The Time Machine -- A Question of Curiosity

[PureX]

I think it's odd that so many Christians claim they would bow to the "evidence" that came with their time machine when they clearly don't do so in the here and now. If they ignore the evidence against their beliefs in the present, what makes them claim that they would not do so in some other time and place? I can't think of any reason to believe their claim.

On the other hand, I don't think people's belief in Christ, or in anything else, were EVER based much on the evidence, anyway. I think people have always chosen to believe as they do for persoanl, functional, qualitative reasons, and not because of any particular interest in reality or truth.

The truth is that human beings aren't particularly interested in the truth. What we're interested in is value. We choose to believe this or that not because we're so wedded to honesty and truth, but because doing so adds what we consider to be valuable and meaningful to our lives. This is also why we so frequently see people fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And this includes many of the Christians here, who are claiming they'd do otherwise.

This whole "we love truth" claim is a sham. There's very little evidence to ratify the assertion that we humans have any special regard for truth.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by PureX

I think it's odd that so many Christians claim they would bow to the "evidence" when they clearly do not do so in the here and now. If they ignore the evidence against their beliefs in the present, what makes them claim that they would not do so in some other time and place? I can't think of any reason to believe their claim.

I have to admit, Christian fundamentalists definitely do this where evolution is concerned. But to be fair, there really isn't evidence for or against the events in the bible-- just like the discovery of David's tomb doesn't mean Jesus was resurrected any more than the discovery of the Temple of Athena stands as evidence that Prometheus was chained to a rock and had his liver eaten out (and regrown) every day.

I would say that when you weigh all the variables (likelihood, provenence, substantiation -- the historical evidence lies uncorooborated and unlikely in the extreme to have occured. When you add the underlying elements to the whole god paradigm, then I say the conclusion can only be atheism.

Obviously, theists conclude differently, for precisely the same reasons. But I believe the scales tip in favor of atheism because at the end of the day, asserting the supernatural to explain the natural not only doesn't explain the natural, it also clearly establishes a fresh new realm that we also cannot explain.

On the other hand, I don't think people's belief in Christ were EVER based on evidence. I think people have always chosen to do so for persoanl, functional, qualitative reason, and not because of any particular interest in reality or truth.

Well, they would of course choose to differ. the bible stands as evidence of something. Theists conclude that the bible stands as evidence of the events the bible relates. We could argue the circular nature of this, but then we could also argue a book of mathematics exists to support the tenets of mathematics as well (granted, the mathematics example is testable and demonstrable). Still theists also insist there is a prsonal experience that stands as evidence as well, and this is known as "regeneration". I find arguing against regeneration pretty much impossible because the alleged event is wholly subjective. I may have a lot of alternate explanations for what one feels when one submits to a belief without skepticism (any belief), but being touched by a god isn't te likeliest.

The truth is that human beings aren't particularly interested in the truth. What we're interested in is value. We choose to believe this or that not because we're so wedded to honesty and truth, but because doing so adds what we consider value to our lives. This is also why we so frequently see people fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And this includes many of the Christians here, who are claiming otherwise.

I wouldn't know about the last sentence in this paragraph, but I think you've eloquently captured the reality of the approach of most people. People do desperately want to believe in things that relieve them of worry.

Often, when I discuss these issues, theists will say, "well, doesn't the idea a person might get judged by a god scare people into not believing in a god for reasons of "comfort"?" Well, I think the answer to that is, most people believe in a loving god, they behave for the mot part in a law abiding way, and they never truly consider the flip sie to the heaven question. They just believe that they personally will get in.

I think most of the christians here believe they will get into heaven as well-- though they will likely claim they love god for god's sake in and of itself. Of course, they also believe that loving god and accepting his salvation is perfectly in harmony with why they will get to heave -- because god doesn't lie.

Except... he doesn't always tell the god's honest truth either.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by PureX

I think it's odd that so many Christians claim they would bow to the "evidence" that came with their time machine when they clearly don't do so in the here and now. If they ignore the evidence against their beliefs in the present...

