Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Fanny Cradock

johnny-grunge wrote: »

Belief in something without any sort of proof is madness. Belief in something because a load of others believe in it is even crazier. All ye religion people should put on the unbiased glasses and have a look around.

I would agree that belief without evidence is foolishness but can you tell me what unbiased glasses you would be talking about? Perchance the worldview that you just so happen to hold to?

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

Since when is everything else fair game? I think your conflating disagreement with respect eg I disagree with smoking but I respect their practice.

Why is the practice of smoking worthy of respect? While you are at it, why is religion?

MrP

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The only point that alincolnists are making is that there is no evidence to justify the belief in lincoln and therefore any belief in him is delusional.

Well if that was the point they were making, that would be an even worse point given the mountains of evidence for the existence of Abraham Lincoln, including photographs and official USA historical records.

But again that isn't the point they are making. The point they are making is that Jesus is as supported a historical figure as Lincoln, and that parallels between characteristics of Jesus and other mythological beings are no more support for Jesus being fictional than parallels between Lincoln and mythological beings support the idea Lincoln was fictional.

Which, as I said, is missing the point of the New Atheist arguments against both the historical Jesus and the supernatural Jesus.

I could go into why they are missing the point, but I'm not sure you care.

nagirrac

The fundamental difference of opinion here, as with all debates of this nature, is between individuals who have spiritual experience and those who have not, or perhaps had and consciously decided to discount it (even though apparently we do not consciously decide anything according to many atheists).

Trying to explain spirituality to an atheist is like trying to explain the experience of the color red to someone who has lived all their lives in a black and white box. Unless you leave the box you simply cannot believe in something you have not experienced. It is futile in my opinion (based on experience) for a person with spiritual beliefs to try and explain them to an atheist, which is why in the main people give up trying.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Which, as I said, is missing the point of the New Atheist arguments against both the historical Jesus and the supernatural Jesus.

Whatever about the supernatural Jesus, the "myth of Jesus" as perpetrated by New Atheists has been thoroughly debunked by every credible historian, whether religious or not. Point us to one contemporary historian who argues that Jesus was not an historical figure.. and please don't say Dawkins.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

Whatever about the supernatural Jesus, the "myth of Jesus" as perpetrated by New Atheists has been thoroughly debunked by every credible historian, whether religious or not. Point us to one contemporary historian who argues that Jesus was not an historical figure.. and please don't say Dawkins.

I don't think anyone denies that a man named Jesus existed - so what ?
It was a common enough name in those times.

Kiwi in IE

nagirrac wrote: »

Trying to explain spirituality to an atheist is like trying to explain the experience of the color red to someone who has lived all their lives in a black and white box. Unless you leave the box you simply cannot believe in something you have not experienced. It is futile in my opinion (based on experience) for a person with spiritual beliefs to try and explain them to an atheist, which is why in the main people give up trying.

I think a more accurate comparison would be that it is like trying to convince someone of the existence of the colour mogawonkabingbong!

And one day that colour might just be proved to exist, but right now we have no way of knowing that, or if it is discovered in the future, what hue it will be.

robp

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think anyone denies that a man named Jesus existed - so what ?
It was a common enough name in those times.

Think again. A 'did jesus exist' Google returned 17 million results. Kind of like 9/11 denial or climate change scepticism there are a lot of doubters out there but not from the scholarly community.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

The fundamental difference of opinion here, as with all debates of this nature, is between individuals who have spiritual experience and those who have not, or perhaps had and consciously decided to discount it (even though apparently we do not consciously decide anything according to many atheists).

That isn't the issue. The issue is not the experience (oh I saw red), the issue is the explanation for that experience (oh I saw red because God appeared in front of me)

No one doubts that humans experiencing phenomena that they classify as "spiritual" (in the same way you see a colour you call red), the issue is the justification for believing a particular claim as to the cause of that experiencing.

The problem is conflating "This is what I think happened to me" with "This is what happened to me"

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

Well if that was the point they were making, that would be an even worse point given the mountains of evidence for the existence of Abraham Lincoln, including photographs and official USA historical records.

Fictions works redacted over the centuries. The initial belief arose several years after the supposed lincoln character existed. Some steel age pig farmers got drunk one night and invented the myth.

Zombrex wrote: »

Whatever about the supernatural Jesus, the "myth of Jesus" as perpetrated by New Atheists has been thoroughly debunked by every credible historian, whether religious or not. Point us to one contemporary historian who argues that Jesus was not an historical figure.. and please don't say Dawkins.

