Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

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.

Zombrex, what you consistently miss in my posts is that I agree that human consciousness comes from the brain. However, you missed the important point I am making. Most neuroscientists and as far as I can tell all atheists believe that conscious awareness (not unconscious brain activity) is a by product of the brain and serves no purpose. This is what I disagree with.

I posted the following on the "Fear of Death" thread and it is highly relevant to the discussion. If indeed the brain is a radio/transmitter as the evidence is now starting to suggest (something that was being dismissed up to recently), this opens up completely new areas of understanding. It is not just the fact that the brain may produce an information field localized in an EM field but does this information field interact with a larger information field that permeates the whole universe (the mind of God). Read chapter 9 of Susan Pockett's hypothesis from the website I referenced below, is it something that should be rejected out of hand or might the evidence just now be supporting it? If so, what an exciting time to be alive.


What's significant about the paper on neural activity I posted earlier (the CalTech paper) is that it demonstrates that neurons generate an EM field by firing together (neural synchrony) and also respond to an EM field which causes them to fire together. The proposal is that this is the mechanism of high level communication within the brain. Keep in mind up to now it was thought that EM fields produced by the brain were just a by product and had no function, in much the same way that conscious awareness is regarded by most neuroscientists as a by product of unconscious neural activity and serves no purpose. The biggest argument against all this "serves no purpose" talk is evolution. If every aspect of our highly complex biological system, including our brains, has been retained and improved upon over millenia by natural selection, why would something like conscious awareness be retained if it has no function?

One of the scientists who has taken this a step further is John Joe McFadden who has proposed the CEMI (consciousness electromagnetic information field) theory. His theory basically says that conscious awareness is due to the EM fields produced by the brain. A significant aspect of his theory (supported by the CalTech paper I referenced earlier) is that neurons fire in synchrony in response to an EM field. In this regard the brain is like a radio/trasmitter (think cell phone) in that it can both send and receive EM signals. I have attached a link to McFadden's website which references his various papers on the subject.

As far as a link to the afterlife, well obviously that's highly speculative. However, if conscious awareness is in fact information localised in an EM field as McFadden suggests, perhaps there some as yet to be discovered mechanism for such fields to be linked to the broader EM field that permeates the whole universe. This is the basis for a highly speculative hypothesis by Susan Pockett at the University of Auckland. I have linked to her site as well and her hypothesis is outlined in the pdf file "The Nature of Consciousness".

The interesting thing about this area of research is that all hypotheses of EM consciousness were rejected by mainstream neuroscientists up to now, but the latest research would suggest the mechanisms are in the brain to support the hypotheses.

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm

http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/sue-pockett

Virgil°

nagirrac wrote: »

Most neuroscientists and as far as I can tell all atheists believe that conscious awareness (not unconscious brain activity) is a by product of the brain and serves no purpose. This is what I disagree with.

Ouch, falls at the first hurdle.

MrPudding

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.

Highlighted the important bit. That is what rational people do, admit they made a mistake. To criticise someone for admitting to and correcting a mistake is a little silly.

MrP

robp

Zombrex wrote: »

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

You clearly missed the point when Dawkins said "...maybe I *shutter* I *shutter*I alluded to the possibility that some historians think Jesus never existed, I take that back. Jesus existed." at 13.03 mins.

MrPudding wrote: »

Highlighted the important bit. That is what rational people do, admit they made a mistake. To criticise someone for admitting to and correcting a mistake is a little silly.

MrP

Correcting mistakes is good but being economical with the truth in the first place is not

nagirrac

Virgil° wrote: »

Ouch, falls at the first hurdle.

Care to elaborate?

marienbad

robp wrote: »

You clearly missed the point when Dawkins said "...maybe I *shutter* I *shutter*I alluded to the possibility that some historians think Jesus never existed, I take that back. Jesus existed." at 13.03 mins.



Correcting mistakes is good but being economical with the truth in the first place is not

robp, you keep banging on about this but what exactly is your point ?

I take you are not foolish enough to believe that if an historical Jesus did exist , that this is not proof that he was God ?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Zombrex, what you consistently miss in my posts is that I agree that human consciousness comes from the brain. However, you missed the important point I am making. Most neuroscientists and as far as I can tell all atheists believe that conscious awareness (not unconscious brain activity) is a by product of the brain and serves no purpose. This is what I disagree with.