What evidence would that be?

On the other hand, I don't think people's belief in Christ, or in anything else, were EVER based much on the evidence, anyway...

PureX, why should anyone care what you "think" when you boast that you don't "know" anything?

The truth is...

Are you claiming to make a statement of absolute truth here? :noway:

that human beings aren't particularly interested in the truth...There's very little evidence to ratify the assertion that we humans have any special regard for truth.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Who's stamping theior feet? I'm not intimidated by you. You aren't anything to be afraid of. And I'm not being hostile either.

Really?

Originally posted by lighthouse

:sozo:IF CHRIST HAD NOT RISEN I WOULD NOT HAVE BECOME A CHRISTIAN!

:chuckle:

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by JayHoover But I believe the scales tip in favor of atheism because at the end of the day, asserting the supernatural to explain the natural not only doesn't explain the natural, it also clearly establishes a fresh new realm that we also cannot explain.

I agree. But I think if we were being honest, we coudn't embrace atheism any more than we could embrace theism. The truth is that the origin, purpose, and mechanics of existence are a mystery to us. We have no more reason to claim there is a "God" than we have to claim there is not. "God" is an ideal, like infinity, or perfection, the reality of which we are incapable of grasping.

This is why I wouldn't use my time machine to go check up on Jesus. There is nothing I could see there that could tell me that God exists, or does not exist, or to what degree Jesus was/is God, anyway. Think of it like this: if "God" were to stand right in front of you, and claim that 'he' was God, how could you tell if the claim were true?

I can't think of any way. No matter what this "God" did or said, I'd still have no way of verifying it. It always comes down to our choice, based on desire and on our faith.

The mistake that most theists make is that they presume that "God" is supernatural: therefor outside of, beyond, separate from existence as we experience it. By that definition, we'll never "know" God, so why bother? But of course they aren't really interested in "God" at all. Those superstition based belief system are about something else entirely.

Originally posted by JayHoover ... the bible stands as evidence of something. Theists conclude that the bible stands as evidence of the events the bible relates. We could argue the circular nature of this, but then we could also argue a book of mathematics exists to support the tenets of mathematics as well (granted, the mathematics example is testable and demonstrable). Still theists also insist there is a prsonal experience that stands as evidence as well, and this is known as "regeneration". I find arguing against regeneration pretty much impossible because the alleged event is wholly subjective. I may have a lot of alternate explanations for what one feels when one submits to a belief without skepticism (any belief), but being touched by a god isn't te likeliest.

Faith, itself, has power within us. It doesn't necessarily matter what symbols or ideas we use to focus our faith, faith itself is a course of action that can produce startling and positive results, just as our lack of faith (regardless of the symbols) can destroy us.

I think what the bible is trying to present to us is the reality of this power within us. Unfortunately, most people become so obsessed with the symbols that the various authors use to present us with their experiences of faith that we miss the point and become crazy. But there is a message there, and it is valuable.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by JayHoover

Most of the time, those who make such decisions do not think it's going to lead to their destruction. In fact, for whatever reason, they actually believe quite the opposite. Using (once again!) the Hitler example, the man -- deluded and wrong as he was, thought himself earneslty right. It's only from an external perspective people categorize human behavior as cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

Every day, people commit suicide for a variety of reasons. Some out of pain, some, judging from their writings, to punish those who feel that they have wronged them by making them suffer guilt, loss, or whatever. I can't imagine that suicides believe that they are not causing their destruction for whatever reason they pursue that route.

Hitler was one example. But he's not the sole example.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by PureX

I agree. But I think if we were being honest, we coudn't embrace atheism any more than we could embrace theism. The truth is that the origin, purpose, and mechanics of existence are a mystery to us. We have no more reason to claim there is a "God" than we have to claim there is not.

Well, yeah, sure we do. Anything that isn't demonstrated cannot qualify as known. God isn't demonstrated, so until such time, one can opt for disbelief and be consistent with the way they interact with reality at other levels. For instance, the average theists isn't consistent purely by choosing one religious claim over the other, such as Christianity over Islam. Neither stand truly demonstrated, therefore neither are actual knowledge claims.

