Again, so what? That has nothing to do with the truth value of any beliefs about God existing. Ancient Greece and its many great minds undoubtedly existed also - that doesn’t mean Zeus or centaurs were real.
Funny, that sounds like the perfect definition of religious belief, to me.
That’s why we don’t see God around any more; he got banned for making threats.
Not a bad example, actually. It’s an ancient document (8th century BC) about a real place (in fact, a place thought fictional by some until the 19th century) with a large cast of characters of kings, warriors and deities.
If the truth of the Bible is assumed to be based on the appearance of real places and people in its narrative, then the same argument means that the existence of a real Troy suggests that we should all worship Zeus.
Which brings us to one of the main reasons I debate Christians. I don’t object to people having a heartfelt belief in God, but I detest the use of bad logic in defense of it. If you have to resort to such poor tactics to justify your faith, how sincere could it be?
If you use lies and deception to advance the belief in Skull Ducks are you engaging in…
… skullduckery?
Of course you realize, this means war!
Daffyist nuns are known as Duckskullery maids.
Now, speaking as a Donaldite…
Agreement. Name-calling is lowbrow behavior, and I have a lot of very dear friends and loved ones who are highly religious. I know they aren’t stupid or foolish. They just believe something I don’t.
I like to compare it to tastes and preferences. Chocolate and vanilla. I like anchovies on my pizza; that makes me a “pizza heretic” to many. Others like pineapple. Is there any reasonable way to say “They’re wrong, I’m right?” Of course not.
So long as some jackass doesn’t try to introduce legislation mandating pineapple or banning anchovies…
(But I do favor a constitutional amendment declaring that America is a Donaldite nation… Or perhaps a Rogerite one…)
Trinopus
But why didn’t he tell this to Tex Avery?
They were not aware of who Jesus was, because he was thought to have died.
I suppose I will bite at this. Name some fictional persons.
Let me point out to you what you said. I quote:
[QUOTE=You]
No, Christians argue exactly as above. They don’t have any historical corroboration for anything. The core historical claims of Christianity are corroborated by nothing, and don’t even have any primary testimony (nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who ever knew Jesus).
[/quote]
This is false. Let’s take Jesus’ crucifiction for example. Without using the Bible as reference, we’re left with a few, generally-regarded-as-authentic sources. One such quote:
[QUOTE=Tacitus]
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
[/quote]
It isn’t just the fact that “these places exist”; it’s the fact that certain people exist in certain places which exist which can give credence to a particular statement with a degree of reliability.
As it is, I guess we can score one for Christianity?
That was not the question posed to you. I asked which you would be more likely to believe; the text which arises sixty years after the fact or the text which arises 600 hundred years after the fact? Anyway, while you ponder the answer to my question, it’s important to point out to you that sixty or so years from the death of to Jesus to the first Gospel appearing is an incredibly short period of time. If, as you seem to be implying, we can discredit any text which arose sixty years later as being, for lack of a better word, “authentic”, then we must do the same for other pieces of Classical literature.
No, because it was a rhetorical question meant to highlight the fact that you’re not, exactly, more educated than is someone else, which in this case is me. Your quip that you set off in brackets insinuated that you know more than I, presumably because you’ve bothered to look it up while I have not. But go ahead and go into “excrutiating detail”.
The fact that you think that both scenarios are equally credible calls your own intellectual honesty into question.
If, for example, Tex Avery were to relate that his personal experience contradicts that of any experience some of the persons here are attributing to him, then would his statement be called into question based on the statement of some here, or would the statement of some here be called into question based on the statement of Tex Avery?
That’s a rhetorical question, of course. Unless you want to go ahead and answer it. The fact is that both scenarios aren’t equally credible; one of those scenarios is given more weight than the other.
So you’ve already decided that the religious person’s beliefs have no basis. And you’ve apparently done this on the basis that you disagree with that which they’re basing their beliefs on (the Bible). Now just imagine if I were to start arguing from a Biblical position, and then claim that your position has no basis because it contradicts the Bible. The moment I typed that out, I’d be swarmed by five, six, seven or however many atheists have congregated to this thread. Apparently, the way the debate works is that the atheist gets to set the terms and that which the Christian bases his or her beliefs on is rendered inadmissible.
…Yeah. There’s nothing there that would inherently benefit the atheist. Nope. Not at all.
But one can easily imagine him calling Cheney “dithhhhhhpicable!”
God beliefs have no rational basis at all. That’s not an opinion, it’s a statement of fact. If you believe in gods, you did not arrive at those beliefs through any process of reasoning or evidence.
