I blog on atheism.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
In 'real life,' if asked my views on religion, I will give my view: that religion is based on an unevidenced—and in all likelihood unprovable—premise, that the promotion of faith in place of reason is inherently harmful and suchlike statements, depending how deep the conversation, if any, gets. If asked. I don't shout my disbelief on streetcorners, or hawk it door to door. I'm merely honest about my disbelief in gods if the topic arises.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
I don't discriminate against people on grounds of religion, sexuality, skin-colour, gender or anything else, unlike many religious people. I take people as individuals instead of group-labels. On the other hand, I do give short thrift to those who make assertions based on nothing but blind faith and mythology.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
I don't shoot and bomb so called 'pro-life' campaigners. I don't send them death threats, or post their physical addresses online and encourage others to persecute them so. And nor would I support anyone willing to use such tactics, even to the degree of half excusing them with a "Well, the cause is just." Nor do I condone the use of fake testimonial, photoshopped or mislabelled images and the like. I merely state that I've seen no evidence of personhood in an early-term foetus, and most definitely no evidence of any alleged 'soul,' in a foetus or a in fully grown adult.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
I don't shelter paedophiles, but I do point out when others do so.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
I don't begrudge your right to believe whatever you want to believe, no matter how little evidence supports your belief; I merely ask that educational and political policy should be guided by evidence not faith.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
Unlike churches, I don't expect a money-taking organisation I might be a member of to be let off taxes.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
I don't expect my opinions to be given the force of law, or specially protected from criticism by law. I merely ask that others' opinions be treated the same.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
I don't support the mutilation of children for religious or any other reasons.
This makes me a loudmouthed, militant, fundamentalist atheist, apparently.
Howcome a religious person has to kill or maim, or make unbelievably outrageous statements about gays causing tsunamis or the like before being called militant, yet all I have to do is state my unbelief in gods and my wish for equality? Howcome preachers can talk about me as if I'm the incarnation of their devil and be considered perfectly polite, yet my asking for evidence is considered gauche at best, downright evil at worst, and loudmouthed, cocky and fundamentalist at least?
Don't answer that; it's rhetorical. It's because I'm a loudmouthed, militant fundamentalist atheist. Obviously.
—Daz
Fantastic! I love it.
I’m a Christian, along with Isaac Newton, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Locke, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Huss, William Wilberforce, Theodore Dwight Weld, Martin Niemoller, William Tyndale, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Galileo, Richard Wurmbrand, and most of the greatest heroes of history.
I’m am a Christian because I’m convinced by the evidence. Many of the brilliant people listed above were also convinced.
There is evidence for faith if you are willing to seek it out.
Oddly,I’ve had lots of folk tell me that ‘there is evidence.’ When asked, all they ever seem to produce is a god of the gaps and arguments from incredulity.
However, if you feel like doing more than just leaving silly statements about some scientists having been religious,* I’m perfectly willing to take a gander at any actual empirical evidence you’re willing to provide. Cynicism born of experience doesn’t leave me particularly hopeful, but please, fire at will!
*Please notice I say ‘religious’. Unlike most Christians who pose this fatuous argument, I’m not as quick as you to dismiss by omission all the contributions by people of non-Christian faith—notably, but not restricted to the many advances made by Islamic researchers during the dark ages, when Christianity was actively discouraging such curiosity about ‘this corrupt world’. You may want to consider where Giordano Bruno would fit in your list.
On the other hand, if you’re the Diana Lesperance who wrote this garbage, please don’t bother.
Frankly, your idea of evidence, if the above is your work, looks like it came out of the south end of a bull.
Link for the above, if anyone fancies a chortle.
What kind of evidence would convince you?
If you are looking for physical proof of God’s existence then look at Jesus. He said that if you’ve seen him you’ve seen the Father.
Even the mere existence of Jesus reveals that God and His Word are more than just fairy tales and myths. The whole Bible points to Jesus as the Lamb of God who would die in our place to pay for the crimes of humanity.
I think it’s comforting to know that the universe is a place that is concerned with justice. All the people who abused and kidnapped and murdered little children and gays and women and blacks will have to face a judge for what they did — even if they got away with it in this life, like so many Catholic priests.
Would you have it any other way? Would you prefer a universe where truth is never revealed?
I don’t think my position is “garbage.” I hope you have a reason for rejecting me. Or perhaps you are inadequately prepared to deal with some of these subjects.
