Cory,
As far as I'm concerned, we've hashed out the arguments for and against calling atheism a religion. I don't think we'll really come to a definition of "Religion" that we will both agree on. And that's where we're falling short.
Admittedly, this post is more in reference to your comments on Richard Dawkins then to the rest of the post.
The belief of Dawkins that you are referring to is called: Panspermia. It is the idea that life has traveled through space, probably carried on something like a comet, which found it's way to Earth, and started multiplying here. Versions of this theory has been around at least since the 5th century B.C. and is not something Dawkins made up.
Not that I necessarily believe this is how life began on Earth, but I think it is a valid theory worth exploring. For one, we have recorded the existence of extremophiles, some of which could actually survive a trip through space. For two, humans may have inadvertently done this ourselves. We know that certain strains of extremophiles that can survive a trip through space happened to be around during the Cambrian Explosion.
Of course this theory doesn't explain how life began, but it could explain how life began on our planet. We know that collisions with extra-solar objects and planets can launch pieces of the planet into space. We know that Earth has been bombarded with meteorites.
Given that we know there is life that can survive a trip through space, and that we humans have actually done it with our own space-equipment, I don't see how this idea is assinine whatsoever. And I certainly don't see how it is self-contradicting. It has nothing to do with intelligent design whatsoever, and has everything to do with known natural processes.
Well, that's all I have to say about that for now. Take care Cory!
-Mike
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Dawkins' aliens gave all of us scabies!
Mike,
You keep coming back to this "faith is a belief that finds supporting evidence" thing, and I have to take issue with that. I feel that I have searched for what I consider to be the most logical conclusion to my questions, and that search for truth has led me to believe in God. I didn't start out believing in God and then ran around looking for supporting evidence. I think our methodologies have been very similar; it is simply our conclusions that have differed.
Regarding "lessor Gods", certainly a point will come when accepting more than your own god will cause a conflict, and you'll have to decide which god you believe in more accurately (Zues may exist, for instance, just not as the ancient mythologies describe). This is a tangent that I don't wish to get sidetracked with, except to say that I agree with you to a point, but that explanations can be made.
Dawkins has made the case that intelligent design is not possible, but that life on this planet may have originated by alien life "seeding" the blocks of life to this world. This claim is not only self-contradicting, it is outright assinine. This is one example.
As for disagreeing with Jesus, certainly one couldn't hope to contradict God and still call themselves a follower of Him. But I could disagree with His apostles, or certain doctrines or events recorded in the Bible - even ones that i thought were true. This is a distinction, admittedly, that atheists don't have to make.
I always heard the quote as "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair style" in which case all I have to do is shave my otherwise full head of hair and reveal the fallacy of this idea. I suppose the same would hold true for calling it a hair color. "None" could arguably be called a color. But this is always going to come down to definition, and your slice of my argument refering to religion as a system of beliefs only portrays part of my argument. It is a system of beliefs regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action - that call may be to do nothing, but choosing not to believe is an active decision by a sentient being. This is the action to which I refer, not specifically a call to "preach the word" or some such thing. In this case, the NRA isn't quite a religion (although they do have some borderline dogmatic doctrines).
Your beliefs may not get tax exempt status, but your not-for-profit organizations do, same as mine. I'm not tax exempt just because I believe a certain way, but the institution I support is a registered 501(c), just like, oh, say, the HRC. Tax status has nothing to do with this debate.
I'm not offended that you think I'm wrong regarding atheism, and I'm not out to offend you, so I am glad you don't take offense. I just think you're defining the term too narrowly to purposely exclude your beliefs from the title of religion, simply because of the implications it would have to admit that you believe in something without proof. Likewise, you think I am defining the term too broadly and including too many groups. I'm not convinced that you are right, and clearly you don't agree with me. This is probably a reasonable place to put this element of the debate to rest. Almost.
