Jesus vs. The Mighty Redwood

[ImaginalDisc]

ID, you invoke many things that you either get wrong, or the role and significance of which in Christianity you misapprehend.

You appear to be still flogging the logical argument from evil, though it's been abandoned as flawed by most thinking atheists.

J. L. Mackie wrote an excellent paper on the subject, and one which very neatly refutes apologist claims. Summary:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/problem_of_evil.htm

You suggest that the entire belief in Mary's virginity is based on a mistranslation, although no scholarly consensus exists to the effect that the translation was a bad one, and certainly none to the effect that the entire belief necessarily proceeded from a translation of anything. You suggest that Christianity teaches that Jesus was born in the winter. And so forth.

Numerous mainstream Christian denominations do teach that Christmas is the seasonally appropriate celebration of Jesus's birth and numerous reputable scholars doubt the antiquity of the "virgin" Mary's virgin delivery. "Almah" is the original hebrew word, meaning "young woman," but the earliest Greek translations use the word "parthenos," meaning virgin. The correct Hebrew word for virgin would have been "betulah," if the author(s) had intended to convey virginity.

You also succumb again to your chronic misunderstanding of what science is, does, and says. Science has an empirical position on whether it is possible (at least at present) for a body to be resurrected via natural physical processes. It is indifferent to the possibility or impossibility of a body being resurrected other than via natural physical processes. Which one is relevant to the discussion?

No, science has shown that no known processes are capable of resurrecting anyone after three days of decay in a hot climate. By that point maggots would have been consuming his flesh and intestinal bacteria would have been causing damage to his guts, and blood would have clotted in his vessels. No material process or explanation exists for the alleged phenomenon of resurrection in this case. It is unscientific to entertain supernatural causes.

As a general observation, one underlying problem is that, as you've frequently demonstrated, the range of views consistent with being an "honest, well-informed atheist" is something of a closed mystery to you. You don't know what an honest, well-informed atheist would say about many things. You only know what you would say, which is a different proposition.

As I have never met an honest and well informed atheist who finds virgin birth, the resurrection of the partly decayed, and the flood remotely plausible, nor can I see any way in which an honest and well informed atheist could entertain such scientifically impossible events, I feel confident enough to say that no well informed and honest atheist would believe in these things. Evidence to the contrary would convince me. Evidence contradicting Christianity seems not to have deterred its believers, however. Atheists play a much fairer game.

 

[The Atheist]

Sophomoric. Are you actually trying to debate that science refutes the flood, for example? Or, are you just a tired old troll?

Oh, you poor, misguided little chap.

Let me take you by the hand and run you through it.

Nobody mentioned the bible until your wee masturbatory effort above. The OP made no mention of the bible. Your post, based on attacking bible literality, is nothing more than setting fire to a string of straw men. Only you have mentioned the flood, the virgin birth, or any other part of christianity.

Nobody cares about it, it has nothing at all to do with the question put.

You've turned a simple, hypothetical question into a debate on christian dogma. The OP has nothing at all to do with that. Are you so thick that you don't know what a hypothetical question is?

You talk about honesty among atheists, yet you have no conception of what the word means in this context.

I suggest you take the approach you have in other threads - stop posting and hope the thread dies before everyone gets to see you make an idiot of yourself.

 

[The Atheist]

After 3K posts someone finally calls him a troll! It's about time.

Damn! Ya finally got me!

Now, about the fact that you're posting from SLC. Are you, in fact, a mormon troll, sent to lull us all into a false sense of security before you unleash your attack??

Come on be honest!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh, you poor, misguided little chap.

Let me take you by the hand and run you through it.

Nobody mentioned the bible until your wee masturbatory effort above. The OP made no mention of the bible. Your post, based on attacking bible literality, is nothing more than setting fire to a string of straw men. Only you have mentioned the flood, the virgin birth, or any other part of christianity.

Nobody cares about it, it has nothing at all to do with the question put.

You've turned a simple, hypothetical question into a debate on christian dogma. The OP has nothing at all to do with that. Are you so thick that you don't know what a hypothetical question is?

You talk about honesty among atheists, yet you have no conception of what the word means in this context.

I suggest you take the approach you have in other threads - stop posting and hope the thread dies before everyone gets to see you make an idiot of yourself.

Obviously you've forgotten that you clearly stated that you find Christianity more plausible than walking trees.

 

[bluess]

I personally find walking trees more plausible than elves in my garden.

 

[The Atheist]

Obviously you've forgotten that you clearly stated that you find Christianity more plausible than walking trees.

My word, if you get any more strawmen around you, I'd be worried about spontaneous combustion!

Sorry, again, but at no stage have I said that.

Do yourself a favour, little guy. Get daddy, or someone else who can actually read, to explain both the OP and my post to you and you'll be fine.

