followers through a single truth in a single holy book or via more direct means then you will get a high degree of homogeny within religion. This, objectively, does not exist. Therefore a god does not guide any one given religion and does not speak to its followers. This is not conclusive but one bit of evidence that I could cite.

Stewart Dean ● 5107d