False? Really? Can you please provide any basis at all for god beliefs?
From the OP:
Guess what? Christians do exist. And, Christians say things, and they write things, and they do things. The debates are about these things, and not about non-existent things.
The question of why anyone does anything can be answered scientifically, but it seems that many SDMB atheists are not interested in analyzing and evaluating their own behavior towards theists, nor are they interested in researching theists scientifically. For some, participating in theism/atheism debates is an amusing pastime. For some others, it’s an obsession. In either case, it’s an opportunity to present self-congratulatory arguments based on fragmented epistemology and limited self-awareness. And, some atheists are actually interested in discussing theism and learning more about the natural phenomenon of religious belief so that they can be in a better position to address various personal, social and political issues.
Anyway, to answer strugglingChristian, if you want to understand why atheists debate Christians, examine why you started this thread. Then gather additional information, form an explanatory hypothesis, perform experiments to test the hypothesis, collect data, analyze the data, interpret the data, draw conclusions, publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, and then retest.
Of course, this is what *all *SDMB atheists do when confronted with any issue. They want to make sure that there’s evidence for *all *of their ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. They can’t rely on what anyone tells them – that’s not evidence. They have to examine the evidence themselves, because they are interested in “facts” which have meaning without any interpretation. And it can’t be just any evidence. Nope, it has to be “scientific” evidence. Everything they do, everything they say, everything they believe must be based on the scientific method. Otherwise, they would be basing their lives on faith. And, there’s no way that they could possibly be like billions of other people.
SDMB atheists are special. :dubious:
The duck workth in mythterious wayth.
There isn’t going to be any major breakthrough moment for you where you find the critical distinction between the mythical Christ and Daffy Duck. The main thing separating them is simple time - give Daffy a thousand years and who knows how he’ll be viewed (if not revered)? Heck, fifty years or a century after the last original Daffy material gets written, some Saul/Paul analogue rediscovers him and greatly expands the mythology in an attractive way… If humanity turns out to be too sophisticated to worship an idealized cartoon duck, I’m a little curious why some worship an idealized long-deceased carpenter.
Nonsense. Plenty of things are a matter of personal preference and have nothing to do with either faith or the scientific method. Religion however make a boatload of claims about objective reality, not mere personal preferences; and is virtually always wrong about them. Random chance is better than faith.
I’m kinda curious what that would entail. Neurological analyses of the thought processes behind theism? Hypothesizing on the evolutionary psychology of the origins of theism?
As far as I can tell, theism itself is a philosophical dead end, like astrology or phrenology. I suppose the only parts of it worth scientific study are the psychological.
And just to try and nod towards the OP’s question.
I debate the religious out of curiosity. I’ve never believed in a god and I do wonder why some people do but I won’t raise the subject first.
I do have a respect for the scientific method, it is our best way of knowing the world and is elegant, simple and powerful. At the point the religious person makes a claim that science can also address then I’m interested to know what their evidence is.
If they have none, or offer theological obfuscation then I’ll be pretty dismissive of their claim.
If they try to impose a religious view on me through the political process or some other power structure then I’ll resist.
If they keep their faith to themselves and harm no-one and impose on no-one, they’ll have no quarrel from me. What’s more I’ll defend their right to do so.
The very instant they bring their beliefs into the realm of public discourse then…fair game. I’ll treat it the same as I would a political, philosophical, sporting or artistic affiliation.
See. This is a truly ridiculous statement . What constitutes a rational argument isn’t an argument you agree with.
Imagine this scenario. I read an unnamed book. Through reading that book, I come to adopt a certain viewpoint. Next, let’s say I was reading some book on atheism and now I’m a committed atheist. Well, let’s say I was reading the Bible and now I’m a committed Christian. Now, let’s assume I was reading a book on atheism and, after reading said book, I’m left feeling empty and unsatisfied, and as a result I turn to Christianity. And finally, let’s say I read the Bible and am turned off by it, thus becoming an atheist. To that, you’d now agree I arrived at my views rationally.
I’m going to assume that, in the first and fourth instances, you would say that I arrived at my views rationally. In the second and third instances, however, you would argue that I arrived at my views irrationally. But how can this be? In the above scenario, I read the same material but come to different conclusions. You have no basis under which to say I came to my views irrationally except they disagree with your views.
That, of course, is nothing more than you feigning a sense of intellectual superiority where you feel as if the other guy’s position is intellectually inferior to yours.