Two of the most famous contemporary examples that I'm aware of would be Bob Price and Richard Carrier. Both appeared on the Unbelievable? radio show if you are interested.

Despite myself, I was pleasantly surprised by how Richard Carrier comported himself. He wasn't nearly as rude or prone to mockery as he comes across in his blog. Bart Ehrman and himself got into a spat over the historicity of Jesus and he did not cover himself in glory both in terms of presenting his thesis or how he behaved.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Whatever about the supernatural Jesus, the "myth of Jesus" as perpetrated by New Atheists has been thoroughly debunked by every credible historian, whether religious or not. Point us to one contemporary historian who argues that Jesus was not an historical figure.. and please don't say Dawkins.

That is some what missing the point (that one's for you Fanny )

Most historians believe it is likely that there was a real Jesus, or at least that this is the historical theory of least resistance since most cults have cult leaders, and this was common at the time (Jesus was one of thousands of cult leaders claiming to be the Jewish messiah, as is common in times of Roman oppression)

But that doesn't change the fact that there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, which means that alternative theories are plausible. If we found proof that Jesus was fictional tomorrow I doubt many historians would bat an eyelid (well apart from the Christian ones), given how weak the support is currently of a historical Jesus.

Think of it this way, if I said to you I've a friend called Bill and he works in IT, you would probably think that sounds plausible. Why not believe me.

But if tomorrow you found out that I had actually lied and Bill doesn't exist you wouldn't be shocked to your core either.

Historians believe there a historical Jesus because that's probably the most likely explanation for Christianity, not because he is a super supported historical figure.

On the other hand it is not plausible that Lincoln didn't exist.

And by the way Dawkins believes there probably was an historical Jesus

Hewitt: On the person of Jesus Christ, did He exist?

Dawkins: I suspect He probably did. I suspect there are lots of itinerant preachers, and one of them was probably called Yehoshua, or various other versions of Jesus’ name, but I don’t think that a miracle worker existed.

marienbad

robp wrote: »

Think again. A 'did jesus exist' Google returned 17 million results. Kind of like 9/11 denial or climate change scepticism there are a lot of doubters out there but not from the scholarly community.

What exactly is your point here ? And what has it to do with anything I said ?

robp

Zombrex wrote: »

And by the way Dawkins believes there probably was an historical Jesus

Hewitt: On the person of Jesus Christ, did He exist?

Dawkins: I suspect He probably did. I suspect there are lots of itinerant preachers, and one of them was probably called Yehoshua, or various other versions of Jesus’ name, but I don’t think that a miracle worker existed.

Dawkins has been criticised for his U-turn on this. In his written work he implies there is serious scholarly doubt, which as you have acknowledged is not the case.

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think anyone denies that a man named Jesus existed - so what ?
It was a common enough name in those times.

robp wrote: »

Think again. A 'did jesus exist' Google returned 17 million results. Kind of like 9/11 denial or climate change scepticism there are a lot of doubters out there but not from the scholarly community.

marienbad wrote: »

What exactly is your point here ? And what has it to do with anything I said ?

???

Zombrex

robp wrote: »

Dawkins has been criticised for his U-turn on this.

He made a U-turn?

Anyway, so long as no one believes there is strong support that Jesus did exist, then there isn't an issue. Historians believe Jesus existed because that is the most plausible explanation for why we have writings from early Christians who claimed he did, not because there is strong support he did. As historical figures go the support for Jesus' exists is pretty poor, there is no documentation of his existences external to Christian writing, which all came decades after his supposed death*

Some Christians seem to confuse these two concepts, even going so far as to say that we have strong support not only of his existence but of his miracles.

*Some argue that this is in itself evidence he didn't exist, as the early Christians would have maintained records of his existences, but this is an argument from non-action which are always weak, just like those who argue that if Jesus hadn't been resurrected the authorities would have just presented the body of Jesus to prove he was still dead.

marienbad

robp, we may be at cross purposes here . Whether Jesus existed or not is not very significant. As I said it is a common name.

Now is that any proof that he was God , that he raised the dead ? that he changed water into wine ?

There is very little mention of Jesus - just the Josephus stuff.

robp

MrPudding wrote: »

Why is the practice of smoking worthy of respect? While you are at it, why is religion?

MrP

The day is short. We will have to agree to disagree. All I will say we have a different view about how one should participate in civil society and attitudes to others.

marienbad wrote: »

robp, we may be at cross purposes here . Whether Jesus existed or not is not very significant. As I said it is a common name.