That’s how it appears to me. Just saying . . . .
Oh, and the haircut intimidates me a little. I’m just a middle-aged housewife from Wisconsin. I don’t see that style very often here in farm country. You’re probably a lot cooler than I am, but I can get past my fears with the help of Jesus.
I won’t “bother” you anymore if you don’t want me to, but I’m willing to have a civilized conversation about Jesus if you’d like.
Come let us reason together.
Your points, in the order presented:
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a wandering Rabbi named Joshua ben Joseph (that’s Jesus, to you) existed, his existence says nothing about the existence of a god, even if the Bible is correct in stating that he claimed to be the son of a god. I most definitely exist, but I’m betting you wouldn’t take any such claim from me at face value.
It doesn’t matter what you find comforting or not comforting. That doesn’t say anything about what the universe is, merely what you’d like the universe to be.
Nor does it matter what I’d prefer.
The haircut’s just a haircut. “Judge not on appearances, but on actions and words”: The Book of Daz, Chapter 1 verse 1.
Bother me all you like, but yes—some reasoning would be nice.
Oops, replied in the wrong place. See below.
“Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a wandering Rabbi named Joshua ben Joseph (that’s Jesus, to you) existed, his existence says nothing about the existence of a god, even if the Bible is correct in stating that he claimed to be the son of a god. I most definitely exist, but I’m betting you wouldn’t take any such claim from me at face value.”
It’s not just me mucking comments up today then…
Sorry, the previous comment posted before I was finished writing.
Assuming . . . . I’m betting you wouldn’t take any such claim from me at face value.”
I completely agree with that wise statement. Any Jim Jones or David Koresh could be the messiah then, right?
But fortunately, God didn’t leave us in that quandary. He gave us a type of road map that could lead us to the right person.
Isaiah 53 can easily be googled. It’s an example of that road map. It was written 700 years before the birth of Jesus.
Do you know of any other man that has this circumstance surrounding his life? (i.e. foretold hundreds of years before his life, and fulfilled in ways that he had no control over)
Isaiah 53 is not, and never has been, considered to refer to Jesus by the people whose book the Old Testament is: the Jews. Even if we admit the possibility of ‘prophecy’, this means that there’s at least one alternative reading of what that prophecy refers to. Hardly solid evidence.
Furthermore, The second Lensmen novel, First Lensman by E. Doc Smith, contains a prophecy by Mentor of Arisia to the effect that there will only ever be one human lenswoman. In the penultimate novel of the series, Second Stage Lensmen, this prophecy is borne out, even though Doc Smith himself had no idea how, exactly, his own story would pan out at the time he wrote the former novel. By your reckoning, does this make the entire Lensmen series true, or merely a work of internally-consistent fiction, with the later story adjusted to fit earlier episodes?
I trust you see where I’m going with this…
“There is evidence for faith.”
Empirical Evidence: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
So based upon the above definitions the statement “there is evidence for faith” becomes:
There is proof for that for which there is no proof.
Not only is there insufficient evidence to establish the existence of a god with any degree of certainty, but all the evidence we do possess directly contradicts the Christian concept of God.
Daz, may I reply to two of the above ‘evidences’, namely archaeological proof and historical proof of Jesus’ existence in ancient texts.
There is not, nor will there ever be, any archaeological evidence for the myths found in the Judeo-Christian Bible, though not for lack of trying. Many individuals and organisations, notably the Palestine Exploration Fund, have spent vast amounts of both time and money and have come up with precisely zilch.
Or to be more exact, their efforts to prove the biblical myths have actually uncovered the evidence that totally undermines them. We now know for instance the Temple of Solomon, supposedly built by that king around C10 BCE, was in fact built by Amenhotep III several centuries earlier. The foundation (quader) stones found at the lowest level of the temple site are engraved with his details!
Likewise every one of the myths, both Old Testament and New, has been found to be from earlier sources, or totally made up. The Moses in the basket saga is lifted from the tales of Sargon of Assyria, Noah’s flood, as is widely known, comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The story of the fall of Jericho couldn’t have happened because archaeology had proven that Jericho was unoccupied at the time it was supposed to have happened. And the sun did not stand still in the sky, no matter what Joshua says. And Jonah and the whale is just plain stupid.
