Thank you Cory and Dan for the kind words.
Now is a fantastic time to sit back and remember we have much more in common with each other than the differences this blog focuses on.
Of course this is a blog who's nature is the spirit of debate, but none of us would be participating if we weren't hoping to share who we are with those that differ from us.
In that, our purpose here is to bring us together, not push us apart.
In the few months we've been doing this, I feel as though you guys are much more my friends then just strangers across the digital divide. In that, I would certainly like to express my deepest, "Thank you" to everyone who has participated, even if all you've done is read the blog.
I hope you have all had a fantastic Holiday and have taken the chance to appreciate all the opportunities we are lucky to have.
Best Wishes,
-Mike
Friday, November 26, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Beyond silly, this is just smarmy!
Friends,
We don't have to believe in a deity this time of year to give thanks for the great freedoms we enjoy, our faculties that allow us to work and be prosperous, and for good friends with which to share ideas and expand our understandings of the world and universe. No matter what else is said here, I want you all to know that I am thankful for this great opportunity to share these ideas with you guys and I am thankful for our cyber-friendship.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Best,
~Cory
We don't have to believe in a deity this time of year to give thanks for the great freedoms we enjoy, our faculties that allow us to work and be prosperous, and for good friends with which to share ideas and expand our understandings of the world and universe. No matter what else is said here, I want you all to know that I am thankful for this great opportunity to share these ideas with you guys and I am thankful for our cyber-friendship.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Best,
~Cory
Monday, November 22, 2010
It's Gettin' Silly Up In Here
Getting back to my circular reasoning argument: Why are the only stories of Jesus from the Christian point of view? Where is the public record which takes into account the miracles he performed? Where are the non-Christian stories of Jesus from that time? Where is the archaeological evidence to back up the claims? There simply are none.
This isn't strictly true, as a quick Google search for extra biblical writings Jesus can easily demonstrate. It's true that there are no detailed accounts of his life from non-Christian sources, but that's not to say that there's no information about Jesus from extrabiblical writings.
I have to confess a certain amount of amusement here, Mike. Right in the middle of an argument against the reliability of eyewitness testimony, you ask for more (albeit extrabiblical) eyewitness testimony! You then say you want archaeological evidence of said miracles, but then you completely discard without careful consideration the extant archaeological evidence (i.e. historical documents). This is starting to get silly.
There aren't any relics to back up your claims. Like I said before, the gospels were made decades after, and the oldest fragment of the gospels we have is dated to 117-138 AD which is almost 100 years after the life of Jesus.
I think you're missing the point here. The point is not that documents are bad and relics are good; the point is that relics are better than documents. What kind of relic would suffice to demonstrate that lots were cast for Jesus' clothing while he hung on the cross (in fulfillment of Psalm 22:16-18)?
I believe the stories of Jesus HAVE been forged or corrupted.
The key word here is, of course, "believe." You are free to believe what you want, Mike, but that doesn't mean that your belief necessarily correlates with reality, right? Since we're discussing physical attestation (relics) of truth claims, what document evidence do you rely upon to support your belief that the narratives of Jesus' life are corrupted?
You have acknowledged that the writings of Jesus were written decades after the event.
Yep, I sure have. And that beats the pants off of any other ancient document...and I don't see anyone complaining about the hundreds or even thousands of years that separate extant copies of other ancient documents and their authors.
I have already stated that I believe the gospels to be secondary sources at best.
There's that word again...."believe."
I demonstrated that this is just plain untrue in my last post, Mike, but you've not directly interacted with my answer. This feels a lot like evasion.
Considering all of the sources we have for Jesus' life are in the New Testament, NONE of the sources are independent.
Interesting. A few posts ago, you argued that Matthew and Luke "contradicted" one another in their respective geneaologies of Jesus; now you're arguing that they're really not independent writers. You're arguing against yourself here. Either Matthew and Mark wrote indepenently of one another or they colluded with one another and are thus not independent sources. Which is it?
If you are trying to claim your leader is the foretold Messiah, your stories are most absolutely biased and motivated to saying he is who you claim he is.
Again, you're reading too much into the text you quoted. It says there is a tendency towards bias. I'm biased. You're biased. Cory's biased. We all have a bias--only objects are truly objective. But that's not to say that all biases are equal, nor does it necessarily follow that all biases are bad.
