Original Sin?

Quote: Evenbob

You claim god exists. Me saying until you
provide real proof of your claim, I can't
believe that, is not me making a claim.

That is true, but be careful of your use of the word "proof". Remember faith is involved in just about everything we do, what we are looking for is evidence and where the evidence points us to.

Quote:

Me saying there is no god because there
is no evidence is not me making a claim.

This is an illogical argument. It does not follow that there something is false because there is no evidence. To say definitively that something is false is making a claim.

Quote:

You want me to prove a negative by
showing positive evidence.

Yes, if you say that there was never a person named Abraham Lincoln then you need to show positive evidence as to why you say that.

Quote:

It's like this. You think you saw the ghost
of Ben Franklin last night. You're sure
of it. I doubt your story is true, so you
want me to prove it didn't happen, or
admit that it did. You want me to come
up with evidence that a supernatural
experience never happened.

In this case you might not be able to come up with any evidence that it didn't happen so the farthest you could go is that you strongly don't believe it happened because maybe my story isn't straight or I've mixed up the details or I describe somebody that doesn't look or act like Ben Franklin. You can't prove it didn't happen but you can disbelief it. The problem comes when you say without any evidence that you are 100% sure that it did not happen. To claim that you need some evidence to support you.

Quote: Dalex64

Well, you ignored me pointing out that there is evidence that parts of the bible, including the gospel of mark was added to, and changed, for maybe the first 300 years or so after it was first written.

Sorry, sometimes things come fast and heavy and I've been fairly busy lately. Yes the last few verses of the Gospel of Mark where not written by the original author. There are actually about three different endings that later scribes added to the Gospel. The good thing about having so many attested sources for something like the Bible we can clearly show when something has indeed been added.

Quote:

It is my understanding Mark it was written first, closer in time to the actual events.

Yes, it is the first Gospel written down around 30 years after the Resurrection. It is not of course the first writing of the NT, that would be 1Thess.

Quote:

The original ending is with an empty tomb, and women scared and fleeing and never telling anyone (yet it was written down - but that is another question).

Don't forget the angel standing there at the tomb telling the disciples that they search for the living one among the dead, He is not here He has been raised.

Quote:

The whole story of the resurrection was added later. These websites, along with the lack of any corroborating historical documentation, reinforce my belief that the resurrection as it is believed in now never happened.

The Resurrection most definitely happened. Not only was the story present long before anything was written down, but the lives of the early Christians, disciples, and Apostles all point to the unshakable and powerful experience they had of the Risen Christ. They spent the rest of their lives, before every Apostle, besides John, was martyred spreading the Good News of Jesus' triumph over sin and death. Take a look at the impact that Jesus Christ had on our world. Is that possible from a poor preacher who was only know for three years and was crucified between two criminals? Everything was changed because of this man and the reality of the Resurrection.

Quote: FrGamble

The Resurrection most definitely happened.

Absolutely.

The God Osiris was resurrected by the Goddess Ist. Not only was the story present before writing was invented (and how can one tell??), but do you think a mighty nation like Egypt, and the Nubians, Hyksos and Libyans who conquered them in turn, would have invested so lavishly in treasure, labor and faith to build elaborate burial sites and rituals, if not for the fact that the God Osiris would resurrect them in the next world?

Quote: FrGamble

It does not follow that there something is false because there is no evidence.

For me and other atheists, the lack of
evidence means we have a lack of
belief in gods existence. For us,
there are no gods. It's a non subject.

You want to believe in god, so you
do. You're stuck with something
called 'belief perseverance', a
common psychological trait. The
longer you believe something,
no matter what it is, the harder
it will be to change the belief.
Arguing with people who believe
differently than you will only
strengthen your beliefs, you'll
dig in even deeper to stand your
ground.

A good example is racism. If a
person is raised in a really racist
family, they will likely be racist
all their lives. It's very hard to
change your beliefs, no matter
how wrong they are. You're
basically stuck with them, unless
you really work at it.

It's why I admire my friend Ed so
much. He went thru all the Church
brainwashing for 8 years and was
a priest for 5 years. Through sheer
strength of character, he put all of
that behind him and became an
atheist. An amazing feat.