My foot's getting tired....

 

[ceo_esq]

J. L. Mackie wrote an excellent paper on the subject, and one which very neatly refutes apologist claims. Summary:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/problem_of_evil.htm

Ah, that article takes me back to freshman year ... Anyhow, less than 30 years later, even Mackie conceded that his article, which characterized the Problem of Evil as one of logical inconsistency, had been refuted. Atheologians have now moved away from logical formulations of the Problem of Evil.

Numerous mainstream Christian denominations do teach that Christmas is the seasonally appropriate celebration of Christmas ...

I don't know what "seasonally appropriate" means here. Does it mean that their doctrine holds that Jesus was actually and specifically born in the winter?

... and numerous reputable scholars doubt the antiquity of the "virgin" Mary's virgin delivery. "Almah" is the original hebrew word, meaning "young woman," but the earliest Greek translations use the word "parthenos," meaning virgin. The correct Hebrew word for virgin would have been "betulah," if the author(s) had intended to convey virginity.

First, other scholars argue that parthenos was a justifiable choice of term - hence, no consensus. It's what we call a matter of scholarly debate. Second, how do you establish that the "entire belief" was actually due to the translation?

No, science has shown that no know precesses are capable of resurrecting anyone after three days of decay in a hot climate.

That would be of somewhat greater interest to this discussion if Christianity had posited that known processes had resurrected anyone.

No material process or explanation exists for the alleged phenomenon of resurrection in this case. It is unscientific to entertain supernatural causes.

As I tried to indicate, the scope of science is limited to natural material processes and explanations. Science does not deal in supernatural causes. It is indifferent to them. It doesn't offer any conclusions or arguments about them. At the risk of being a bit reductive, what the scientist (qua scientist) can say is "No known empirical explanation exists for how Lazarus might have been resurrected; that's all I know. Beyond that, you'll have to consult somebody else if you care to." I don't personally believe in the truth of supernatural explanations, but it would be false to suggest that "Supernatural explanations are invalid" is a scientific statement as such.

ETA: Since some yuk-yuks have apparently miseducated themselves about "Christian apologists," a Christian apologist is anyone who has taken up the systematic defense of Christianity. They can just as easily be an agnostic, Wiccan, Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist as a Christian. Claiming, "I am not a Christian" isn't relevant to being labeled a Christian apologist.

There's a broad, generic sense of "apologist" according to which what you say might be true in the abstract - though not necessarily applicable to anyone here - but that's not its common meaning in the context of religion and particularly in connection with Christianity. Christian apologists, according to the customary usage, undertake a defense of Christianity in the sense of vindicating the faith - that is, upholding or justifying the truth of the tenets of Christianity via argument. Note that "apologetics" is a traditional branch of theology, consistent with this usage. Simply arguing over the accuracy of statements you make about Christianity, for example, doesn't make anyone else a "Christian apologist". Not by a long shot.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My word, if you get any more strawmen around you, I'd be worried about spontaneous combustion!

Sorry, again, but at no stage have I said that.

Do yourself a favour, little guy. Get daddy, or someone else who can actually read, to explain both the OP and my post to you and you'll be fine.

My foot's getting tired....

Clearly, your brain is also tired.

Sorry mate, but I have to go with the Jesus sory, too.

George III of England used to talk to trees and I've had contact with him via a medium. Trees never move of their own accord. The one you're talking about was torn out by Odin to use as Thor's hammer-handle.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Ah, that article takes me back to freshman year ... Anyhow, less than 30 years later, even Mackie conceded that his article, which characterized the Problem of Evil as one of logical inconsistency, had been refuted. Atheologians have now moved away from logical formulations of the Problem of Evil.

If that is your position please provide papers to that effect. In any case, the evil of god is a subjective matter, unrelated to the historical inaccuracies of Christianity, the scientific impossibilities and the logical impossibilities. God can could hardly be evil if he does not exist.

I don't know what "seasonally appropriate" means here. Does it mean that their doctrine holds that Jesus was actually and specifically born in the winter?

Firstly, the earliest 3rd century celebrations were placed 9 months after the March 25th Feast of the Annunciation. Secondly, christmas is the celebration of the Birth of Jesus. The fact that there is no biblical date mentioned does not negate the fact that early Christians established his birthday as beiing the 25th of December.

First, other scholars argue that parthenos was a justifiable choice of term - hence, no consensus. It's what we call a matter of scholarly debate. Second, how do you establish that the "entire belief" was actually due to the translation?

Because aside from scripture there is no evidence.

That would be of somewhat greater interest to this discussion if Christianity had posited that known processes had resurrected anyone.