Now is that any proof that he was God , that he raised the dead ? that he changed water into wine ?

There is very little mention of Jesus - just the Josephus stuff.

Clearly the topic is the historicity of the biblical Jesus, not any random man named Jesus. Jesus as the Christ is a wholly different topic and one for another day.

marienbad

robp wrote: »

The day is short. We will have to agree to disagree. All I will say we have a different view about how one should participate in civil society and attitudes to others.



Clearly the topic is the historicity of the biblical Jesus, not any random man named Jesus. Jesus as the Christ is a wholly different topic and one for another day.

The might be the topic for you- but I would remind you to look at the thread title. The historicity of Jesus is of little concern to most atheists . It is the historicity of that Jesus as God is the issue .

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't the issue. The issue is not the experience (oh I saw red), the issue is the explanation for that experience (oh I saw red because God appeared in front of me)

No, you're missing the point

As I said in the same post, it is impossible for someone who has not had a spiritual experience to understand a spiritual experience. If you don't like the color example then let's try something more basic to the human experience. How easy is it to explain the conscious experience of an orgasm to someone who has not had one? (and I am not comparing orgasms to spirituality, its just as example).

The attached paper by David Chalmers outlines the hard problem of consciousness really well.

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

No, you're missing the point

As I said in the same post, it is impossible for someone who has not had a spiritual experience to understand a spiritual experience.

What do you mean by "understand" a spiritual experience?

If you mean understand what it feels like to experience one, then yes I agree.

If you mean understand the mechanics behind the process that produced that feeling, I don't agree.

It might be impossible for anyone to understand the mechanics behind the process (be it chemical in the brain or God's divine hand), but experiencing it first hand gives the person no understanding of what caused the experience that someone observing the person who had the experience.

I don't have to electrocute myself to understand the process of the mechanics of electrocution and like wise the person who is electrocuted gains no epiphany of understanding of the mechanics of how electrons work by electrocuting himself. People were experiencing electrocution for decades without understanding what was actually happening to them.

nagirrac wrote: »

How easy is it to explain the conscious experience of an orgasm to someone who has not had one? (and I am not comparing orgasms to spirituality, its just as example).

The attached paper by David Chalmers outlines the hard problem of consciousness really well.

Well this demonstrates my point. We cannot explain consciousness because we don't know what consciousness is. We gain no great insight into the mechanics of consciousness by merely being conscious.

If for example we did we could presumably program a computer, a non-conscious entity, to act in a conscious manner, in the same way we can program a computer to model electrons. The computer gains no understanding of electrons by merely electrocuting it.

Back to spiritual experiences. People have these experiences, which they call "spiritual", but in reality they have no idea what actually happened to them, or what mechanics produced the experience. "Spiritual" is a place holder, it is one step up from "That was an odd feeling". It is a statement of ignorance, like saying "something weird happened", as opposed to "I just had a heart attack" (which is both the experience and an explanation)

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

What do you mean by "understand" a spiritual experience?

We cannot explain consciousness because we don't know what consciousness is. We gain no great insight into the mechanics of consciousness by merely being conscious.

People have these experiences, which they call "spiritual", but in reality they have no idea what actually happened to them, or what mechanics produced the experience.

I am somewhat surprised to see you say "we don't know what consciousness is" as the standard atheist position on this question is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain and is a by product if you like of neural activity. That's certainly the position of all the New Atheists I have read and most modern neuroscientists. I posted the following on the A&A "Fear of Death" thread and think it might be relevant to this discussion:


[I am suggesting that conscious experience, in the words of David Chalmers, "be considered a fundamental feature, irreducible to anything more basic". While this seems outrageous to materialists, the example of electromagnetic radiation is a useful one for comparison purposes. In the 19th century scientists began to observe phenomena that could not be explained by any known principles at the time and electromagnetic radiation was introduced as a new fundamental entity. As we developed the tools and methodology to study various aspects of EM it became an obvious thing to us.

We up to very recently had no scientific evidence to explain conscious experience. We have lots of theories of mind but we do not have an evidence based theory to even describe what a thought is let alone the full conscious experience. There are essenially two opposing views on this, materialists who argue that conscious experience is just an accidental by product of brain function and serves no purpose, or dualists who believe in a separate mental state (or soul) that is independent from what we know of as the material world.