The rest of that point talks about "opposite motivations." Does the following sound like a good reason to write a bunch of lies...and to continue to teach them in the midst of such treatment?
I honestly don't see what bias you're seeing. My experience has shown that skeptics typically point an accusatory finger at the horrible shortcomings of its characters, but you seem to be implying here that the writers were biased to "pump up" the characters to make them look larger than life--superhuman, even. I wonder...have you read about Noah getting drunk? David's murder and adulterous affair with Bathsheba? Elijah running scared from Jezebel? Peter continually sticking his foot in his mouth and denying his relationship with Jesus three times? Paul's stubborn insistence to go to Jerusalem in Acts 20-21 and his appeal to Caesar that got him thrown in jail? The Bible paints pictures of its "heroes" with warts and all...which is hardly the type of literature one would see from a biased source. We certainly don't see these kinds of accounts from ancient Egyptian records, for example--when the pharaohs lost battles, they had those records expunged. Not so in the Bible--every time the Israelites got their butts handed to them or their leaders fell (e.g. Samson), it was all written down.
Again... the gospels were written by the followers of Jesus. They are absolutely biased sources in terms of making claims of him being the Messiah.
This really hearkens back to the first point I made about asking for evidence that you won't accept, but I'll bite anyway. In your opinion, who would be a credible source for demonstrating that Jesus really did fulfill the prophesies of the promised Messiah?
-dan
This isn't strictly true, as a quick Google search for extra biblical writings Jesus can easily demonstrate. It's true that there are no detailed accounts of his life from non-Christian sources, but that's not to say that there's no information about Jesus from extrabiblical writings.
I have to confess a certain amount of amusement here, Mike. Right in the middle of an argument against the reliability of eyewitness testimony, you ask for more (albeit extrabiblical) eyewitness testimony! You then say you want archaeological evidence of said miracles, but then you completely discard without careful consideration the extant archaeological evidence (i.e. historical documents). This is starting to get silly.
There aren't any relics to back up your claims. Like I said before, the gospels were made decades after, and the oldest fragment of the gospels we have is dated to 117-138 AD which is almost 100 years after the life of Jesus.
I think you're missing the point here. The point is not that documents are bad and relics are good; the point is that relics are better than documents. What kind of relic would suffice to demonstrate that lots were cast for Jesus' clothing while he hung on the cross (in fulfillment of Psalm 22:16-18)?
I believe the stories of Jesus HAVE been forged or corrupted.
The key word here is, of course, "believe." You are free to believe what you want, Mike, but that doesn't mean that your belief necessarily correlates with reality, right? Since we're discussing physical attestation (relics) of truth claims, what document evidence do you rely upon to support your belief that the narratives of Jesus' life are corrupted?
You have acknowledged that the writings of Jesus were written decades after the event.
Yep, I sure have. And that beats the pants off of any other ancient document...and I don't see anyone complaining about the hundreds or even thousands of years that separate extant copies of other ancient documents and their authors.
I have already stated that I believe the gospels to be secondary sources at best.
There's that word again...."believe."
I demonstrated that this is just plain untrue in my last post, Mike, but you've not directly interacted with my answer. This feels a lot like evasion.
Considering all of the sources we have for Jesus' life are in the New Testament, NONE of the sources are independent.
Interesting. A few posts ago, you argued that Matthew and Luke "contradicted" one another in their respective geneaologies of Jesus; now you're arguing that they're really not independent writers. You're arguing against yourself here. Either Matthew and Mark wrote indepenently of one another or they colluded with one another and are thus not independent sources. Which is it?
If you are trying to claim your leader is the foretold Messiah, your stories are most absolutely biased and motivated to saying he is who you claim he is.
Again, you're reading too much into the text you quoted. It says there is a tendency towards bias. I'm biased. You're biased. Cory's biased. We all have a bias--only objects are truly objective. But that's not to say that all biases are equal, nor does it necessarily follow that all biases are bad.
The rest of that point talks about "opposite motivations." Does the following sound like a good reason to write a bunch of lies...and to continue to teach them in the midst of such treatment?
Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?