That can sometimes be the case legitimately. Some religious people tie themselves up in theological knots trying to justify what they believe. Not all positions are on the same level intellectually and religion can come pretty low on that scale.
e.g. the explanation of thunder via norse gods, the sun gods of ancient Egypt, the explanations of physical phenomena via most of the greek and roman deities.
You’d agree that those positions were of an inferior intellectual standing than the modern scientific explanations yes?
How do you know he didn’t? Maybe he told Tex to keep it under his hat? Whether he told Tex or not, or what his reason was is not for us to ask. It is enough for us to know that his reasons are daffy.
No, they didn’t know Jesus was the Messiah even when he was alive. Mark says that the apostles were dense and never understood his identity.
Talk about a hanging curve ball.
Adam
Eve
Cain
Abel
Enos
Seth
Noah
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Joseph
Moses
Aaron
Joshua
Sampson
Job
Jonah
Those are just a few who are definitely fictional. There are a number of others whose historical existence is at least questionable (Solomon, for instance).
Large swaths of the OT are pure epic myth with no more historicity than the Illiad and the Odyssey (books which, like the Bible also have some stray historical place names in them). The Bible does reference a few verifiable historical persons (e.g some of the later kings of Israel and Judea, Xerxes, the NT name checks a couple of Caesars, and there are other examples), but these are mostly persons uninvolved with the supernatural claims of the Bible, and it is only to be expected that the authors would mention a few major names and places contemporaneous to when they wrote. It proves nothing. King Kong climbed up the Empire State Building. The Empire State Building exists. That does not therefore mean that King King was real.
I’m well aware of Tacitus (if you do a search on that word under my user name, you’ll see that I’ve referenced that exact quote many times myself. You also could have referenced Josephus), but Tacitus provides no corroboration for the supernatural claims of Christianity. Tacitus confirms, at best (and even this is not necessarily a given, since he could have gotten his information from other Christians rather than an independent source. The fact the he got Pilate’s title wrong [and anachronistically so] suggests that he wasn’t referencing a written record)) that a real guy named Jesus was crucified. So what? Most modern scholars think that Jesus was probably a real person, but that doesn’t mean he was magic or that he came back to life
No because Tacitus gives no confirmation or corroboration for anything having to do with the supernatural claims of Christianity.
I answered your question. Those are not elements which would have any relevance to whether I believed them. They are meaningless and non-probative details in and of themselves. Would you be more likely to believe the diary of a 15th Century soldier saying he had squab for breakfast, or a claim from a 21st century blogger saying he had Bigfoot in his garage?
The time is not as relevant as the demonstrable ahistoricity of many of their specific claims, the ludicrous, fantastic quality of others (the zombie assault on Jerusalem, for instance) and their lack of any provenance or primary sources.
The burden does not lie with me anyway, but with you. Prove the claims are true.
Actually, I am. I have a BA in Religious Studies. That doesn’t make me an expert, but it makes me (as i said) “somewhat educated,” and I’m positive I’m more educated than you. It’s clear from your posts that you don’t know a lot about contemporary Biblical scholarship. Well I do. It’s my thing. I moderate a forum on it. I don’t say this to try to inflate my credentials to anything special, but I am confident that I know more than you, and in my experience I know rather more than the typical Christian knows about his own Bible.
No, it’s because I studied it in college.
It will take another thread. Are you going to respond to it if I start one? I’m not going to waste a lot of time and sweat if you’re going to ignore it.
Do tell. What makes one scenario more credible than the other?
Tex Avery died 30 years ago, so he isn’t going to contradict anything, and besides, we already have the word of Daffy Duck himself when he appeared to Voyager on the road to San Jose.
You’ll have to explain why.
Not “decided,” observed. If you disagree, then all you have to do is show the basis.
Wrong. I’m observing that they don’t have any evidentiary basis for their beliefs. The Bible is not evidence. That’s not an expression of capricious hostility towards the Bible, but as a matter of objective fact, it’s not evidence for magic.
You can either produce empirical evidence or you can’t. That’s not an “atheist” thing, it’s just a common sense, scientific standard.
Well, yes, the fact that the theist lacks any evidence at all for his claims is a huge advantage for the atheist position, that’s true. But that’s just the reality of the evidence, not some kind of unfair manipulation or cheating on the part of the atheist. If you want to assert the existence of anything supernatural, then put up or shut up. No one is being unfair to you by observing you have no proof.
No, what constitutes a "rational basis,: is a basis grounded in empirical evidence. If you want to assert that evidence exists for sky gods, then put it on the table.