As I tried to indicate, the scope of science is limited to natural material processes and explanations. Science does not deal in supernatural causes. It is indifferent to them. It doesn't offer any conclusions or arguments about them. At the risk of being a bit reductive, what science can say is "No known empirical explanation exists for how Lazarus might have been resurrected, that's all I know. Beyond that, you'll have to consult somebody else if you care to." I don't personally believe in the validity of supernatural explanations, but it would be false to suggest that "Supernatural explanations are invalid" is a scientific statement as such.

You really don't get it do you? Science is not indifferent[/i] to supernatural causes. Science is antithetical to supernatural causes. As no resurrection has ever been observed, no material explanation needs to be put forth. The scientific answer is not ""No known empirical explanation exists for how Lazarus might have been resurrected, that's all I know. Beyond that, you'll have to consult somebody else if you care to." The correct scientific response is, "There is no known empirical explanation for how Lazarus might have been resurrected, therefore it didn't happen."

 

[ceo_esq]

If that is your position please provide papers to that effect.

In Mackie's 1982 book The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God, he acknowledged:

Since [Alvin Plantinga's] defense is formally [i.e. logically] possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another.

As for where this and other developments in philosophy have left the logical PoE, I suggest that you consult the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy here, just as a basic introduction.

In any case, the evil of god is a subjective matter, unrelated to the historical inaccuracies of Christianity, the scientific impossibilities and the logical impossibilities.

Query why you brought it up, then. Also, you sure made it sound as though you thought it was an objective matter when you wrote "As it is inarguable that evil exists, god cannot possibly be good, omnipotent, and omniscient[.]"

Firstly, the earliest 3rd century celebrations were placed 9 months after the March 25th Feast of the Annunciation. Secondly, christmas is the celebration of the Birth of Jesus. The fact that there is no biblical date mentioned does not negate the fact that early Christians established his birthday as beiing the 25th of December.

So what? Does any of this establish that any Christian doctrine teaches that Jesus was actually born in December? The Queen's Birthday (a June holiday in the UK) is the official celebration of the birth of Elizabeth II, although she was born in April. Early on, Christianity established the date of the feast honoring Jesus' birthday in December, but I'm not aware that the people responsible for that institution thought that it was Jesus' actual birthday. What's your point, please?

Because aside from scripture there is no evidence.

That's arguably relevant to forming an opinion about whether Mary was really a virgin, but - to pose my question again - how does it establish that the "entire belief" originated in the translation? Did the translation, perhaps, originate in the belief? Did both the belief and the translation, perhaps, originate in something else? I don't really care what the answers to these questions are, but it seems to me we'd have to know them (among other things) in order to be able to say confidently - as you did - that the belief in Mary's virginity originated in a bad translation.

You really don't get it do you? Science is not indifferent[/i] to supernatural causes. Science is antithetical to supernatural causes. As no resurrection has ever been observed, no material explanation needs to be put forth. The scientific answer is not ""No known empirical explanation exists for how Lazarus might have been resurrected, that's all I know. Beyond that, you'll have to consult somebody else if you care to." The correct scientific response is, "There is no known empirical explanation for how Lazarus might have been resurrected, therefore it didn't happen."

ImaginalDisc, that's not what science is or does. You're simply mistaken here.

 

[The Atheist]

Clearly, your brain is also tired.

I am LMFAO! You even re-posted it and STILL don't get it....

 

[catbasket]

ID,

Gosh. Just gosh.

No, I tell a lie, flipping gosh.

 

[Darth Rotor]

ID,

Gosh. Just gosh.

No, I tell a lie, flipping gosh.

The last handful of posts evoked two different phrases: "Intellectual Autism" and "Broadcast Only Mode."

DR

 

[davefoc]

This dispute has seemed a little bit like some of my musings about which of two very unlikely things is more likely.

For instance which is more likely, that a sasquatch like creature exists or that OJ Simpson was innocent. OK if somebody thinks about this for awhile and decides that it is more likely that OJ was innocent than that Sasquatch exists is it now reasonable to see that person as an OJ apologist?

My own cut at this after having engaged in this kind of musing for awhile is that it serves no practical purpose. There is no way to come to a useful answer.

I would say this though. I think it would be tacky to start a thread that compared the likelihood of the innocence of Simpson to the possibility of Sasquatch and then jump on somebody as a Simpson apologist because he thought that it might be more likely the Simpson was innocent than that Sasquatcih like creatures exist.

 

[The Atheist]

What odds the sasquatch having shot Nicole Simpson?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Query why you brought it up, then. Also, you sure made it sound as though you thought it was an objective matter when you wrote "As it is inarguable that evil exists, god cannot possibly be good, omnipotent, and omniscient[.]"

I'm perfectly willing to set the matter aside.