The Jesus myths from the New Testament fare no better. There is not one single story of the supposed life of Christ that is not to be found in earlier sources. The virgin birth, shepherds, wise men etc are a common theme throughout the cultures that preceded the Christian Era. The water into wine, and the bread/wine zombie feast are from Dionysus. All of the miracles and sayings attributed to Jesus have precedents in earlier texts. Even Judas’ 30 pieces of silver come from Malachi.
What most Christians are ignorant of is that the most important aspect of their so-called Messiah’s story, the crucifixion/resurrection are in fact both later editions from earlier sources. The earliest extant bible, Codex Sinaiticus, has no mention of the resurrection! Nor do any other early scripts. This was added to the myths many centuries after the Council of Nicea (325CE), where the divinity of the newly invented messiah, composed from stories/legends from throughout the Middle East/Empire – most notable Mithraism, was decided by a vote. The crucifixion/resurrection was omitted as it was felt to be too Mithraic,
Even the very details of the crucifixion itself, such as the solders drawing lots for his vestments and his dying words to his god asking why he had forsaken him, are copy/pasted from Psalm 22.
Anyone who claims there is archaeological evidence for any of the bible stories is either lying or deluding themselves.
Remigius, I’m glad you did.
One further point, though. Even if a large number of Biblical stories were shown to be reasonably accurate, they still wouldn’t prove a damn thing about God’s existence.
To take the most obvious story: all the archaeological expertise in the world can only show that a tomb-like structure is empty. It can’t say that it was emptied by supernatural means.
As Ron says below: they present it as faith—by definition unevidenced—yet perversely try to justify it as science—by definition requiring evidence.
The main difference between the “Lensmen” series (or the “Twilight Series”) is that Jesus was a real person, living in a real world, not a fictional character! Also, the Bible wasn’t written by one person in the course of one lifetime, as the “Lensmen” stories were. Isaiah wrote about the messiah 700 years before Jesus came. Micah, Daniel, David, Zechariah, and many other authors wrote about the messiah also. The book series you mentioned was a work of fiction with no actual fulfillment in the real world.
In order for the author of the “Lensmen” to construct a fulfillment of the prophecy (in the second book) all he had to do was create one out his own mind. In order for Jesus to self-fulfill prophecy he had to control his enemies — people who had a vested interest in making sure he didn’t fulfill any prophecies. Certainly you can see the difference.
Faith is the SUBSTANCE. . . the EVIDENCE . . . I put my faith in Jesus because of the substance and evidence of his existence, and what his existence accomplished in the real world. The “things not seen” are the spiritual things, but the evidence for them can be found in the real world.
I’m not disputing whether Jesus actually existed or not. My personal feeling, given that a Jewish cult did grow up around his name before Saul/Paul et al, is that he probably did, though as Remigius says, many of the stories about him were likely borrowed from other sources and chopped about to fit. That’s how mythologies evolve. None of that, though, says anything about the reality of the claim that he was anything but human.
“Certainly you can see the difference.”
Nope. One work was created by many authors, each with knowledge of what previous authors had said and able to adjust his story to match. The other was created by a single author, but with the same ability. No real difference at all.
My point about the famous people who were Christians is that most of these men are what we would consider to be some of the greatest minds in history – - and they could see the evidence for Christianity.
Perhaps it’s not that there is no evidence, but that, for whatever reason, you won’t be convinced no matter what evidence is shown to you.
Jesus was a real man who would have had to actually fulfill the prophecies in real life. The characters in the Lensmen were fictional characters whose ability to fulfill the prophecies could be accomplished merely through the stroke of the pen of the author.
Not the same, Daz.
Just saying. . .
Jesus may, for all we know, have tried to fulfil those prophecies. had he managed to do so to the satisfaction of those who had access to much better—more current—information about what those prophecies actually prophesied, then a majority of Jews would have gathered to his cause. They did not do so, therefore it’s highly unlikely that he was seen by most as having fulfilled those prophecies, later Christian revisionism notwithstanding.
Please address the space-time question on the other page. That’s the first thing you’ve mentioned that hasn’t involved the circular logic of citing the Bible to prove the Bible
Can we stick to one comment at a time, and pick a page to do so on please? I’m gettingg dizzy.
Still, I’ll answer this one here, as it’s here.
Famous people, even smart ones, are just as prone to believing things because that’s the social norm as are the rest of us. There’s à large evolutionarily-based pressure to conform, and to be a nonconformist in all areas of life is to become an outcast. Outcasts don’t get to breed.