It is my opinion that both materialists and dualists are wrong and that their thinking is based on 19th century thinking. To approach the hard problem of conscious experience you have to consider it in the context of what we know about our universe from the theories of relativity and QM. I don't have time to get into it in this post but when you go down that path it leads to a conclusion of "monist empiricism" which puts the conscious experience back center stage, and says that it is a real thing as opposed to an epiphenomenon, and normally for humans is localized in the brain, most likely the thalamus but open to debate. The latest science being conducted at UC Davis and Caltech in Pasadena (I will provide citations when I get time) is that high level communication within the brain is not due to electrochemical transfer across synapses, but is due to electromagnetic fields associated with synchronous firing of neurons.

How an electromagnetic field or fields generated by neurons firing in certain sequence gives rise to conscious experience is quite the challenge for science, but I am of the opinion that we are starting down the path to a completely new theory with new fundamental laws. If indeed the conscious experience exists as an energy field, why would it have to be limited to the brain? The whole universe consists of energy fields with areas that are concentrated that we call matter. The latter statement is not "woo", it is what contemporary physics is telling us.]

As for the mechanics of the spiritual experience, I would point to our old friend meditation. We know from mindful focussed attention we can experience a spiritual state of awareness, so we actually understand one way to cause the spiritual experience. We do not understand exactly what is going on in the brain but we know from studies on advanced meditators that significant changes occur in the patterns of EM fields in their brains (measured by EEG). If conscious awareness (and perhaps all high level information processing in the brain) is due to interaction of EM fields produced by neurons firing in a synchronous fashion, then we are dealing with something quite new in our understanding of consciousness.

robp

marienbad wrote: »

The might be the topic for you- but I would remind you to look at the thread title. The historicity of Jesus is of little concern to most atheists . It is the historicity of that Jesus as God is the issue .

A rapid survey of the internet will show that many atheists are immensely interested in the historicity of the biblical Jesus. Books like the God Delusion specifically refer to this topic. I don't know how anyone could say otherwise or why they would want to.

Zombrex, could you cite you quote concerning of most historians?

Worztron

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84150852&postcount=6548



J C, please read this:
proof ~ any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.

Worztron

J C wrote: »

He didn't ... He Created us with reason ... and He expects us to use it ... and will hold us to account, if we don't.

Why do you say "He"?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I am somewhat surprised to see you say "we don't know what consciousness is" as the standard atheist position on this question is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain and is a by product if you like of neural activity. That's certainly the position of all the New Atheists I have read and most modern neuroscientists.

I don't know why you are surprised? The point made to you before (a few times) is that all evidence supports the idea that the consciousness and mind are a product of the brain, based on the examination of personality and mental ability when the brain is damaged.

This is made in response to speculation that the mind may be produced by something other than the brain, something we have zero evidence for.

To use an analogy of another part of the body, the heart, while we understand now how the body oxygenates itself using the lungs and the body, a process that took along time to understand, humans have known for thousands of years that if you drain a person of blood they die.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am suggesting that conscious experience, in the words of David Chalmers, "be considered a fundamental feature, irreducible to anything more basic". While this seems outrageous to materialists, the example of electromagnetic radiation is a useful one for comparison purposes. In the 19th century scientists began to observe phenomena that could not be explained by any known principles at the time and electromagnetic radiation was introduced as a new fundamental entity. As we developed the tools and methodology to study various aspects of EM it became an obvious thing to us.

You seem to be ignoring that scientists had a very good reason to suppose the existence of the electromagnetic field as one of the four known fundamental fields in nature, reasons supported by experiment and mathematical modeling.

Where as you seem to want to propose this for consciousness simply because you like the sound of calling it a "fundamental feature". You could suppose this about anything, it doesn't increase our understanding.

nagirrac wrote: »

We up to very recently had no scientific evidence to explain conscious experience. We have lots of theories of mind but we do not have an evidence based theory to even describe what a thought is let alone the full conscious experience.

Probably a bad idea to say it is a fundamental force of nature like the electromagnetic field then, isn't it :rolleyes:

Your posts always seem to go the following way, you suppose something that you cannot support but then proceed to explain how we don't know anything about the thing you are discussing, as if that supports your proposal.

nagirrac wrote: »

How an electromagnetic field or fields generated by neurons firing in certain sequence gives rise to conscious experience is quite the challenge for science, but I am of the opinion that we are starting down the path to a completely new theory with new fundamental laws.

Why are you of this opinion, given that we have understood electromagnetic fields for 150 years?

nagirrac wrote: »

If indeed the conscious experience exists as an energy field, why would it have to be limited to the brain?