I'll end by reminding you that abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Hence, your evidence-based approach still leaves you with a gap that must be filled before you can make the claim that God does not exist (your claim is that nothing you have found shows evidence of God, therefore He must not exist. But since this evidence does not prove absence, you are making a leap of faith to conclude that it does). I am glad to see your intellectual honesty in admitting that you may be wrong. I would argue that the most honest thing to do would be to conclude that God may or may not exist, and that there simply isn't enough evidence one way or the other to make a valid conclusion. But that would likewise require me to do the same thing, since my belief in God is based largely on the same evidence that you have been citing, simply with different conclusions (I am assuming that God exists until shown otherwise, while you are assuming the God doesn't exist until shown otherwise). But this is exactly the point. In abscence of absolute proof, we each have to assume that our beliefs are true, how did you say it? oh yeah, "with our without proof." Neither of us has sufficient evidence to bridge the last bit of the gap into fact, so we must rely on faith alone to validate our beliefs. Hence, we are both religious.
On to bigger and more important things. Until next time.
Cory
PS- I have been working on an approach that will put you a little more on the defensive, since I agree that up to now we have really been defending God's existence more than you defending His abscence, but I want to be careful because I'm not interested in attacking or offending you or your beliefs. Dan made most of my recent argument in his last post, so I have scraped that one and am researching another approach. Before Christmas, I promise. Hopefully it's worth the wait.
You keep coming back to this "faith is a belief that finds supporting evidence" thing, and I have to take issue with that. I feel that I have searched for what I consider to be the most logical conclusion to my questions, and that search for truth has led me to believe in God. I didn't start out believing in God and then ran around looking for supporting evidence. I think our methodologies have been very similar; it is simply our conclusions that have differed.
Regarding "lessor Gods", certainly a point will come when accepting more than your own god will cause a conflict, and you'll have to decide which god you believe in more accurately (Zues may exist, for instance, just not as the ancient mythologies describe). This is a tangent that I don't wish to get sidetracked with, except to say that I agree with you to a point, but that explanations can be made.
Dawkins has made the case that intelligent design is not possible, but that life on this planet may have originated by alien life "seeding" the blocks of life to this world. This claim is not only self-contradicting, it is outright assinine. This is one example.
As for disagreeing with Jesus, certainly one couldn't hope to contradict God and still call themselves a follower of Him. But I could disagree with His apostles, or certain doctrines or events recorded in the Bible - even ones that i thought were true. This is a distinction, admittedly, that atheists don't have to make.
I always heard the quote as "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair style" in which case all I have to do is shave my otherwise full head of hair and reveal the fallacy of this idea. I suppose the same would hold true for calling it a hair color. "None" could arguably be called a color. But this is always going to come down to definition, and your slice of my argument refering to religion as a system of beliefs only portrays part of my argument. It is a system of beliefs regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action - that call may be to do nothing, but choosing not to believe is an active decision by a sentient being. This is the action to which I refer, not specifically a call to "preach the word" or some such thing. In this case, the NRA isn't quite a religion (although they do have some borderline dogmatic doctrines).
Your beliefs may not get tax exempt status, but your not-for-profit organizations do, same as mine. I'm not tax exempt just because I believe a certain way, but the institution I support is a registered 501(c), just like, oh, say, the HRC. Tax status has nothing to do with this debate.
I'm not offended that you think I'm wrong regarding atheism, and I'm not out to offend you, so I am glad you don't take offense. I just think you're defining the term too narrowly to purposely exclude your beliefs from the title of religion, simply because of the implications it would have to admit that you believe in something without proof. Likewise, you think I am defining the term too broadly and including too many groups. I'm not convinced that you are right, and clearly you don't agree with me. This is probably a reasonable place to put this element of the debate to rest. Almost.
I'll end by reminding you that abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Hence, your evidence-based approach still leaves you with a gap that must be filled before you can make the claim that God does not exist (your claim is that nothing you have found shows evidence of God, therefore He must not exist. But since this evidence does not prove absence, you are making a leap of faith to conclude that it does). I am glad to see your intellectual honesty in admitting that you may be wrong. I would argue that the most honest thing to do would be to conclude that God may or may not exist, and that there simply isn't enough evidence one way or the other to make a valid conclusion. But that would likewise require me to do the same thing, since my belief in God is based largely on the same evidence that you have been citing, simply with different conclusions (I am assuming that God exists until shown otherwise, while you are assuming the God doesn't exist until shown otherwise). But this is exactly the point. In abscence of absolute proof, we each have to assume that our beliefs are true, how did you say it? oh yeah, "with our without proof." Neither of us has sufficient evidence to bridge the last bit of the gap into fact, so we must rely on faith alone to validate our beliefs. Hence, we are both religious.