1 Corinthians 11:24-29
I honestly don't see what bias you're seeing. My experience has shown that skeptics typically point an accusatory finger at the horrible shortcomings of its characters, but you seem to be implying here that the writers were biased to "pump up" the characters to make them look larger than life--superhuman, even. I wonder...have you read about Noah getting drunk? David's murder and adulterous affair with Bathsheba? Elijah running scared from Jezebel? Peter continually sticking his foot in his mouth and denying his relationship with Jesus three times? Paul's stubborn insistence to go to Jerusalem in Acts 20-21 and his appeal to Caesar that got him thrown in jail? The Bible paints pictures of its "heroes" with warts and all...which is hardly the type of literature one would see from a biased source. We certainly don't see these kinds of accounts from ancient Egyptian records, for example--when the pharaohs lost battles, they had those records expunged. Not so in the Bible--every time the Israelites got their butts handed to them or their leaders fell (e.g. Samson), it was all written down.
Again... the gospels were written by the followers of Jesus. They are absolutely biased sources in terms of making claims of him being the Messiah.
This really hearkens back to the first point I made about asking for evidence that you won't accept, but I'll bite anyway. In your opinion, who would be a credible source for demonstrating that Jesus really did fulfill the prophesies of the promised Messiah?
-dan
and yet, still a spade . . .
Mike,
I will return to my regularly scheduled rebuttal shortly, but I was passing by and saw this post and I couldn't resist offering a response. I should be working on, well, a dozen other things, yet here I am. This started as a comment on your post, but it's too long, so now it has a life of it's own.
Your post should be called, "why atheism isn't an organized religion," and that would make the response more fitting. True, atheists don't necessarily have holidays or organization, although it's tough to say that there are no dogmas or doctrines, or that there are no holy men. 'Holy' is the wrong term, although I find it terribly funny to refer to men like Hitchens and Dawkins as "patron saints" of atheism (funny in the tongue-in-cheek sense, not that I am intentionally poking fun at your expense). But all the same, there are some distinct similarities between atheist organization and any other religious organization, even if they are tenuous at best.
In truth, though, this really does come down to definitions, and as usual this is where we start getting into trouble. While you may be a 'hard' atheist and have come by your beliefs honestly, the fact is that you have to incorporate some amount of faith to get to the point where those beliefs become a call to action. Being atheist is just that - the act of not believing, or better yet the act of believing that nothing exists. Having a belief in God one way or the other requires some amount of faith - regardless of whether you are starting from zero belief or full-on Jesus freak.
Bottom line - a religion is a system of beliefs that result in a call to action. However you want to describe the details within this definition is fine - call me an atheist against the Wiccan gods if that helps sort out the specifics. For the record, though, I have no problem believing in other gods, call them 'lesser gods,' for several reasons that I don't need to take up space with here.
All the same, sort the details as you like; atheism is still a religion - a belief regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action. This does not fit the definition of an organzied religion, at least not very well, I will grant. But I never claimed that atheism proper was an organized movement of like-minded individuals led by some specific individual or group who is/are their central authority. I only claim that atheism requires faith (belief) in the supernatural (in this case that it doesn't exist) and as such fits the definition of a religion.
And for the record, I have nothing against Mr. Dawkins - he seems like a bright, polite man. I happen to think his logic is seriously flawed and therefore his conclusions are assinine, and I have, in the past, called him the "stupidest smart person alive." But that says nothing of the character of the man. Bill Mahar, on the other hand, is both fundamentally flawed and a complete ass. I agree with you there. Hitch, I can't speak to him as I have not paid him much attention. I understand he and his brother are quite at odds, though, and that there is supposed to be some big debate between them in the coming months. Ah, sibling rivalry.
I bring this up to point out that I, too, don't agree with everything the Christians get wrapped up in, or all of what they say. Even within my own Church, I have disagreed with certain ideas and actions. The beauty of Chrisitanity, to me, is its focus on agency - I am perfectly free to accept or not to accept as I see fit. The consequences, of course, are another matter. But the physical world is no different. I can disbelieve in gravity all I want, but as soon as I walk off the end of a pier, gravity is going to remind of the consequences of my disbelief.
However, just as disliking Mahar or Hitchens doesn't make you less atheist, disagreeing with, say, Brigham Young on certain things doesn't make me less Christian.
This is a side note I could continue discussing for days, so let's just wrap it up here. I am not convinced that atheism is not a religion, only that it is not an organization. I realize the position it puts you in to accept my point of view on this matter, and I know you will argue with me til the end of days about this point. But I have gone these rounds countless times and I have yet to hear the rational argument to refute my position.
Look on the bright side: you get the protection offered by the 1st amendment this way.