And of course, science has its undemonstrables as well. As elegant as M-Theory is, as much as it explains -- no one knowns if the strings themselves even exist. Until such time-- it's a model, but not a fact. (Enyart should look into it by the way -- here's a great PBS Nova show that gives the entire theory a very entertaining telling: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html -- Note, Quicktime fails for me-- try Real if it fails for you as well)

"God" is an ideal, like infinity, or perfection, the reality of which we are incapable of grasping.

This is why I wouldn't use my time machine to go check up on Jesus. There is nothing I could see there that could tell me that God exists, or does not exist, or to what degree Jesus was/is God, anyway. Think of it like this: if "God" were to stand right in front of you, and claim that 'he' was God, how could you tell if the claim were true?

If he were truly god, I would not see how I could not, unless he was purposely deceiving me. And if he were purposely deceiving me, then he would be inherently evil (given the stakes of my immortal well being) and thus-- he would not be god.

I can't think of any way. No matter what this "God" did or said, I'd still have no way of verifying it. It always comes down to our choice, based on desire and on our faith.

The idea is that god can do anything. If he can do anything, he certainly can make his presence known, easily and without what we might term "effort". It is not god's "effort" that makes me disbelieve in his (her/it's -- whatever) existence, it is the consistent lack of involvement that leads to the conclusion that -- well, surprise-- nothing does bing! nothing.

The mistake that most theists make is that they presume that "God" is supernatural: therefor outside of, beyond, separate from existence as we experience it. By that definition, we'll never "know" God, so why bother? But of course they aren't really interested in "God" at all. Those superstition based belief system are about something else entirely.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Faith, itself, has power within us. It doesn't necessarily matter what symbols or ideas we use to focus our faith, faith itself is a course of action that can produce startling and positive results, just as our lack of faith (regardless of the symbols) can destroy us.

Well said as well, though in the realm of theism, "faith" does not mean the same thing as it does in common usage (i.e., interchangeable wioth "trust").

I think what the bible is trying to present to us is the reality of this power within us. Unfortunately, most people become so obsessed with the symbols that the various authors use to present us with their experiences of faith that we miss the point and become crazy. But there is a message there, and it is valuable.

Agreed as well. I think the bible is a wonderful document, an encyclopedia of a wide range of interesting pre-technological beliefs, metaphors, parables, and hope for a better tomorrow, but I think it does not at all reflect any actual reality. Myths are an important part of the human expereince, but at some point, we must shed the myths and recognize nature as what it is: Nature.

Interesting and well considered post. I don't know why there's a hostility directed at you, but it seems misplaced.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by JayHoover Well, yeah, sure we do. Anything that isn't demonstrated cannot qualify as known. God isn't demonstrated, so until such time, one can opt for disbelief and be consistent with the way they interact with reality at other levels. For instance, the average theists isn't consistent purely by choosing one religious claim over the other, such as Christianity over Islam. Neither stand truly demonstrated, therefore neither are actual knowledge claims.

But there's a difference between something not being demonstrated, and someting that can't be demonstrated. For example; omnipresence cannot be demonstrated (to us) not because it probably doesn't exist as a state, but because we have no way of perceiving such a state should it exist. Omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all forms of infinity, which do exist as theoretical ideals, and may perhaps exist as actual states or conditions. But they can't be demonstrated to exist to us, because our ability to perceive presence, power, and knowledge are finite. And we can't verify infinity from within these finite limitations.

Here's a simple story: an old fish is swimming along in the ocean, and he comes upon a couple of young fish swimming around. The young fish are darting here and there and just generally having a great time, and the old fish just watches them and smiles until they finally exhaust themselves and come to rest. As the young fish rest, the old fish swims up to them, smiling, and says "Hiya, fellas, hows the water today?"