On to bigger and more important things. Until next time.
Cory
PS- I have been working on an approach that will put you a little more on the defensive, since I agree that up to now we have really been defending God's existence more than you defending His abscence, but I want to be careful because I'm not interested in attacking or offending you or your beliefs. Dan made most of my recent argument in his last post, so I have scraped that one and am researching another approach. Before Christmas, I promise. Hopefully it's worth the wait.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Richard Dawkins cured my scabies!
Ok, I've never had scabies, and I certainly don't believe that Richard Dawkins could do very much to cure them. But I think it's funny to think of him as a "Patron Saint" of Atheism.
Cory, I really have a hard time with you saying I have a certain amount of, "faith" and that drives my beliefs. In fact, it is absolutely the contrary. As I talked about in my very first post, it is my lack of faith that drives my atheism. My beliefs are based on evidence, not faith. I believe in the Big Bang origins of the universe not because it sounds good, but because of the evidence we have that caused us to come to those conclusions.
My personal philosophy is not to come up with an idea and then find evidence to prove it. My personal philosophy is to look at the evidence and then use it to understand what is happening. This is the polar opposite of having faith.
"Faith" and "Belief" do not mean the same thing.
"Belief" is something you think is true. and "Faith" is trusting what you think is true to be true, with our without proof.
I don't believe in God not because I have faith he doesn't exist, but because I don't see any proof of his existence. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. I can't disprove god's existence. But to take an idea and then search for proof to validate those claims is a flawed process. It causes people to filter out what information doesn't fit their idea. I don't disbelieve in god because I want him to not exist, but because I don't see the evidence that leads me to make the conclusion that he does.
I understand that god could exist and works in ways that show no evidence. But I can't take lack of evidence as proof of his existence. That is just illogical. That is why I can't say that I have "faith".
Cory, I really have a hard time with you saying I have a certain amount of, "faith" and that drives my beliefs. In fact, it is absolutely the contrary. As I talked about in my very first post, it is my lack of faith that drives my atheism. My beliefs are based on evidence, not faith. I believe in the Big Bang origins of the universe not because it sounds good, but because of the evidence we have that caused us to come to those conclusions.
My personal philosophy is not to come up with an idea and then find evidence to prove it. My personal philosophy is to look at the evidence and then use it to understand what is happening. This is the polar opposite of having faith.
"Faith" and "Belief" do not mean the same thing.
"Belief" is something you think is true. and "Faith" is trusting what you think is true to be true, with our without proof.
I don't believe in God not because I have faith he doesn't exist, but because I don't see any proof of his existence. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. I can't disprove god's existence. But to take an idea and then search for proof to validate those claims is a flawed process. It causes people to filter out what information doesn't fit their idea. I don't disbelieve in god because I want him to not exist, but because I don't see the evidence that leads me to make the conclusion that he does.
I understand that god could exist and works in ways that show no evidence. But I can't take lack of evidence as proof of his existence. That is just illogical. That is why I can't say that I have "faith".
"Bottom line - a religion is a system of beliefs that result in a call to action." You can use that definition if you would like, but I think this is far too broad. For one, my Atheism doesn't necessarily call me to action. I may choose to act upon my dis-belief, but I know far more atheists that prefer not to say or do anything to others about it. For another, there are far more systems of beliefs that don't have anything to do with a belief in god that result in a call for action. For example: I would not consider "Pro-Gun Rights" to be a religion.
For the record, I don't take offense to calling Atheism a religion. I just don't agree that it is. But like you said, it comes down to what our definition of "religion" is. This reminds me of the Don Hirschberg quote that goes something like, "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling 'bald' a hair color."
You may believe in other "lesser gods" but if they are the gods of other religions than your own, you have to acknowledge that in most cases, there will be a conflict of interest in terms of which mythology is correct. If you believe in Yahweh AND Zeus, then you have extremely conflicting origin stories of the universe. If one is correct then the other isn't. You can't get around it without skewing the very understanding of who that god is.
Although I'm curious as to what logic of Richard Dawkins you think is assinine, I don't think it's relevant to this debate. The same goes for the other famous Atheists. Although as far as Bill Maher is concerned: Anyone who makes a movie where they are belittling people of other beliefs for two hours is just a deuchebag.