Who says consciousness "serves no purpose"? I'm not even sure what that means.

From the point of view of an evolutionary biologists consciousness serves the same "purpose" as every other adaption, increased survival and reproduction. But of course it is wrong to think of evolution as having a purpose or goal in mind.

nagirrac wrote: »

I posted the following on the "Fear of Death" thread and it is highly relevant to the discussion. If indeed the brain is a radio/transmitter as the evidence is now starting to suggest (something that was being dismissed up to recently), this opens up completely new areas of understanding.

Well yes, but only in the same way that discovering anything opens up new areas of understanding.

You appear to be suggesting that the brain using photons internally opens up the possibility of all the crazy paranormal things you believe in. It doesn't.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is not just the fact that the brain may produce an information field localized in an EM field but does this information field interact with a larger information field that permeates the whole universe (the mind of God).

Information field doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

nagirrac wrote: »

Read chapter 9 of Susan Pockett's hypothesis from the website I referenced below, is it something that should be rejected out of hand or might the evidence just now be supporting it? If so, what an exciting time to be alive.

It is an exciting time, but not for the reasons you think it is. Again you seem to think this research supports your paranormal beliefs. It doesn't.

Like your posts on QM you seem to have taken this interesting idea and run off with it down rabbit holes.

An information field is simply a field that contains information. Your wifi signal is an information field. It is not, one supposes, interacting with God.

nagirrac wrote: »

What's significant about the paper on neural activity I posted earlier (the CalTech paper) is that it demonstrates that neurons generate an EM field by firing together (neural synchrony) and also respond to an EM field which causes them to fire together. The proposal is that this is the mechanism of high level communication within the brain. Keep in mind up to now it was thought that EM fields produced by the brain were just a by product and had no function, in much the same way that conscious awareness is regarded by most neuroscientists as a by product of unconscious neural activity and serves no purpose. The biggest argument against all this "serves no purpose" talk is evolution. If every aspect of our highly complex biological system, including our brains, has been retained and improved upon over millenia by natural selection, why would something like conscious awareness be retained if it has no function?

Again who claims it has no function?

nagirrac wrote: »

As far as a link to the afterlife, well obviously that's highly speculative. However, if conscious awareness is in fact information localised in an EM field as McFadden suggests, perhaps there some as yet to be discovered mechanism for such fields to be linked to the broader EM field that permeates the whole universe.

If the brain does do this it is already connected to the "broader EM field" that permeates the whole universe. There is only one EM field. It is the one light uses, it is the one your wifi router uses, it is the one your television uses.

According to your link the proposed stimulation of the EM field by the brain is so localized other parts of the brain are not effected, let alone anything outside of the brain. And if they were we could detect it, since we have very sensitive ways of detecting EM radiation.

Again this research isn't saying what you think it is.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Who says consciousness "serves no purpose"? I'm not even sure what that means.

We can't seem to get on the same page zombrex. First of all this particular discussion has nothing to do with the paranormal.

There are two primary aspects to consciousness, the part we are not aware of (unconscious or subconscious) and the part we are aware of (conscious awareness). Most of what we do is unconscious; breathing, heartbeat, etc., the millions of activities every second that the brain monitors and controls within the body,taking all the external stimuli via our senses and processing it into a model of the physical world. This is the easy part of consciousness, it is objective and we understand much of it via neuroscience.

The hard part of consciousness is the subjective experience. What purpose could subjective consciousness serve? This is the whole debate regarding free will, most modern neuroscientists believe that free will is an illusion, that all decisions are made in the unconscious and we only become aware of them afterwards (the Libet experiments). I don't agree with it but this is what they believe.

The majority neuroscience opinion on the subjective experience of consciousness is that it is an epiphenomenon of the unconscious neural activity in the brain i.e. it is like the whistle of a steam engine, appears to be a thing but actually does nothing and may even be an illusion.