The two young fish stare at the old fish with a puzzled looks on their faces. Finally one of them says: "Water? What's water?"

If God really were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, God would be invisible to us. So the apparent lack of a demonstrable God is just as much evidence that God does exist as that God does not exist. Either condition would appear exactly the same from our perspective.

Originally posted by JayHoover And of course, science has its undemonstrables as well. As elegant as M-Theory is, as much as it explains -- no one knowns if the strings themselves even exist. Until such time-- it's a model, but not a fact. (Enyart should look into it by the way -- here's a great PBS Nova show that gives the entire theory a very entertaining telling: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html -- Note, Quicktime fails for me-- try Real if it fails for you as well)

Yes, even science can't escape the dilemma of the first, first. What is energy, anyway? And why does it behave as it does, and not as it doesn't? Is it so silly to call this fundamental mystery of origin "God", and the way the mystery manifests itself "divine will/intent"?

The problem with most theism is that it's based on a presumption of supernaturalism, when in reality the natural universe proposes deism better than most magic-based religious theological arguments can. *smile*

Originally posted by JayHoover If he were truly god, I would not see how I could not, unless he was purposely deceiving me. And if he were purposely deceiving me, then he would be inherently evil (given the stakes of my immortal well being) and thus-- he would not be god.

How do we know that God is not "evil" or that God would not deceive us? How do we even define what "God" would be? What would our definitions prove about the reality of God even if this self-proclaimed "God" before us, were to embody them?

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by PureX

But there's a difference between something not being demonstrated, and someting that can't be demonstrated. For example; omnipresence cannot be demonstrated (to us) not because it probably doesn't exist as a state, but because we have no way of perceiving such a state should it exist. Omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all forms of infinity, which do exist as theoretical ideals, and may perhaps exist as actual states or conditions. But they can't be demonstrated to exist to us, because our ability to perceive presence, power, and knowledge are finite. And we can't verify infinity from within these finite limitations.

I see your point, but would note that your model must collapse if the being in question is omnipotent. There is nothing logically outside of the ability of an omnipotent being, so one could say the being could "lessen" itself to become at least partially understandable, or, the being could "greaten" us to acheive the same effect. Indeed, the former is precisely what Christians claim god did-- become as a human.

If God really were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, God would be invisible to us. So the apparent lack of a demonstrable God is just as much evidence that God does exist as that God does not exist. Either condition would appear exactly the same from our perspective.

As I note above, I'd disagree with that premise (I'd disagree with omniscient as well, since we could conceivably perceive a being who knew everything).

Given those two weaknesses to your model, I would have to again conclude that lack of demonstration is due to a lack of interest (in which case he's an absentee god wihtout any real concern for our wel being) or it demonstrates a lack of existence.

How do we know that God is not "evil" or that God would not deceive us? How do we even define what "God" would be? What would our definitions prove about the reality of God even if this self-proclaimed "God" before us, were to embody them?

These are, of course, fatal questions to the god paradigm, but it's not one I, as an atheist, offer up. That is exclusively the domain of the theist. All I can do is note whether or not the offered model works.

Of course we cannot know whether god is evil or not, especially when the "rules of engagement" is god is measured as the standard as what is good or what is evil. God behaves abominably in the bible, particularly the Old Testament, and indeed he goes so far as to circumvent free will: As a Bush (not GW) he tells Moses that he will harden Pharoah's heart so Pharoah will not let the people go. This is a blatant plot to thwart Pharoah's making a choice, and god is pretty cavalier about doing this.

I cannot see how this paints a moral god. It really is nothing more than a capricious god, who doesn't realy care too much about the rules he himself has set up. And of course, such examples are threaded through the OT, wherein god behaves in ways that are simply atrocious. Yet the theist is required to thrust all of that away in order to maintain that god is good no matter what he does.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020

Really?
:chuckle:

I guess there was no reason for yelling, I mean, it was only the third time I said it.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by JayHoover I see your point, but would note that your model must collapse if the being in question is omnipotent. There is nothing logically outside of the ability of an omnipotent being, so one could say the being could "lessen" itself to become at least partially understandable, or, the being could "greaten" us to acheive the same effect.