So what? Does any of this establish that any Christian doctrine teaches that Jesus was actually born in December? The Queen's Birthday (a June holiday in the UK) is the official celebration of the birth of Elizabeth II, although she was born in April. Early on, Christianity established the date of the feast honoring Jesus' birthday in December, but I'm not aware that the people responsible for that institution thought that it was Jesus' actual birthday. What's your point, please?

The early church established the Feast of the Annunciation on the 25th of March, to celebrate the Annunciation, and then set Christmas on the 25th of December, nine months later, to only coincidentally coincide with pagan birth and rebirth solstice celebrations?

That's arguably relevant to forming an opinion about whether Mary was really a virgin, but - to pose my question again - how does it establish that the "entire belief" originated in the translation? Did the translation, perhaps, originate in the belief? Did both the belief and the translation, perhaps, originate in something else? I don't really care what the answers to these questions are, but it seems to me we'd have to know them (among other things) in order to be able to say confidently - as you did - that the belief in Mary's virginity originated in a bad translation.

The only early claim that Mary was a virgin is from the early Greke mistranslation. There is no other scripture or evidence predating it. It is the only source.

ImaginalDisc, that's not what science is or does. You're simply mistaken here.

Wrong. Science does not, and has not ever, entertained supernatural causes where a material one is not found. When investigating claims of odd events, one does not assume they transpired as described and then declare a miracle to have taken place when a material explanation cannot be found. Please cite even one mainstream scientific explanation for any phenomenon that relys on supernatual causes.

 

[ceo_esq]

The early church established the Feast of the Annunciation on the 25th of March, to celebrate the Annunciation, and then set Christmas on the 25th of December, nine months later, to only coincidentally coincide with pagan birth and rebirth solstice celebrations?

Whether it was a coincidence or not isn't relevant here. The point you initially raised was that Jesus couldn't have been born in the winter, so the celebration of Christmas in winter is an unacceptable historical inaccuracy in Christianity. My point in response is that Christianity doesn't teach that Christ was actually born in December; after a few centuries the December date was settled as the timing of a feast to celebrate the Incarnation, without any pretense that it was anything more than an expedient date for the feast (see my "Queen's Birthday" example above). It would seem that proposition that Jesus was historically born in December is not one actually proposed by the Christian religion. Accordingly, it makes no sense to reproach Christianity for the inaccuracy.

The only early claim that Mary was a virgin is from the early Greke mistranslation. There is no other scripture or evidence predating it. It is the only source.

I think it would be more accurate to say that one (Matthew's Gospel) of the two earliest known written claims that Mary was a virgin (Matthew and Luke) is accompanied by what may be a bad translation (whether it was bad is a separate issue we can leave aside). Why should that mean that the claim was wholly based on the translation? I don't see how we can know that the reason Matthew (and Luke, for that matter) wrote that Mary was a virgin wasn't because their sources indicated that she was a virgin, or claimed to be. In other words, before the First Gospel was set down in its present form, there could well have been a belief circulating among Christians that Mary was a virgin. Matthew's reference to Isaiah (badly translated or not) seems equally consistent with that, and might well have been motivated by a desire to explicitly link an existing belief about Jesus with the Old Testament.

Wrong. Science does not, and has not ever, entertained supernatural causes where a material one is not found. When investigating claims of odd events, one does not assume they transpired as described and then declare a miracle to have taken place when a material explanation cannot be found. Please cite even one mainstream scientific explanation for any phenomenon that relys on supernatual causes.

Strawman. You've misunderstood again. I didn't say that science ever relied on supernatural explanations or incorporated them into scientific theories. Quite the contrary; science ignores the concept of the supernatural, as I said. Science doesn't take supernatural explanations into account one way or another. It doesn't deal with them at all.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No, ceo, science is hostile to supernatural causes because every newly found material cause pushes back the god of the gaps. It is not faries that make things fall, but gravity. It is not sprites that create lightning. It is foolish to say that science is indifferent to supernatural causes. While it is true that maintstream science does not seek to disprove them, as that is impossible, science flatly contradicts a huge number of supernatural causes. You cannot show that the ressurection of Lazarus occured, and you cannot show it had a supernatual cause. When science contradicts the supernatural, we reject it. Supernatural explananations have never lead to further discoveries about the world, which is the very essence of science.

 

[Zygar]

Damn! Ya finally got me!

Now, about the fact that you're posting from SLC. Are you, in fact, a mormon troll, sent to lull us all into a false sense of security before you unleash your attack??

Come on be honest!

That's ex-Mormon troll.

 

[The Atheist]

That's ex-Mormon troll.

Did you get as far as doing the "missionary" bit, like RandFan?

I see that as one of the strangest things on Earth. The only missionary work I do is horizontal.

Gutsy effort leaving those guys. Even gutsier staying around their town.