Quote: Evenbob

You want to believe in god, so you
do. You're stuck with something
called 'belief perseverance', a
common psychological trait.

This 'belief perseverance' can only continue when it is supported by experience or evidence. Or it can continue when someone refuses to hear the other side or closes their eyes and mind to other experiences or perspectives. This is often the case for those who as you say, "want to believe" in something. I feel that you suffer from this. You so desperately want to believe what you do that you won't even entertain the possibility of any evidence to the contrary. You are content with ignoring it or very tellingly make fun of it, a common symptom for someone who is suffering from 'belief perseverance'.

With racism for example, people bought up in a racist family will indeed continue to be racist until their perspective is eventually challenged with evidence and experience to the contrary. They meet someone of a different race that breaks their stereotype and forces them to question their belief system. This can lead to real change in their beliefs. You have had bad experiences with Christians and have been taught bad things about them. You have mentioned many times the poor example of Christians in your life and you continue in your 'belief perseverance' that therefore you are right that there must be no God. One day, and I'm convinced it won't unfortunately happen on this forum, you will encounter a believer or have an experience of God that will shake you from your bigotry and cause you to think again about these issues. I pray and am confident that this will happen and while it might not make you a Christian overnight or even change your mind about God, you will at least see with clearer eyes and a fresh perspective these discussions.

Quote: FrGamble

The Resurrection most definitely happened. Not only was the story present long before anything was written down, but the lives of the early Christians, disciples, and Apostles all point to the unshakable and powerful experience they had of the Risen Christ. They spent the rest of their lives, before every Apostle, besides John, was martyred spreading the Good News of Jesus' triumph over sin and death. Take a look at the impact that Jesus Christ had on our world. Is that possible from a poor preacher who was only know for three years and was crucified between two criminals? Everything was changed because of this man and the reality of the Resurrection.

None of those statements about the impact christ had on people or the persecution people faced is evidence that the resurrection happened. No matter how much they believed it then or you believe it now, sincere belief is not evidence.

Is that impact possible without a resurrection? Of course it is, it happened. Your statement (is that possible from a poor preacher...) exhibit a logical fallacy, the argument from incredulity. It is also circular reasoning - using the conclusion, that these unlikely things happened because christ was resurrected, as proof that christ was resurrected.

The story was present long before it was written down? Then why does the first story that was written down fail to mention a resurrection or appearances to other people?

The words from the "angel" ("he has risen. he is not here") could easily be interpreted as meaning something similar to "he's in a better place now"

Agreeing now that the gospel of Mark was added to later, and not by the original author, contradicts your earlier statement that the bible did not change until the time of the reformation.

It is still striking to me the number of critical pieces of information that were omitted from the first gospel that was written, and that some of those pieces of information were then added to it later, after some of the other gospels were written.

Http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

It is a lot easier to get corroborating information between the books of the bible when you go and edit them later and put the corroborating information in.

Quote: FrGamble

you won't even entertain the possibility of any evidence to the contrary..

Present some real evidence and I'll certainly
look at it. You have yet to produce any. It's
not just me, your evidence didn't convince
Einstein, Sagan, Asimov, and Hawking either.

Hawking said in 2104 "we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

People who knew him in college say he
was an avid atheist then and hasn't
changed a bit.

I've been binge reading skepticism blogs lately. It strikes me that believers employ means and methods quite similar to those used by conspiracists, purveyors of pseudoscience, snake oil salesmen, creationists (not exactly equal to religious believers), etc.

Most famously there's the argument from ignorance. That is, "Since we don't know X and Y, therefore God."

Then there's the creationist argument that the universe is suited to us.

And most important, believers tend to misrepresent or misunderstand science. We've heard the argument that there must be a "God" because the universe has a beginning. Well, we don't know whether the universe has a beginning or not. Yes, there was a Big Bang billions of years ago, but the energy that now makes up the universe (remember matter=energy) was concentrated on an infinitesimal point that then began to expand. It did not come into being at the Big Bang, but predated it. By how long, we can't say. Maybe it has always existed, maybe it was snipped off another universe. maybe it's god poop. Maybe I created it in the future (can you prove I didn't?). Maybe it created "God" for some reason. Maybe dark energy is gravity running backwards in time, so in a forward time universe the cosmos begins as torn particles which coalesce into a single super dense and dimensionless point.