Only if this "God" so desired. You seem to be presuming that such a desire must exist, and thus, "God" must not. But I don't see on what we would be basing this presumption.

Originally posted by JayHoover As I note above, I'd disagree with that premise (I'd disagree with omniscient as well, since we could conceivably perceive a being who knew everything).

We could perceive a being, but we could not perceive the being's omniscience. The being would only be smarter than we are, from our perspective. But that's the limit of what we could know about how smart this being is. And in the case of our hypothetical "God", this being would also be omnipresent, in which case we couldn't perceive it's being, either.

To be everywhere is to us the same as to be nowhere, because we can only identify something as 'being here' relative to the concept of it's not being here. But omnipresence negates the concept or experience of something not being here, so we'd have no reference with which to determe an omnipresent state of being.

You say that through omnipotence, however, this "God" could overcome the two previous conditions, and logically this is true, but it pre-supposes the will to do so. Yet why would a being that is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent will that we recognize it as such? I can't think of any reason, especially as to do so would mean that we would no longer be what we are, and/or it would no longer be what it is. I logically have to assume that since this "God" is omniscient and omnipotent, that we are already what this God intends us to be. And I can't think of any reason this God would change it's mind or intent given that it knows all and can do all (and already has). To do so would be to counterman itself. This would be illogical.

Originally posted by JayHoover Of course we cannot know whether god is evil or not, especially when the "rules of engagement" is god is measured as the standard as what is good or what is evil. God behaves abominably in the bible, particularly the Old Testament, and indeed he goes so far as to circumvent free will: As a Bush (not GW) he tells Moses that he will harden Pharoah's heart so Pharoah will not let the people go. This is a blatant plot to thwart Pharoah's making a choice, and god is pretty cavalier about doing this.

"Good" and "evil" are subjective quality judgments. They're based on what's "good" for us, and what's not good for us, as perceived by us. They don't really have anything to do with the existence or nature of "God". There is no reason that I can think of that we should assume that "God's" will or intent would correspond with our conceptions of what's good or evil. So the fact that we have no demonstrable evidence of God being "good" or "evil" really says nothing at all about the nature or existence of God. All it says is that we humans have a very myopic view of everything, including even "God". Which of course we do.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by PureX

Only if this "God" so desired. You seem to be presuming that such a desire must exist, and thus, "God" must not. But I don't see on what we would be basing this presumption.

Hmm. I seem to be cast in the role of defending a theistic paradigm, and that's not where I'm coming from. I'm in agreement with your overview, and disagree only on minutiae such as if you ask me why I'd presume the will of a god to display himself, I can just as easily respond why presume he wouldn't? In fact, I cannot presume either, since he remains undemonstrated.

To move past this gainsaying, what doesn't work is the Christian god -- since that model of godhood collapses into chaos when you evaluate it-- you can't ask me why I presume a god allowing himself to be known -- I'm merely replaying the allegation that the Christian believes this is so.

In the end, I've yet to hear of a model of god that does work, especially if you incorporate the classic attributes of this god: the "omnis", the problem of good and evil, and the misdirection of complicating explanations by asserting an unknowable realm to explain an unknown -- but knowable in essence -- realm.

Hence one can conclude that the gods likely existence only is extant because mankind has alleged them, but not in any sense because there is any external evidence of any. One can make the same claim of the Tooth Fairy-- the fairy "exists" only because it is an invention of mankind, not because there is any physical reality to the creature. One needn't go around trying to disprove the non-extant attributes of the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy. One does not say, "Here are the attributes of the Fairy: it is invisible, incorporeal, untestable, undemonstrable. Now prove it doesn't exist."

One just concludes that without any of the above, the existence of said fairy is not likely in the extreme. The attributes listed are indistinguishable from non-existence.