Pushtrak

All this talk of consciousness makes me compelled to post this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7OxcZ3hC9U

nagirrac

The "soul" is conscious awareness. Arguably every mystical text and religious text is attempting to describe some aspect of conscious awareness, dreams, lucid dreams, etc. The ironic thing is that since 8000BC, when the first Hindu texts were written, we are still baffled by it. Its not a simple thing, given what it is capable of. All learning starts with conscious awareness and then becomes unconscious, e.g. crawling, walking, driving, playing an instrument, etc.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

All learning starts with conscious awareness and then becomes unconscious, e.g. crawling, walking, driving, playing an instrument, etc.

Is that true, have I misunderstood you or have you just worded this badly:P? I think many animals without brains as complex as us learn to walk and do other stuff. They don't really have what we could consider to be conscious awareness - and in the case of some strands of Christianity and other religious beliefs : a soul.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Is that true, have I misunderstood you or have you just worded this badly:P? I think many animals without brains as complex as us learn to walk and do other stuff. They don't really have what we could consider to be conscious awareness - and in the case of some strands of Christianity and other religious beliefs : a soul.

No, Jernal you did not misunderstand me. How would we know whether animals have conscious awareness or not when we have no way of measuring it objectively in humans let alone another species? It is quite stunning how similar a rat's brain is to a human brain, it is almost identical, just much smaller but the same structures. Almost all brain reseach is done using mice. The research on neurons producing EM fields and responding to EM fields was done on rats, and there are at least two scientific theories that suggest it is an integrated EM field produced by neurons firing in synchrony that produces our conscious awareness or subjective consciousness.

Mice may well have feelings, and ponder whether the moon is made of cheese:p

Turtwig

We don't know about mice, but Dolphins probably do. I apologise for the off topicness Benny and Plow but any excusee to post this CUTE video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYU1eayaXs

One of the more fascinating ones though is Octopuses. They are amazing and their "brain" is totally different to anything in mammals. But yet they're still capable of complex thought and planning. I don't know though if there's any indication octopuses are self aware.
Interestingly, there's little to suggest dogs are self aware in the sense of a conscious person "myself" - sorry can't think of a way to word it better.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Interestingly, there's little to suggest dogs are self aware in the sense of a conscious person "myself" - sorry can't think of a way to word it better.

Lovely video.
Dogs are very self aware. My dog puts herself in timeouts when she has been naughty, and she's been doing it since she was about a year old when she knocked a loaf of bread off the counter and ate all of it.
The point is though, we have no way of knowing, we just try and figure it out from their behavior.. its not like they can tell us they feel a bit down and need a hug or a zanax.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

We can't seem to get on the same page zombrex.

Well that is because you are on the page of crazy nonsense you made up because it sounds cool, nagirrac.

nagirrac wrote: »

First of all this particular discussion has nothing to do with the paranormal.

Then why are you talking about a "larger information field that permeates the whole universe (the mind of God)." and how our brains might some how interact with this "information field".

nagirrac wrote: »

The majority neuroscience opinion on the subjective experience of consciousness is that it is an epiphenomenon of the unconscious neural activity in the brain i.e. it is like the whistle of a steam engine, appears to be a thing but actually does nothing and may even be an illusion.

Really? These neuroscientists who can't even properly define consciousness have decided that it is a purposeless by product of unconscious brain functionality?

Googling "purpose of consciousness" seems to suggests otherwise.

Again, who believes consciousness has no purpose? The only places I can see this claim being made are in New Ages websites that use that claim to attack science.

Zombrex

Jernal wrote: »

Interestingly, there's little to suggest dogs are self aware in the sense of a conscious person "myself" - sorry can't think of a way to word it better.

Well a significant issue in this area of study is that we do not have the language tools to describe what we are talking about because frankly we haven't developed conceptual models of the idea we are trying to talk about.

When we say "consciousness" or "self aware" or "sentient" these are poor ill defined words used to describe even concepts that are even less understood.

It is similar to how physicists say "dark matter". Aside from the actual terminology being rather inaccurate (dark matter is not just dark, it is actually invisible), they are also attempting to communicate a concept that they have no idea what it is.

When I say "I am a conscious being" I really don't know what that actually means. You understand what I'm trying to say only through a method of comparison. This unknown X is also the unknown X that you experience, so lets call it consciousness, even if neither of us know what that means in any tangable sense.

The idea of "free will" also comes up against the same problem.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Well that is because you are on the page of crazy nonsense you made up because it sounds cool, nagirrac.

..and right on cue, the ad hominum attacks and outright dishonesty begin.