~Cory
I will return to my regularly scheduled rebuttal shortly, but I was passing by and saw this post and I couldn't resist offering a response. I should be working on, well, a dozen other things, yet here I am. This started as a comment on your post, but it's too long, so now it has a life of it's own.
Your post should be called, "why atheism isn't an organized religion," and that would make the response more fitting. True, atheists don't necessarily have holidays or organization, although it's tough to say that there are no dogmas or doctrines, or that there are no holy men. 'Holy' is the wrong term, although I find it terribly funny to refer to men like Hitchens and Dawkins as "patron saints" of atheism (funny in the tongue-in-cheek sense, not that I am intentionally poking fun at your expense). But all the same, there are some distinct similarities between atheist organization and any other religious organization, even if they are tenuous at best.
In truth, though, this really does come down to definitions, and as usual this is where we start getting into trouble. While you may be a 'hard' atheist and have come by your beliefs honestly, the fact is that you have to incorporate some amount of faith to get to the point where those beliefs become a call to action. Being atheist is just that - the act of not believing, or better yet the act of believing that nothing exists. Having a belief in God one way or the other requires some amount of faith - regardless of whether you are starting from zero belief or full-on Jesus freak.
Bottom line - a religion is a system of beliefs that result in a call to action. However you want to describe the details within this definition is fine - call me an atheist against the Wiccan gods if that helps sort out the specifics. For the record, though, I have no problem believing in other gods, call them 'lesser gods,' for several reasons that I don't need to take up space with here.
All the same, sort the details as you like; atheism is still a religion - a belief regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action. This does not fit the definition of an organzied religion, at least not very well, I will grant. But I never claimed that atheism proper was an organized movement of like-minded individuals led by some specific individual or group who is/are their central authority. I only claim that atheism requires faith (belief) in the supernatural (in this case that it doesn't exist) and as such fits the definition of a religion.
And for the record, I have nothing against Mr. Dawkins - he seems like a bright, polite man. I happen to think his logic is seriously flawed and therefore his conclusions are assinine, and I have, in the past, called him the "stupidest smart person alive." But that says nothing of the character of the man. Bill Mahar, on the other hand, is both fundamentally flawed and a complete ass. I agree with you there. Hitch, I can't speak to him as I have not paid him much attention. I understand he and his brother are quite at odds, though, and that there is supposed to be some big debate between them in the coming months. Ah, sibling rivalry.
I bring this up to point out that I, too, don't agree with everything the Christians get wrapped up in, or all of what they say. Even within my own Church, I have disagreed with certain ideas and actions. The beauty of Chrisitanity, to me, is its focus on agency - I am perfectly free to accept or not to accept as I see fit. The consequences, of course, are another matter. But the physical world is no different. I can disbelieve in gravity all I want, but as soon as I walk off the end of a pier, gravity is going to remind of the consequences of my disbelief.
However, just as disliking Mahar or Hitchens doesn't make you less atheist, disagreeing with, say, Brigham Young on certain things doesn't make me less Christian.
This is a side note I could continue discussing for days, so let's just wrap it up here. I am not convinced that atheism is not a religion, only that it is not an organization. I realize the position it puts you in to accept my point of view on this matter, and I know you will argue with me til the end of days about this point. But I have gone these rounds countless times and I have yet to hear the rational argument to refute my position.
Look on the bright side: you get the protection offered by the 1st amendment this way.
~Cory
Why Atheism isn't a religion.
This subject has been mentioned a few times to me, so I thought I would weigh in my thoughts on it.
Of course, like many things, the definition of what constitutes a "religion" is different for many people. If your argument is that a religion is solely your beliefs about God, then yes, I could see you arguing that atheism is a religion. In a similar respect, one can be "spiritual" yet not ascribe to a religion (and that would also be a religion). There are many parallels between religion and atheism, but beyond having a stance about your belief in god, the two subjects differ greatly.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. That's it. Although I don't believe in a Christian God, I also don't believe in the Hindu gods, the Greek gods, the Norse gods, Wiccan gods, etc. If my dis-belief is the definition of my religion, then we are all part of that religion. If you believe in a Christian God, then you are an atheist to the Wiccan gods. Does that mean your religion (even though you may be a Christian) is now Atheism?
In the same respect, my lack of belief in a god is no more a religion then my lack of belief in ghosts, bogeymen, alien abductions, and chupacabra are.