The same applies to god, despite the far more complex ideology that has grown up around defending the idea.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by JayHoover Hmm. I seem to be cast in the role of defending a theistic paradigm, and that's not where I'm coming from. I'm in agreement with your overview, and disagree only on minutiae such as if you ask me why I'd presume the will of a god to display himself, I can just as easily respond why presume he wouldn't? In fact, I cannot presume either, since he remains undemonstrated.

I agree. I was only trying to clarify why I believe atheism and theism are both based on unfounded assumptions.

Originally posted by JayHoover To move past this gainsaying, what doesn't work is the Christian god -- since that model of godhood collapses into chaos when you evaluate it-- you can't ask me why I presume a god allowing himself to be known -- I'm merely replaying the allegation that the Christian believes this is so.

Again I agree. But I have suspected for a long time, now, that atheism is essentially a reaction to theism - to "God" as depicted by most theists. I understand this reaction and agree with it. However, atheism is not the only alternative to theism and is in my opinion mostly only an equal and opposite reaction to it. Understandable, but nevertheless equally irrational.

Originally posted by JayHoover In the end, I've yet to hear of a model of god that does work, especially if you incorporate the classic attributes of this god: the "omnis", the problem of good and evil, and the misdirection of complicating explanations by asserting an unknowable realm to explain an unknown -- but knowable in essence -- realm.

Look around you. That's the model of "God" that works. But is it "God"? Hmmmm ... that becomes a matter of semantics, does't it. And that's the point about "God". "God" is a matter of semantics. We each end up choosing our own way of conceptualizing the great mystery of our own existence. But atheist, theist, or agnostic, the mystery doesn't go away. And it doesn't get solved.

To my way of thinking, all religion does is pretend it's solved the mystery so that those who are willing to maintain the pretense can also pretend they're safe from their fear of the unknown. But then again, atheism tries to pretend that the mystery isn't there at all: equally evasive, equally irrational, and equally dependant upon pretense and denial. So it seems to me that only honest thing to do is face the mystery head on. That still isn't going to solve it but at least maybe we can learn how to live honestly, sincerely, and humbly with our ignorance instead of trying to erase it with pretense and denial. All the evidence seems to me to support this as the most healthy way of dealing with such a profound mystery.

What do you think?

 

[JayHoover]

Again, I think atheism is the default belief system. It's how we're born -- atheistic, and apolitical. No ideology is inherent in humans except perhaps a loose social tribalism that a host of other animals share.

I think the elgance and the eloquence of atheistic arguments are the result of theism-- without theism, there'd be no need for any countering dialogue. But atheism itself is de facto how we come into the world.

Secondly, atheism itself is not doctrinaire -- there is only one "doctrine" and that is, "Gods do not exist". This is not an irrational philosophy at all -- it's fully and wholly within the realm of the natural universe to find natural causes for natural events-- nothing could be more rational. Perhaps you are focused on what might seem to be a claim for omniscient to claim "gods do not exist".

Well, since all the proffered models of theism logically collapse, it is rational to reject them.

 

[logos_x]

IF CHRIST HAD NOT RISEN NO ONE WOULD HAVE BECOME A CHRISTIAN!

Christianity is about spiritual birth brought about by the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus did not die and rise again then there is no victory...no birth from above...no promise...and no hope. All would still be "in Adam" and death would still have it's sting. No one would be "in Christ", no one "in the Spirit" and no one with Christ in them.

By classifying the finished work of God through Christ Jesus as an "ideology" you've managed to miss what "Christian" really means...and therefore have made an assumption that if somehow it could be "proven" that Christ didn't die and rise again that would undermine faith. Well...it wouldn't have happened in the first place if it never happened. The Message didn't start because of Jesus death and resurrection only..it happened once the Holy Sprit came upon the Christ-followers in the upper room (See Acts Chapters 1&2). There is far more going on here than you have even begun to consider, It's much, much more than a mere ideology.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by logos_x

IF CHRIST HAD NOT RISEN NO ONE WOULD HAVE BECOME A CHRISTIAN!