I have never posted anything on this or any other forum that I just "made up". Everything I post that you describe as "made up", whether it is here or on the A&A forum, is based on current scientific research. Where I speculate myself based on that research, I always identify that as speculation. For some reason only known to yourself, even though I post citations of the research, you still find a way to ignore it and claim I "made it up".

When Thomas Nagle talked about the Cosmic Authority Problem or "fear of God" complex that modern day Atheists exhibit, he was referring to exactly this type of behavior. It's what makes debate with people with this fear literally impossible.

Fanny Cradock

For those interested in the historicity of Jesus debate here are some interesting resources.

I would recommend Craig Blomberg, Tom Wright, Dan Wallace, John Dickson, Ben Witherington and a bunch of other people, including a certain Bart Ehrman. A man who is no friend of Christianity.

There is also an excellent discussion between Christian Richard Bauckham and agnostic James Crossley about the reliability of the NT to be found here. Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is an interesting read.

Finally, there are a few radical sceptics like Bob Price, Richard Carrier and Ken Humphrey who reject the existence of Jesus. There is also an internet video called Zeitgeist that seeks to promote the theory that Jesus never existed. It's probably best to avoid this film as it is a masterfully slick collection of half-truths and outright lies. You can find a throughout debunking of it here. Similarly, the Christ Conspiracy is another source that is short on honesty.

Of course, there is a big step between "Jesus existed" and "Jesus is God". But this is potentially the most important question you could ever ask so why not get investigating? See who you think makes the better case and what this might mean.

A point of order, there is documented evidence of the existence of Jesus external to Christian sources. It's quite brief and vague, which is not unreasonable considering the tentative emergence of Christianity in often hostile environments. If memory serves correctly John Dickson discusses this in the link above. By far the most documented evidence for the existence of Jesus comes from within early Christian circles - as would also be expected. However, it takes special pleading and blatant bias to wave these away as some would.

On another note, I'm curious Zombrex - you say that the evidence for Jesus is so weak that historians would not bat an eyelid if tomorrow it was somehow determined that the Jesus recorded in the ancient manuscripts known as the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John and the various epistles collated into what we called the NT did not exist. How do you know this? You have already assured us that we can't really know what to think when you say you have a friend called Bill who works in IT. Why should we take your word when you presume to speak for 10,000's of people? You wouldn't be over-egging the pudding now would you.

Ken bryan

Nothing defines Man and our Purpose like the word WHY . For it this word that Unites us with a greater form of intellect . Ie God more than any other .
As it does not apply to any other species . As we know they are here for us .
But were are here for God .
Surrival of the fittest is common trait of all life . But only man can choose to alter change this trait . No other animal can do this . Socialism could only of came from man . As it goes against darwinsm . It is this trait that make,s man so unique . Thus there has to be a reason for it .
Why is answered through the answers given by religion .

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea of "free will" also comes up against the same problem.

The interpretation problem is generally because the word or phrase has many meanings and needs context for a specific meaning. "Free will" has multiple meanings, but free will in the context of the mind-body problem is well defined. Philosophers have debated it of millenia and in the past 50 years neuroscience has added its 2c. The basic question is are all decisions predetermined by nature and nurture, or do "you", as in your conscious awareness, have decision making ability. Although I tend to believe we have free will for at least some decisions, it is not as obvious as it sounds and there is experimental evidence that suggests the brain makes many decisions before you are aware of them. You have the illusion you made the decision, but the unconscious brain had already acted. I believe this is mainly to do with motor decisions.

tommy2bad

Ken bryan wrote: »

Nothing defines Man and our Purpose like the word WHY . For it this word that Unites us with a greater form of intellect . Ie God more than any other .
As it does not apply to any other species . As we know they are here for us .
But were are here for God .
Surrival of the fittest is common trait of all life . But only man can choose to alter change this trait . No other animal can do this . Socialism could only of came from man . As it goes against darwinsm . It is this trait that make,s man so unique . Thus there has to be a reason for it .
Why is answered through the answers given by religion .

No. It doesn't, what ever gave you that idea? Darwinism is not a doctrine of selfishness or enlightened self interest as presented by the Chicago school of economics.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

..and right on cue, the ad hominum attacks and outright dishonesty begin.