Atheism doesn't have any doctrine it follows. There is no dogma. There are no ceremonies. There are no holidays. There are no holy men, and there is no organization.
Of course, Atheism has it's heroes, and it's books. There are guys like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Maher. We have books like, "The God Delusion" and "Why I am not a Christian". But none of these things are pre-requisites to being an atheist. I can choose to dis-agree with Hitchens, or Maher, or Dawkins (and I do sometimes), and I can still be an atheist. I don't agree with everything written in "The God Delusion", I think Bill Maher is an ass, and I think Christopher Hitchens is a crass jerk. I am allowed to think critically about the things these people say. I'm allowed to disagree with them about their opinions, and sometimes I do. This doesn't make me any less atheist.
The major difference I see between Religion and Atheism isn't necessarily even what our beliefs are, but how we come about believing them. In a nutshell: Religions take a belief and try to find evidence to support it. Atheists takes evidence and build their belief from the information they have. Of course this is an over-generalization. No one fits neatly into one or the other category. But I think it is an overall fairly accurate description.
That being said, there are different organized groups that have core atheist beliefs. I think it would be safe to argue that these border on being religions. Humanism is a perfect example. But one doesn't have to be a humanist if they are an atheist.
One other thing that I wanted to address in this post, but am unsure where to put it is: I consider there to be at least two different classes of Atheists. For lack of a better term, let's call them Hard and Soft Atheists.
A "Soft" atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, but doesn't necessarily have strong reasoning why. They haven't really studied the arguments, or possibly haven't even thought much about god at all. They just know they don't believe. They do not have strong convictions on the subject. I would consider them to be just a small step to the "no god" side of agnosticism.
A "Hard" atheist is someone who has thought about the subject, and has studied the arguments for and against belief in god. These people generally have very strong convictions.
The reason I make this distinction is because I've been describing overall generalizations of atheists. My descriptions will most likely fit "hard" atheists much better than they will, "soft" atheists.
Well, thanks for reading.
Until next time,
-Mike
Of course, like many things, the definition of what constitutes a "religion" is different for many people. If your argument is that a religion is solely your beliefs about God, then yes, I could see you arguing that atheism is a religion. In a similar respect, one can be "spiritual" yet not ascribe to a religion (and that would also be a religion). There are many parallels between religion and atheism, but beyond having a stance about your belief in god, the two subjects differ greatly.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. That's it. Although I don't believe in a Christian God, I also don't believe in the Hindu gods, the Greek gods, the Norse gods, Wiccan gods, etc. If my dis-belief is the definition of my religion, then we are all part of that religion. If you believe in a Christian God, then you are an atheist to the Wiccan gods. Does that mean your religion (even though you may be a Christian) is now Atheism?
In the same respect, my lack of belief in a god is no more a religion then my lack of belief in ghosts, bogeymen, alien abductions, and chupacabra are.
Atheism doesn't have any doctrine it follows. There is no dogma. There are no ceremonies. There are no holidays. There are no holy men, and there is no organization.
Of course, Atheism has it's heroes, and it's books. There are guys like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Maher. We have books like, "The God Delusion" and "Why I am not a Christian". But none of these things are pre-requisites to being an atheist. I can choose to dis-agree with Hitchens, or Maher, or Dawkins (and I do sometimes), and I can still be an atheist. I don't agree with everything written in "The God Delusion", I think Bill Maher is an ass, and I think Christopher Hitchens is a crass jerk. I am allowed to think critically about the things these people say. I'm allowed to disagree with them about their opinions, and sometimes I do. This doesn't make me any less atheist.
The major difference I see between Religion and Atheism isn't necessarily even what our beliefs are, but how we come about believing them. In a nutshell: Religions take a belief and try to find evidence to support it. Atheists takes evidence and build their belief from the information they have. Of course this is an over-generalization. No one fits neatly into one or the other category. But I think it is an overall fairly accurate description.
That being said, there are different organized groups that have core atheist beliefs. I think it would be safe to argue that these border on being religions. Humanism is a perfect example. But one doesn't have to be a humanist if they are an atheist.
One other thing that I wanted to address in this post, but am unsure where to put it is: I consider there to be at least two different classes of Atheists. For lack of a better term, let's call them Hard and Soft Atheists.
A "Soft" atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, but doesn't necessarily have strong reasoning why. They haven't really studied the arguments, or possibly haven't even thought much about god at all. They just know they don't believe. They do not have strong convictions on the subject. I would consider them to be just a small step to the "no god" side of agnosticism.