Christianity is about spiritual birth brought about by the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus did not die and rise again then there is no victory...no birth from above...no promise...and no hope. All would still be "in Adam" and death would still have it's sting. No one would be "in Christ", no one "in the Spirit" and no one with Christ in them.

By classifying the finished work of God through Christ Jesus as an "ideology" you've managed to miss what "Christian" really means...and therefore have made an assumption that if somehow it could be "proven" that Christ didn't die and rise again that would undermine faith. Well...it wouldn't have happened in the first place if it never happened. The Message didn't start because of Jesus death and resurrection only..it happened once the Holy Sprit came upon the Christ-followers in the upper room (See Acts Chapters 1&2). There is far more going on here than you have even begun to consider, It's much, much more than a mere ideology.

I'd have to assume Christianity is accurate to agree with this, and I do not consider it accurate. It is simply another religion, though, like all adherents of all competitive relgious beliefs, those who believe think it special and true.

I would argue that it is more accurate to say, "If Constantine had lost, no one would have become a Christian."

 

[logos_x]

If Constantine had lost, no one would have become a Christian.

:darwinsm:

 

[Lighthouse]

I can just imagine that. Paul says, "Constantine is going to lose in the future, so I'm not going to be a Christian."

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by logos_x

:darwinsm:

Just so -- there is no objective reason not to have the same reaction to your comment, that a dead man rises. The difference is, the vast majority of people who have heard the story (or believe in it) don't consider it laughable or odd at all that a dead man rises, mainly becuase most poeple do bleieve in gods and such. They presume the existence of god for their myriad of reasons, and so miracles become acceptable. This doesn't make it any more true, but it does explain why people don't break out in laughter every time someone asserts that a dead man rose and lives now for over 2000 years.

Objectively speaking of course, the assertion of the dead man rising is in and of itself irrational and unsupported.

It is unlikely in the extreme that Christianity would have lasted very long if not for Constantine. Christianity's history is not one of gentle preaching and mass conversions due to its (alleged) obvious and inherent truth -- you know that. The engine of conversion has historically been at the point of the sword, and even today we see the Muslims embracing the methodology (with greater technology at their disposal).

There is no reason to believe Christianity would have survived any more than did Mithrasism (except in how Mithrasism has been enfolded into Christianity) if left to the simple preaching espoused by Jesus and the Apostles. It required numerous acts of violence to secure its place.

By the way -- why are the Christians on this forum so consistently impolite? Those who are arguing the rationalist point of view seem to simply state their cases with little overt hostility, and the Christians here seem to jump to it very, very quickly.

 

[The Berean]

Originally posted by JayHoover

Again, I think atheism is the default belief system. It's how we're born -- atheistic, and apolitical. No ideology is inherent in humans except perhaps a loose social tribalism that a host of other animals share.

I think the elgance and the eloquence of atheistic arguments are the result of theism-- without theism, there'd be no need for any countering dialogue. But atheism itself is de facto how we come into the world.

Secondly, atheism itself is not doctrinaire -- there is only one "doctrine" and that is, "Gods do not exist". This is not an irrational philosophy at all -- it's fully and wholly within the realm of the natural universe to find natural causes for natural events-- nothing could be more rational. Perhaps you are focused on what might seem to be a claim for omniscient to claim "gods do not exist".
JayHoover,

Well, since all the proffered models of theism logically collapse, it is rational to reject them.

Your argument doesn't follow. You state that no idealology is inherent in humans except perhaps a loose social tribalism. Yet you also claim that athieism is the default belief system of man. These are contradictory statements. If man is born without any ideaology then athiesm cannot be the default belief system of man, right?

Also, you state that atheism is a response to theism. Before someone asserts that there is no God someone must assert that there is a God. So if atheim is the default belief system of man then why did man originally abandon it? If man is inherently atheistic then why postulate a "supernatual creator"? Wouldn't it seem plausible to conclude if man is inherently atheistic then man cannot postulate any idea about a "supernatural creator" or "first cause" or whatever you would want to call it?