I have never posted anything on this or any other forum that I just "made up". Everything I post that you describe as "made up", whether it is here or on the A&A forum, is based on current scientific research.

Really, there is currently scientific research going on as to the large information field that perminates the whole universe and is probably the mind of God?

nagirrac wrote: »

Where I speculate myself based on that research, I always identify that as speculation.

All your speculation is made up. You take perfectly normal science and then slap "conclusion" on the end of it and insert any old made up nonsense.

You did that with QM and now you are doing it with this research, and you sit back as if science is some how supporting your claims.

nagirrac wrote: »

It's what makes debate with people with this fear literally impossible.

Stick to the facts, no your "conclusion" from the facts, and we will be fine.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

The interpretation problem is generally because the word or phrase has many meanings and needs context for a specific meaning. "Free will" has multiple meanings, but free will in the context of the mind-body problem is well defined. Philosophers have debated it of millenia and in the past 50 years neuroscience has added its 2c. The basic question is are all decisions predetermined by nature and nurture, or do "you", as in your conscious awareness, have decision making ability.

It is not well defined at all. Case in point, what does "decision making ability" mean? A robot can be programmed to decide what action to take based on a set of criteria. But few would argue he has free will. But then few would be able to describe in detail what the difference is.

Zombrex

Ken bryan wrote: »

Nothing defines Man and our Purpose like the word WHY . For it this word that Unites us with a greater form of intellect . Ie God more than any other .
As it does not apply to any other species . As we know they are here for us .
But were are here for God .
Surrival of the fittest is common trait of all life . But only man can choose to alter change this trait . No other animal can do this . Socialism could only of came from man . As it goes against darwinsm . It is this trait that make,s man so unique . Thus there has to be a reason for it .
Why is answered through the answers given by religion .

What? How does religion "explain" Darwinian evolution? And please don't just say something like "sinful nature"

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On another note, I'm curious Zombrex - you say that the evidence for Jesus is so weak that historians would not bat an eyelid if tomorrow it was somehow determined that the Jesus recorded in the ancient manuscripts known as the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John and the various epistles collated into what we called the NT did not exist. How do you know this?

Because none of them are contemporary, none of them were written by him, none of them were written by anyone who probably met him, there is no verification from non-Christian sources etc etc.

Or to put it another way, if a small cult of Jews around 30AD had decided some how (and lets be honest, cults decide a lot more crazy things) that their messiah had come but he wasn't based on someone that actually had existed, stories were collated from other stories at the time, by the time this message had got to Paul and the writers of the gospels they would have been none the wiser.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but it is certainly considered historically plausible. Or to put it another way, there is nothing that stops that in the historical record. There are no Roman birth certs that have to be forged, or Roman newspaper articles that have to be fake for this story to be the case. The only thing that has to change is that the information given to the second-gen Christians is not based on reality. But then that isn't a stretch when the information given to second-gen Christians describes people come back from the dead, is it

And before you say it is far fetched, just remember you believe that Paul met the resurrected Jesus and hold everything Paul says about Christianity to be the divinely inspired truth. I could describe that to someone who had never heard of Christians and they might scoff, saying don't be ridiculous no one would actually believe a guy who couldn't have met Jesus but had a "vision" on a road some where. But you guys do.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You have already assured us that we can't really know what to think when you say you have a friend called Bill who works in IT. Why should we take your word when you presume to speak for 10,000's of people? You wouldn't be over-egging the pudding now would you.

Well you don't have to take my word for it. You can study the methods and standards used in historical study. I learned them during Leaving Cert history and from discussions with history students at college.

But then, just like science, you will be faced with methods that don't fit neatly into the Christian narrative that all of the Bible is well supported from a secular point of view. Up to you.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

Because none of them are contemporary, none of them were written by him, none of them were written by anyone who probably met him, there is no verification from non-Christian sources etc etc.