A "Hard" atheist is someone who has thought about the subject, and has studied the arguments for and against belief in god. These people generally have very strong convictions.
The reason I make this distinction is because I've been describing overall generalizations of atheists. My descriptions will most likely fit "hard" atheists much better than they will, "soft" atheists.
Well, thanks for reading.
Until next time,
-Mike
yes, I suck.
Hi again,
If any of you read my most recent post, I apologize. I removed it for the simple fact that I wrote it in haste between other projects and I didn't really give it the thought that this blog deserves. There has been some great discussion going on, and for me to just throw together a few random ideas late at night doesn't seem to do the rest of you any justice. So I took it down and I will rework it to make it more up to par. If you were preparing a response or comment, just hold on to it.
In the meantime, sorry again for my absence; school is kicking my butt and I just don't have the free time that I need to keep up with you guys. I'll try better in the coming weeks.
Cory
If any of you read my most recent post, I apologize. I removed it for the simple fact that I wrote it in haste between other projects and I didn't really give it the thought that this blog deserves. There has been some great discussion going on, and for me to just throw together a few random ideas late at night doesn't seem to do the rest of you any justice. So I took it down and I will rework it to make it more up to par. If you were preparing a response or comment, just hold on to it.
In the meantime, sorry again for my absence; school is kicking my butt and I just don't have the free time that I need to keep up with you guys. I'll try better in the coming weeks.
Cory
Friday, November 19, 2010
History is written by the winners.
All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon. ~Voltaire, Jeannot et Colin
A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false. ~Thomas Babington Macaulay
Dan,
I'm sorry, but I will not take reliance on word of mouth alone to be 100% accurate proof of anything. I'm not going to budge on this. Understand that I'm not asserting that this means word of mouth is 100% innacurate. What I am saying is that if all you have is word of mouth to go by, then you don't have 100% verifiable evidence. Sure, many parts could be accurate, but there are many parts that could be wildly inaccurate.
For example: Let's talk about the Trojan War and the stories that came from it. It's stories have been told for thousands of years. We have, in recent years, found evidence to support that the war actually happened and that Troy actually existed. Does this mean I have to believe the stories are 100% accurate? No. I don't believe there was a man named Achilles who was actually immortal all over his body except for his heel. I don't believe that general Odysseus actually fought off a cyclops. Are we to say that Homer was a liar? No, but I'm going to say he wasn't 100% accurate.
How is this any different from the stories of the Bible? Sure there are many historical accuracies, but there are also many inaccuracies.
Getting back to my circular reasoning argument: Why are the only stories of Jesus from the Christian point of view? Where is the public record which takes into account the miracles he performed? Where are the non-Christian stories of Jesus from that time? Where is the archaeological evidence to back up the claims? There simply are none.
I still assert that the "scientific" method is the best tool we have to properly derive the truth out of any given claim. But let's go ahead and use the "historical" method you brought up and put the four gospels to the test.
Here is a copy/paste of the core principals of the Historical Method of which you linked to in your post with my notes in green intersected in between:
- Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
There aren't any relics to back up your claims. Like I said before, the gospels were made decades after, and the oldest fragment of the gospels we have is dated to 117-138 AD which is almost 100 years after the life of Jesus.
- Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
This is a significant part of my argument. I believe the stories of Jesus HAVE been forged or corrupted.
- The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened.
You have acknowledged that the writings of Jesus were written decades after the event.
- A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
I have already stated that I believe the gospels to be secondary sources at best.
- If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
Considering all of the sources we have for Jesus' life are in the New Testament, NONE of the sources are independent.
- The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If you are trying to claim your leader is the foretold Messiah, your stories are most absolutely biased and motivated to saying he is who you claim he is.
- If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
Again... the gospels were written by the followers of Jesus. They are absolutely biased sources in terms of making claims of him being the Messiah.
I'm sorry, but all of your evidence doesn't even comply with the method you're trying to use. To use the Bible as evidence for Jesus is to use biased testimony from a biased source.
I appreciate your sparring with me Dan. I think it's time that I make note that I hope you understand that even though we have this debate, I respect your beliefs even if they aren't my own. I do think we're getting close to having to agree to disagree on what constitutes valid evidence, which is where I expect the argument to go.
Take care!
-Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)