I can continue with the "maybes" for literally days (and by "literally" I literally mean "literally") The point is few of these are reasonable hypotheses given what we know about the universe and the laws of physics (and this most emphatically includes any supernatural of "God" hypotheses as unreasonable). Those that are reasonable may not be falsifiable.

In science "don't know" means "don't know." It also means more observations and more thought is required in order to eventually obtain an answer. It may also mean no answer is possible, but we don't know that yet, and we won't know for sure until we look.

To reduce "we don't know" to "proof" of some kind of deity, or even the necessity of an outside agent as creator, is not only terrible science and fallacious logic, but arrogance of the worst sort. Why arrogance? because the assertion is made that without formal scientific training, without making fist hand observations, without applying the math and laws of physics to the problem, without thought, you know better than all the physicists who've lived in the past 250 years.

Fair is far. What would I accept as evidence of a deity?

For starters something that is objective and verifiable. So no anecdotal evidence, no holy books, no popularity contests, no majority rules. This most emphatically rules out the alleged resurrection in Judea. Even if it happened, it cannot be examined objectively today.

Second, there must be no possible explanation for the evidence within our current frame of knowledge. If you present, say, the holy sheet from Milan, too bad (for you). there are many ways to explain it, none involves a miracle. This also rules out "miracle" healing. Spontaneous remissions of cancer, for example, and even of infections, take place all the time. We cannot explain them, true, but mostly because it's a hard thing to research. If you can prove you touched a holy relic to someone and this caused immediately every last cancerous cell to move towards the rectum and make a quick exit, I'd consider it.

Third, There must be no possible explanation for a very, very, very long time. The more we know, the more likely it is we'll find an explanation for unexplained phenomena. Things that baffled XIX Century physicists are in science elementary school textbooks today. So merely being unexplained now means nothing.

Fourth, it must be falsifiable.

Bonus: it need not, but if it contradicts natural law as we understand it, that's a definite plus.

Personally I'm certain we'll see the end of the universe before we see any evidence for any kind of deity.

Quote: Nareed

I've been binge reading skepticism blogs lately. It strikes me that believers employ means and methods quite similar to those used by conspiracists, purveyors of pseudoscience, snake oil salesmen, creationists (not exactly equal to religious believers), etc.

Most famously there's the argument from ignorance. That is, "Since we don't know X and Y, therefore God."

Then there's the creationist argument that the universe is suited to us.

And most important, believers tend to misrepresent or misunderstand science. We've heard the argument that there must be a "God" because the universe has a beginning. Well, we don't know whether the universe has a beginning or not. Yes, there was a Big Bang billions of years ago, but the energy that now makes up the universe (remember matter=energy) was concentrated on an infinitesimal point that then began to expand. It did not come into being at the Big Bang, but predated it. By how long, we can't say. Maybe it has always existed, maybe it was snipped off another universe. maybe it's god poop. Maybe I created it in the future (can you prove I didn't?). Maybe it created "God" for some reason. Maybe dark energy is gravity running backwards in time, so in a forward time universe the cosmos begins as torn particles which coalesce into a single super dense and dimensionless point.

I can continue with the "maybes" for literally days (and by "literally" I literally mean "literally") The point is few of these are reasonable hypotheses given what we know about the universe and the laws of physics (and this most emphatically includes any supernatural of "God" hypotheses as unreasonable). Those that are reasonable may not be falsifiable.

In science "don't know" means "don't know." It also means more observations and more thought is required in order to eventually obtain an answer. It may also mean no answer is possible, but we don't know that yet, and we won't know for sure until we look.

To reduce "we don't know" to "proof" of some kind of deity, or even the necessity of an outside agent as creator, is not only terrible science and fallacious logic, but arrogance of the worst sort. Why arrogance? because the assertion is made that without formal scientific training, without making fist hand observations, without applying the math and laws of physics to the problem, without thought, you know better than all the physicists who've lived in the past 250 years.

Do you only read stuff through the filter you already agree with?