Remigius,
A short list of archaeological evidence:
References to the House of David and the King of Israel on the Mesha Stele, the Behistun Rock, which helped to translate Near-east inscriptions that over and over have confirmed the Bible, Hittite monuments and documents (historical critics had always pointed to the Hittites as biblical myths); the Lachish Ostraca, which confirmed the truth of the Babylonian captivity; 17,000 cueiform tablets at Elba which confirm the existence of writing before the time of Moses (critics said Moses couldn’t have written the Pentateuch because writing wasn’t in existence); razors found in Egyptian tombs that proved Joseph shaved (when critics scoffed at Genesis 41:14 saying that it wasn’t possible for Joseph to shave because razors didn’t exist); cuneiform records from the excavated libraries of Assyrian king which confirm the biblical record of the thirty-nine kings of ancient Israel and Judah; a clay prism describing Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah; the discovery of the Egyptian cities Pithom and Ramses (whose buildings have a layer of bricks that have less straw in them, just as Exodus 5 claims); four clay cylinders in the city of Ur which confirm the existence of the Israeli King Jehu; the Siloam Tunnel Inscription which confirms the biblical story that a reservoir was constructed in anticipation of the siege of Assyria; the Cyrus Cylinder; the Dead Sea Scrolls; the excavation of Gezer, and on and on . . .
The Old Testament wasn’t a mythological story. It was the history of the Jewish people.
By the way, Daz, their history says that a million of their people experienced a miraculous deliverance from the Egyptians. They say that God delivered them and they commemorate it with annual holidays. Were the Jews liars?
“Were the Jews liars”?
Actually, that’s a good question, and the answer would depend on the reasons and ways, lost to us, that the stories became ‘official history’. Where’s the boundary between a lie and tall tale? How long were the tales passed down in oral history, changing a little with each telling, before being written down, altered a bit to fit other tails, amalgamated with other tales, altered a bit more as they became important for political reasons, and so forth. Also, did the relaters of the tales and the listeners understand them as pure truth, part truth or completely allegorical.
From what little I know of Jewish religious scholarship, the mainstream Jewish view has always been a lot more allegorical than the Christian view, but I may be mistaken.
Either way, I see neither you nor an equally literally-minded Jew as liars, merely sadly misled and mistaken.
Martin Luther King, Jr.–a conformist? He wrote his most famous letter from a jail cell in where he exposed false religious leaders. Dietrich Bonhoeffer–a conformist? He was murdered by the Nazis after spending time in a prison camp for helping Jews. John Huss–a conformist? He was burnt at the stake for heresy during the Inquistion because he opposed the false teachings of the Catholic Church. Richard Wurmbrand–a conformist? He spent decades in a communist prison because he wouldn’t deny Christ. I could go on . . .
No. Mere conformity would not lead a man to suffer and die for something. He had to believe it. They were convinced.
Now read my whole comment.
Just as a side thought: If so many of stories in the Bible have been confirmed by archaeology, showing that the Old Testament is trustworthy as an historical document, then perhaps the story of the Exodus is trustworthy.
I see what you mean about being dizzy. I can’t find the comment that I commented on about conformity!
lol
Diana, thank you for posting that list of ‘evidence’ for the bible. I shall endeavour to reply to each item.
References to the House of David and the King of Israel on the Mesha Stele,
I have no doubt that King David, and the King of Israel actually existed. Though I think the reality of their true identity will not be in keeping with your preconceived notions. I promise to expand more in Daz’s next post (Evidence Schmevidence) as he has questioned the existence of David and I wish to give a fuller answer there.
the Behistun Rock, which helped to translate Near-east inscriptions that over and over have confirmed the Bible,
The Beshitun Inscription does not confirm the Bible. It is merely evidence that Darius actually lived and gives an account of his history. It is also interesting that the god mentioned in this artefact is Ahura Mazda rather than Yahweh.
Hittite monuments and documents (historical critics had always pointed to the Hittites as biblical myths);
The city of Troy, as written of in Homer’s Iliad, was considered to be a legend until it was discovered by Schliemann in 1868. It’s discovery does not mean that any of the gods mentioned in the Iliad are real. Neither does it confirm any of the other Greek Myths.
the Lachish Ostraca, which confirmed the truth of the Babylonian captivity;
There is no doubt that the Babylonian Captivity was an actual event. Any scholar will tell you that this period is when the many myths and oral traditions of the Jewish people were codified into a single text.