Or to put it another way, if a small cult of Jews around 30AD had decided some how (and lets be honest, cults decide a lot more crazy things) that their messiah had come but he wasn't based on someone that actually had existed, stories were collated from other stories at the time, by the time this message had got to Paul and the writers of the gospels they would have been none the wiser.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but it is certainly considered historically plausible. Or to put it another way, there is nothing that stops that in the historical record. There are no Roman birth certs that have to be forged, or Roman newspaper articles that have to be fake for this story to be the case. The only thing that has to change is that the information given to the second-gen Christians is not based on reality. But then that isn't a stretch when the information given to second-gen Christians describes people come back from the dead, is it

And before you say it is far fetched, just remember you believe that Paul met the resurrected Jesus and hold everything Paul says about Christianity to be the divinely inspired truth. I could describe that to someone who had never heard of Christians and they might scoff, saying don't be ridiculous no one would actually believe a guy who couldn't have met Jesus but had a "vision" on a road some where. But you guys do.

I reject your claim that there are no eyewitness accounts nor any extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus. I've give plenty of reading and video/ audio suggestions that similarly reject your claims. (See Bauckham, Wright, Ehrman, Dickson and Blomberg to mention a few.) If your understanding of history comes from your Leaving Cert days (what, 15 years ago) and conversations you had with history students in college then perhaps you simply aren't qualified to be speaking from authority.

However, all of this is utterly irrelevant to my question. It is you who is missing the point, Zombrex. (Oh, that felt good!) You claimed that historians would not bat an eyelid if tomorrow Jesus was shown not to have existed. You also told us that Bill your IT buddy may or may not exist and we can really know either way. So how then can you know the reactions of 100,000's of people to findings that have never been made? It seems to me that you would have to be a mind reader and clairvoyant. Are you a mind reading clairvoyant?

Zombrex wrote: »

Well you don't have to take my word for it. You can study the methods and standards used in historical study. I learned them during Leaving Cert history and from discussions with history students at college.

But then, just like science, you will be faced with methods that don't fit neatly into the Christian narrative that all of the Bible is well supported from a secular point of view. Up to you.

But actual history doesn't fit nicely into any particular method or technique. There are always ragged edges to history and Biblical history is no different.

Finally, you are trying to smuggle in an unsupported distinction between Biblical history and "secular history" (whatever that is). The people I've mentioned are doing history (and doing it better than you or me). Some of them just so happen to be Christians.

Pushtrak

Ken bryan wrote: »

Surrival of the fittest is common trait of all life . But only man can choose to alter change this trait . No other animal can do this . Socialism could only of came from man . As it goes against darwinsm . It is this trait that make,s man so unique . Thus there has to be a reason for it .

You are doubly wrong. As has been pointed out, Darwinism (or lets call it evolution as it has moved on a bit from the day of Darwin) is not about selfishness. Heck, even The Selfish Gene by Dawkins isn't about selfishness.

Also, even taking your assumption as right that evolution means some form of selfishness, then it can be debunked by looking at the animal kingdom where there are plenty of animals engaging in selfless behaviour among their kin, and non-kin.

It's probably a challenge on whether it would be right to call it altruistic behaviour... But then, in psychology, to my understanding its still something of an ongoing question even about humans, so that animals would not have a free pass is hardly surprising.

Edit: It's also funny that you bring up socialism as something to demonstrate the mind of humans when socialism founder Marx took a less than keen view of religion.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I reject your claim that there are no eyewitness accounts nor any extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus. I've give plenty of reading and video/ audio suggestions that similarly reject your claims. (See Bauckham, Wright, Ehrman, Dickson and Blomberg to mention a few.)

Can you point out which of them say there are eye witness testimony to Jesus and non-Christian sources for Jesus?

Keeping in mind that there is a difference in history between someone who claims to have seen something, and someone who claims there are people who claim to have seen something.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If your understanding of history comes from your Leaving Cert days (what, 15 years ago) and conversations you had with history students in college then perhaps you simply aren't qualified to be speaking from authority.

Like I said it is perfectly possible for anyone to go read up on sources in history and the different classifications of them and the weight that historians put in them.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, all of this is utterly irrelevant to my question. It is you who is missing the point, Zombrex. (Oh, that felt good!) You claimed that historians would not bat an eyelid if tomorrow Jesus was shown not to have existed. You also told us that Bill your IT buddy may or may not exist and we can really know either way. So how then can you know the reactions of 100,000's of people to findings that have never been made?

Because of the fact that I used the word "historians".

I didn't say people would not bat an eyelid if tomorrow Jesus was shown to not exist. I'm sure there are lots of people who would.

