Aside from “making sense to me” are there other criteria by which you decide how to interpret claims, etc.?
It seems you have constructed a belief that suits you, but is in opposition and contradiction with the vast majority of Christians. By completely rejecting the widely held foundations of the belief, to suit yourself, you now have your own personal religion that assuages your angst at not having answers to questions that others are able to accept as “presently unknown”. The stark hubris of placing yourself above all of the denominations, while simultaneously selectively aligning yourself with your favorite selections from the book is, well, startling.
I am beginning to understand why you are so reluctant to define this “god” in which you believe.
I’m of the view it was physical (and by implication, spiritual). I say that due to the numerous passages emphasizing the physicality of it, witness and so on.
Paradoxically I was forced to attend Sunday school, , culminating in confirmation at 14, once I was old enough to decide for myself I stopped going, I have pretty much not believed since, other than on here it isn’t even an issue that comes up much.
This is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and a false dichotomy fallacy, and possibility needs to be demonstrated, and with something more than these fallacies, which amount to no more than science can’t explain it, so god must have done it.
That is a bare appeal to numbers, and thus an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and of course humans across the globe have imagined literally thousands of deities in those histories.
Indeed not, but this is an appeal to authority fallacy, Einstein was pretty smart, and an atheist, do you see the problem with your claim?
An appeal both to authority and to numbers, a consensus is only as good as the objective evidence that supports it. Geniuses can be wrong, and on its own the number of people who believe something tells us nothing about the belief.
I always give it the same consideration I give all claims, without prejudice or favour, I can do no more.
One cannot separate a claim the Christian deity exists from the claims of the bible, it has been asserted as the inerrant word of an infallible deity, all it needs is one error in the bible for that claim to be dubious.
Yes, that’s a choice, one can choose to interpret it that way.
Outside of mathematics no reasoning can be proven.
This is all reasonable, I’m not attempting to convince you to perceive this as I do, each of us has to face this question and deal with it on our own terms (and dismissing the question is one way some people deal with it).
I must point out though that when you use terms like “plausible” and “desire” and “bias” and “deserve” these are all subjective and carry slightly different meanings for each of us.
Historic truth is a different beast to say scientific truth or mathematical truth. All I ask is that we apply the same procedure for establishing historic truth to claims about Jesus as we do for any other written claim from antiquity.
If materialism enabled us to avoid these kinds of biases then I’d never have abandoned it in the first place.
Because I believe dogma should be exposed and challenged. One should challenge it and the reasons are the same for me as they were for Galileo, avoid lies, avoid defending ideas just because the idea makes us comfortable.
That same creation myth makes demonstrably erroneous claims, how can one follow that information and not be dubious its origins were fallible evolved apes, and not an omniscient deity?
Except the overwhelming objective evidence demonstrates this isn’t true, we evolved slowly as have all living things. Don’t you find the claim we were made in the image of deity, odd alongside the objective fact that we happen to be just one species of great ape, and a very recent one at that?
I don’t know how much autonomy humans have, but I am pretty sure we don’t need a deity to explain it, evolution is more than sufficient.
It is reasonable because it doesn’t violate Occam’s razor, but adding a deity and the supernatural of course does.
A global flood that the geological record demonstrates unequivocally never happened, humans created in their current form, the earth created with vegetation before the sun, etc etc…
Even allowing that he existed which is supported by scant historical evidence at beat, we have no idea what Jesus said or did, only anonymous hearsay , written many decades after the fact.
There are no witnesses though, just unsubstantiated claims in hearsay secondhand (at best) accounts, to describe these as witnessing anything is beyond fanciful.
It’s a false equivalence fallacy to insist the claims are treated the same as all other historical claims though, since the claims involve supernatural claims and the claim that Jesus was a deity made human. They’re not comparable and as you yourself have said, historical methodology isn’t sufficiently robust to evidence such claims, which also must be viewed in the context of the culture and epoch from which they are derived, one of extreme credulity, superstition and ignorance of the natural world.
Well I believe all ideas should be challenged, but atheism has no dogma, that is axiomatic.
Dogma
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Whilst I don’t doubt there are atheists who adhere to dogma, atheism itself does not, it simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity. Perhaps you could give us some examples of this dogma? I have to say I have heard the accusation many times before from theists, and it always turns out to be straw men shoehorned onto atheism.
To a degree, I mean I embrace universalism there are many others who do too but a minority. I don’t believe anyone is destined to eternal torture either, again many agree but likely a minority, not tiny minorities mind.
The vast majority of people who identify as christians have their own stories, their own reasoning, and the entire group is heavily fragmented, I see no basis for “picking the right church” that isn’t how I see all this. I don’t seek a “correct church” myself, it is more about me, how do I react to what I learn.
I don’t see it that way at all. I have no desire to “join” an organization where I must accept as true things that I do not. Every Christian denomination has a statement of beliefs and I see no purpose, we have God’s word, there’s no compulsion to share someone else’s interpretation, there’s no basis for trying to define an official interpretation, this is precisely why Christianity is so fragmented.