"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." I agree with you here. Although, I wonder how you would feel if instead of you disagreeing with Mr. Young, you disagreed with Jesus. But that's a whole different subject.
We can go back and forth about the subject of what does and doesn't constitute a religion. Like I said, I'm not offended by it. I just don't agree that my atheism is a religion.
You're right. I have first amendment rights on the issue. But my beliefs don't get tax-exempt status.
Thanks for (although not deliberately) bringing up this subject. I feel as though I've been playing offense this entire blog and you and Dan have been playing defense. I would love for you two to bring up debates where I have to defend my stance a little more.
Take care, and happy (belated) Thanksgiving!
-Mike
Re: It's Gettin' Silly Up In Here
Dan,
You're right, things really are getting silly at this point. We've hit a point where we are stuck in an endless loop.
I'll argue that you're using circular reasoning. You'll argue that you're not.
I'll argue that I don't accept testimony as accurate evidence. You'll argue that it is.
I'll ask for more evidence. You'll give me something from the bible, and we'll play a game of "who knows the bible better than who." Then I'll argue that using the bible as proof of itself is using circular reasoning. Then we're back to square one.
I can (and did the research) to argue against the extra Biblical writings and why they aren't evidence for the New Testament claims. But that will get us back into the, "Who knows the bible better than who" game. And I think you misunderstand what I would consider as evidence to back up the claims of the gospels.
I feel as though I've explained that human testimony can be invalid, and have shown proof. As I said before, I will hold steadfast in this regard. I understand that in history, sometimes this is the only way we know what has happened. But I also argue that in the history we know, especially that which we know solely from human testimony, it is subject to be invalid. This doesn't mean that it's ALL wrong. In most cases, I would bet that what we know is fairly accurate. But in terms of arguing for the existence of the supernatural, which is what we are doing, we can NOT settle for anything less than 100% accuracy. Human fallibility is an unfortunate trait that will never allow for human testimony, however earnest, to be capable of being considered as 100% accurate evidence.
I feel as though I've given enough evidence to make a case for why I BELIEVE the gospels have been embellished/changed/corrupted. I could go into it, but I don't feel like getting into another game of, "who knows the bible more than who".
I am at a loss for words about your arguments for the Gospels as not being biased stories for Jesus.
At this point, I'm willing to declare that I agree to disagree. We aren't making any more headway on this subject, and our energy can be saved for new debate. I really don't want to go another round of rehashing the same arguments.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes! I expect nothing less during our future debates!
-Mike
You're right, things really are getting silly at this point. We've hit a point where we are stuck in an endless loop.
I'll argue that you're using circular reasoning. You'll argue that you're not.
I'll argue that I don't accept testimony as accurate evidence. You'll argue that it is.
I'll ask for more evidence. You'll give me something from the bible, and we'll play a game of "who knows the bible better than who." Then I'll argue that using the bible as proof of itself is using circular reasoning. Then we're back to square one.
I can (and did the research) to argue against the extra Biblical writings and why they aren't evidence for the New Testament claims. But that will get us back into the, "Who knows the bible better than who" game. And I think you misunderstand what I would consider as evidence to back up the claims of the gospels.
I feel as though I've explained that human testimony can be invalid, and have shown proof. As I said before, I will hold steadfast in this regard. I understand that in history, sometimes this is the only way we know what has happened. But I also argue that in the history we know, especially that which we know solely from human testimony, it is subject to be invalid. This doesn't mean that it's ALL wrong. In most cases, I would bet that what we know is fairly accurate. But in terms of arguing for the existence of the supernatural, which is what we are doing, we can NOT settle for anything less than 100% accuracy. Human fallibility is an unfortunate trait that will never allow for human testimony, however earnest, to be capable of being considered as 100% accurate evidence.
I feel as though I've given enough evidence to make a case for why I BELIEVE the gospels have been embellished/changed/corrupted. I could go into it, but I don't feel like getting into another game of, "who knows the bible more than who".
I am at a loss for words about your arguments for the Gospels as not being biased stories for Jesus.
At this point, I'm willing to declare that I agree to disagree. We aren't making any more headway on this subject, and our energy can be saved for new debate. I really don't want to go another round of rehashing the same arguments.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes! I expect nothing less during our future debates!
-Mike
My holiday season remarks
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)