Historians, by definition, follow the standard practices of historical study. In the same way that you can say a scientist, by virtue of actually being a scientist, would understand that one cannot prove anything in science (where as a lay person might not understand that), you can also assume that historians, by virtue of being historians, would understand what can and cannot be supported in historical study.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But actual history doesn't fit nicely into any particular method or technique. There are always ragged edges to history and Biblical history is no different.

Correct, which makes it even odder that some people consider it completely infallible and the divine inspired word of God, doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Historians have to deal with all the different human aspects of the people who end up writing or constructing the documents or artifacts they study. They have to infer the motivation of the person, they have to consider how plausible a Roman scribe who recorded a census was lying, or mistaken or made a spelling mistake. They have to consider the motivations of a conquering army who gain responsibility of guarding the written history of the civilization they just conquered. And they have to consider the motivations of a religious group who are documenting their own early history.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Finally, you are trying to smuggle in an unsupported distinction between Biblical history and "secular history" (whatever that is).

It is historians (and other people) who don't believe the Bible is a perfect historical document because of supernatural reasons.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The people I've mentioned are doing history (and doing it better than you or me). Some of them just so happen to be Christians.

And Christians believe that the Bible is infallible. Now do they believe that because that is what history tells them and it shapes their religious beliefs?

Or do they believe that because their religion tells them that and it shapes their historical study?

Or put it like this, how seriously do you consider, as a Christian, that some of the authors of the Bible either were lying or made mistakes in what they recorded?

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you point out which of them say there are eye witness testimony to Jesus and non-Christian sources for Jesus?

Listen/view/read just about any of the the links I gave above. In particular the resources featuring Richard Bauchkam as these are about his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. (The clue is in the title.) John Dickson, as I've said already, also mentions the extra-Biblical references to Jesus.

Zombrex wrote: »

Because of the fact that I used the word "historians".

I didn't say people would not bat an eyelid if tomorrow Jesus was shown to not exist. I'm sure there are lots of people who would.

Historians, by definition, follow the standard practices of historical study. In the same way that you can say a scientist, by virtue of actually being a scientist, would understand that one cannot prove anything in science (where as a lay person might not understand that), you can also assume that historians, by virtue of being historians, would understand what can and cannot be supported in historical study.

Ah, you used the magic word!

The thing is you have not provided an answer. Rather, you have begged the question. Again, how do you know what the reaction of countless historians would be to a news event that has never happened? Where is your evidence that they would not bat an eyelid?

Zombrex wrote: »

Correct, which makes it even odder that some people consider it completely infallible and the divine inspired word of God, doesn't it.

This is neither here nor there. How do you know how historians will react emotionally to an event that has not happened?

Zombrex wrote: »

And Christians believe that the Bible is infallible. Now do they believe that because that is what history tells them and it shapes their religious beliefs?

I think the word you are looking for is inerrancy. I also think that you need to read up on the doctrine. From what you wrote it looks as if you have not understood it nor the range of views held about it.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or do they believe that because their religion tells them that and it shapes their historical study?

This is irrelevant to our discussion. People believe things for all manner of reasons. So good, some not so good.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or put it like this, how seriously do you consider, as a Christian, that some of the authors of the Bible either were lying or made mistakes in what they recorded?

I certainly have considered the possibility> I have, at times, had my trust in the evidence shaken. And yet I still don't think that they lied nor do I think that they made a mistake when they thought that they saw their crucified and dead friend walking about the place. People like Wright, Witherington Wallace (yay for alliteration!) and others besides have, in my opinion, made better cases then Ehrman, Carrier and Price.

For those interested I would add another resource to the the list I gave in a previous post. This would be Cold Case Christianity by Jim Wallace, a cold case detective. (I thought they only had them in ghastly shows like CSI). As an atheist he decided to investigate the Jesus story as if it were a cold case. It's quite a unique angle to take on the debate.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For those interested I would add another resource to the the list I gave in a previous post. This would be Cold Case Christianity by Jim Wallace, a cold case detective. (I thought they only had them in ghastly shows like CSI). As an atheist he decided to investigate the Jesus story as if it were a cold case. It's quite a unique angle to take on the debate.

Added to my to read list, thanks. It may be rubbish, or I may never get to it read but it does sound interesting.