17,000 cueiform tablets at Elba which confirm the existence of writing before the time of Moses (critics said Moses couldn’t have written the Pentateuch because writing wasn’t in existence);
I know of no critic who would be stupid enough to suggest that writing did not exist in the supposed time of Moses (c. 1391-1271 BCE). Your example is what we in the trade call a straw man. Writing is known to have existed for many millennia before even the Elba Tablets (c. 2500 BCE). Indeed the period that we refer to as history is known about precisely because of written records.
razors found in Egyptian tombs that proved Joseph shaved (when critics scoffed at Genesis 41:14 saying that it wasn’t possible for Joseph to shave because razors didn’t exist);
Rubbish. Shaving has been around for many thousands of years before the Egyptian discoveries. First shells were used, then with the advent of metallurgy metal razors were used. Many years ago I even demonstrated that prehistoric man (and woman!) could have shaved off unwanted body hair by using a flint dated to about 200,000 BP, together with a soap made from fat and wood ash.
cuneiform records from the excavated libraries of Assyrian king which confirm the biblical record of the thirty-nine kings of ancient Israel and Judah;
No-one is doubting the historic existence of historic peoples. What we do question is your insistence that evidence for real people/events is evidence for imaginary people and supernatural events.
a clay prism describing Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah;
See above answer.
the discovery of the Egyptian cities Pithom and Ramses (whose buildings have a layer of bricks that have less straw in them, just as Exodus 5 claims);
So what. Archaeology has shown that both cities were built and occupied by non-Egyptian people, so one would assume them to be built with non-native technologies. This doesn’t confirm any supernatural biblical claim. Does the Hindu Mandir in Neasden, London, build using traditional Indian techniques prove the veracity of the Vedas? Does Islamic architecture prove the Koran?
four clay cylinders in the city of Ur which confirm the existence of the Israeli King Jehu;
So what. The existence of Kings Cross Station is not proof of the Hogwarts Express.
the Siloam Tunnel Inscription which confirms the biblical story that a reservoir was constructed in anticipation of the siege of Assyria;
The bible is a mish-mash of both oral tradition and histories collected over a very long period and codified in the 6th century BCE. I would be very surprised if actual events didn’t make it into the narrative. The inclusion of real events does not prove the unreal ones!
the Cyrus Cylinder;
As in my answer to the Behistun Inscription, this is evidence about Cyrus, and his god Marduk, not about the god of the Bible.
the Dead Sea Scrolls;
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not prove the Bible. All they show is that people worshipped a certain god, in a certain way, in a certain place. But we knew that already.
the excavation of Gezer,
I have actually worked at Gezer, albeit over 20 years ago. Gezer is evidence that Gezer existed. It is not evidence that any of the supernatural beliefs of it’s inhabitants, or the jewish people as a whole, are true.
and on and on . . .
Round and round in circles we goes.
When she’ll get it…nobody knows!
“So what. The existence of Kings Cross Station is not proof of the Hogwarts Express.”
Blasphemy!!! I saw i’ wiv me own two eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GWR_'Hall'_5972_'Olton_Hall'_at_Doncaster_Works.JPG
Oh, and in case anyone wants to argue, “Well, then how come we can’t all go to see Hogwarts for ourselves?” — the answer is this:
You can not contact them. They can only contact you. Harry Potter did not go looking for Hogwarts. Hogwarts came looking for him. He was given an invitation. This is much like the type of metaphysical inventation a person gets if one where inclined towards the mystical life of their particular religion. (source)
Checkmate, aPotterists!
Ron
We in the Church of the Holy Paddington utterly denounce your Potterist heresy. There is one, and only one, railway station related deity. The transubstantiation of bread and marmalade into His Furriness’s holy flesh and blood proves it beyond all doubt.
Repent, and you may yet feel His furry hand upon your heart.
Interestingly, my spellchecker baulked not a jot at “Furriness’s.” How odd.
Repent you will!
When Lord Potter casts his final spell — the Imperius Curse — all knees shall bow; your false god’s hard stare will be directed towards the ground along with all the rest of you heathen idolaters. And those who resist will soon find themselves dancing the Paddington frisk.
Daz, “There is one, and only one, railway station related deity…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminus_(god)
Die. You heretic!
Damn! Trumped by a ‘real’ god. Which is bonkers if you think about it, even though it sounds sensible…