God interacts with each of us individually, the idea that we are to follow pages and pages of rules defining doctrine and interpretations was never present at the time of Christ. We don’t need permission from others as to what to believe, we don’t need any authority besides God, we do not need human interlocutors now that Christ has appeared.
Everything you say above it itself an interpretation.
As I explained the way we establish historic truth is quite different to how we establish say scientific truth.
If you apply the same standards you apply to the NT to many other uncontested ancient literature, you’ll likely be able to raise the same objections.
Consider Spartacus, there are only two sources attesting to his existence and one of those is a fragment of text quoted by someone from another (unknown, long lost) source. There are more sources for Jesus than Spartacus, bear that in mind too, also note:
To be fair though, the myth or story of spartacus is more believable due to the burden of proof.
Can we take it at face value that someone stood against Rome? Sure… thats not a stretch.
However, a mythical diety fails to meet the burden, moreover, many theists will now go massively out of their way to remove a god from being able to meet the burden.
Now if all the stories claimed Spartacus rode om a winged horse and shot lightning bolts from his arse, id say the burden of proof has nassively increased and the story is likely garbage.
The view that Jesus was mythical is a fringe view.
But the very nature of what’s written is that something alien was happening, you cannot argue that the literature is lying on the basis of assumptions you choose to make, assumptions that only natural things can ever happen.
Your position is nothing more than “I do not believe events in the NT really happened THEREFORE they events did not”.
If you receive news that challenges your beliefs then yes, you can stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it, reject it, that’s your choice.
Why believe only natural things can ever happen? why is that belief so sacrosanct to the atheist? Try dropping that belief as an experiment then reread the NT, assume - for the sake of argument - that the belief only natural things can happen, is false, try that.
I don’t understand what dogma I have in saying that I don’t believe the assertions to which I’ve been exposed for the existence of god/s. How is there dogma in that?
Please don’t assume that I’ve included anything else in it. The definition of atheism I apply to myself in my identification as one, includes only that I do not believe those god assertions. It stands alone.
Do you consider that my withholding of belief in god/s in itself is dogma? V
Quite a claim to say all claims lack any other supporting evidence. Exaggeration? Hyperbole?
Rhetoric? Sophistry,? Horseshit?
Sorry to be pedantic, but I wrote “a story book”, indicating a single source, absent contemporaneous reports and the like.
When you say “literature” that indicates a body of work or evidence rather than a single example.
This is, of course, an example of the way you have chosen to interpret things.
I’m really not sure if you are being genuine when you make these kinds of statements. I think you likely possess the mental faculties to discern the differences and merely choose to obfuscate. Of course that is just my interpretation…
Again, you misrepresent what I said, i specifically said deity.
As for Jesus, personally I have no issue accepting that may have been a person from that era named Jesus, i’d happily concede that.
The jump from human from an era in antiquity, to a deity that was born from a virgin, that healed the sick, performed miracles and was resurrected, id say demands a far higher burdon of proof and one it has got absolutely nowhere near thus far.
Wrong, we can reject the claim based on many things, for examples looking for winged horses in the fossil record and via biology in working out if a human anus can produce lightning.
My position is not one of…
[quote=“Sherlock-Holmes, post:391, topic:3217”]
“I do not believe events in the NT really happened THEREFORE they events did not”.
[/quote]… again you misrepresent me… if you say the NT says there was a person called Jesus, id grant that. If you say there was a person called Bob… id grant that.
If the NT says Bob rode a dragon and could resurrect those previously dead, id demand a higher level of evidence in accordance with the claim
My beliefs and world views are constantly changing and im happy with that.
Because i have no good reason to believe there is a super natural element to reality… when one appears i’ll consider it.
You’re not in a position to lecture me on conduct. Shove your entitlement and your arrogance where the sun doesn’t shine.
Co workers don’t peddle lies to me, or twist my words to suit a duplicitous apologetic agenda. Or did this elementary concept escape you while posting your garbage?
I would if they were displaying a level of stupidity that was dangerous. Again, another elementary concept that flew past you.
Sometimes, such measures are deserved.
Again, do you have trouble with simple ideas?
Because that is exactly what the various fetishists for a cartoon magic man are. They treat the unsupported assertions of a pre-scientific mythology uncritically as fact, and summarily dismiss in a wilfully dishonest manner, any data or postulates that don’t genuflect before said mythological assertions. My description is intended deliberately and specifically to highlight the absurdity inherent in this. Again, do simple ideas escape you?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
In your fucking wet dreams.
Oh wait, you were the one who resorted to lies when I presented peer reviewed scientific papers, because YOU had no case to present in the face thereof.
And YOU are the one who keeps blindly asserting that science purportedly cannot answer various questions, while demonstrating that apologetic can’t answer any questions.
Read Matthew 7:5 at all have you?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh wait, when I have dialled back the polemics, you’ve still lied.
If you want me to treat you as an honest participant in discourse, stop lying.