It is "limited" to the brain the same way that you need a radio to produce radio waves.

If indeed the brain communicates with itself using electromagnetic radiation (photons) rather than simply electricity (electrons), that does not change the requirement for the brain in the first place, any more than switching from cable to wifi means you no longer need a PC.

There is nothing that requires a new fundamental field in nature.

nagirrac wrote: »

The whole universe consists of energy fields with areas that are concentrated that we call matter. The latter statement is not "woo", it is what contemporary physics is telling us.

It is. And what you have described so far is perfectly within the current known fields (the electromagnetic field). It doesn't require new fields. Humans have been communicating using the electromagnetic field for 100 years, its called radio.

nagirrac wrote: »

As for the mechanics of the spiritual experience, I would point to our old friend meditation. We know from mindful focussed attention we can experience a spiritual state of awareness, so we actually understand one way to cause the spiritual experience.

We know lots of ways to cause a spiritual experience, in the same way we know lots of ways to cause rapid blood loss. That provides no more insight into what is happening than cutting yourself gives you a theory of oxygen transfer.

nagirrac wrote: »

We do not understand exactly what is going on in the brain but we know from studies on advanced meditators that significant changes occur in the patterns of EM fields in their brains (measured by EEG).

And ... ? Lots of things cause significant changes in the active areas of the brain. Sleeping for example. Or sexual arousal.

nagirrac wrote: »

If conscious awareness (and perhaps all high level information processing in the brain) is due to interaction of EM fields produced by neurons firing in a synchronous fashion, then we are dealing with something quite new in our understanding of consciousness.

We are, but not in the way I think you think we are. You seem to believe that this means that consciousness exists either in or as an energy field independent to any physical object stimulating the energy field.

Again there is no evidence this is the case, and that is not what this research is talking about. The principles behind stimulating the electromagnetic field (producing photons) have been known for over a 100 years.

While it would be fascinating if the brain used photons on a small scale for communication, there is nothing being proposed that is any more radical from a physics point of view than radio waves.

robp

Worztron wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84150852&postcount=6548



J C, please read this:
proof ~ any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.

The topic can't even be touched if it is continually broken into one liners and certainly not misleading one liners like that. Evidence/ proof refers something helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement or statement or argument used in such a validation whether definitive or not. To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.

marienbad

robp wrote: »

A rapid survey of the internet will show that many atheists are immensely interested in the historicity of the biblical Jesus. Books like the God Delusion specifically refer to this topic. I don't know how anyone could say otherwise or why they would want to.

Zombrex, could you cite you quote concerning of most historians?

robp we are just talking at cross purposes here- atheists are only interested in such topics solely as they relate to the relatively recent surge by Christians to pursue such avenues as they relate to proving the historicity of the bible etc.

They are not interested in the historicity of Jesus in the same way as they are in say Alexander the Great or Lincoln.

marienbad

robp wrote: »

The topic can't even be touched if it is continually broken into one liners and certainly not misleading one liners like that. Evidence/ proof refers something helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement or statement or argument used in such a validation whether definitive or not. To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.

'' To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.''

Now there is a one liner if ever there was one !

Zombrex

robp wrote: »

Zombrex, could you cite you quote concerning of most historians?

Which quote? The Dawkins one comes from an interview with him (actually I think it was part of a discussion). I don't have a quote saying he made a U-turn, that was your claim.

robp

marienbad wrote: »

'' To say there is no proof is akin to stating there are no trees in Ireland.''

Now there is a one liner if ever there was one !

What? Quite clearly there are trees in Ireland so I am puzzled that you can't see the nonsense in my explicit example of a nonsense statement not to do.

Zombrex wrote: »

Which quote? The Dawkins one comes from an interview with him (actually I think it was part of a discussion). I don't have a quote saying he made a U-turn, that was your claim.

The quote was "Most historians believe it ...." , I am starting think it is your own statement. The U-turn is based on what he wrote in the God Delusion. You will see Dawkins admit this error in his debate with Prof John Lennox on the Youtube video posted by the Samuel Zwemer Theological Seminary.

Zombrex

robp wrote: »

The quote was "Most historians believe it ...." , I am starting think it is your own statement. The U-turn is based on what he wrote in the God Delusion. You will see Dawkins admit this error in his debate with Prof John Lennox on the Youtube video posted by the Samuel Zwemer Theological Seminary.

I'll deal with two birds with one stone here -

“It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.”
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.122