PDA

View Full Version : The Genesis of Religion



Axiom
05-04-2007, 06:08 PM
How,why,when did the concept of religion arise?

This is my own personal offering on the subject:-

The very first inkling of religion started when earliest man or pre-man ape first looked at the stars ,moon or sun , with a posture of exclamation.
Perhaps pointing to them/it with a change in facial features ,communicating something peculiar to fellow ape or neanderthal.Something stirred.

Now we travel forward in time, to when man was first able to communicate in some more sophisticated form:-
Let us imagine the very first group of early man ,the first time man organised themselves into some semblance of family/group/cooperation.Now imagine that at some point , one of the oldest or incapicitated in the group(tribe) thought - "i dont want to be left to starve and die ,because i no longer serve a function to the group,i must be of some use to the group, to avoid death" (paraphrased of course!).......and he started telling little stories about the stars,the moon or the sun....he found that his stories were of great interest to the rest of the group, it kept them entertained and calmed their fears of the terrifying unknown.He seemed able to give answers to the most fearful and difficult of questions.....like..."that big bright thing in the sky is watching us,so be careful" or " that big bright thing that hurts your eyes ,is punishing you for not giving me enough mammoth meat" or insert here any invented fable you like. It quickly became obvious to the first man that did this, that by providing answers,or by making up stories based on fear or guilt, he was able to serve a function.Whether that was a mere sense of wonderment for the clan or calming them down or getting them to act in some way eg."the sun's power will destroy us if our hunt today is not successful" etc. He found a way to SURVIVE . The clan ,instead of leaving him to die, instead gave him his ration of food.
It did not take long ,for this to catch on. Those that previously served no function to the group either through old age or incapacity......now could retell the stories over and over again,omitting the less successful ones ,and adding and employing the more succesful stories.......realising the power to be had from calming,motivating or manipulating others.
This is my idea ,as to the very origins or genesis of religion..........you can certainly imagine the timeline from this point on ..with the arrival of the more official sun gods,moon gods, etc. and even see the same hallmarks in religion of today!

Rincewind
05-04-2007, 06:27 PM
Through-out the history of mankind (which easily exceeds the 6,000 years believed by some religious cults) there have been an enormous number of gods ardently worshipped. I don't have a reliable figure but I would say that it is definitely in the thousands. Of course >99% of these gods are no longer worshipped and given time, the current batch will also be discarded onto the midden of religious history. However, the lesson from history is that they will probably be replaced by a new batch. Same BS just a different smell.

Axiom
05-04-2007, 06:33 PM
Through-out the history of mankind (which easily exceeds the 6,000 years believed by some religious cults) there have been an enormous number of gods ardently worshipped. I don't have a reliable figure but I would say that it is definitely in the thousands. Of course >99% of these gods are no longer worshipped and given time, the current batch will also be discarded onto the midden of religious history. However, the lesson from history is that they will probably be replaced by a new batch. Same BS just a different smell.
yes, and so do you subscribe in essence to my genesis of religion theory?

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2007, 06:39 PM
Genetic fallacy (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/#genetic) anyone?

Rincewind
05-04-2007, 06:43 PM
yes, and so do you subscribe in essence to my genesis of religion theory?

Not sure there is the evidence to be as descriptive as you are in post #1. I think there is probably some benefit from natural selection perspective to believe in something for which there is no evidence. The New Age and AltMed industries are both strong testimonials to that.

Axiom
05-04-2007, 06:43 PM
Genetic fallacy (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/#genetic) anyone?
my story was simply my viewpoint,..i dont doubt that every view on this topic is flawed!

Axiom
05-04-2007, 06:57 PM
Not sure there is the evidence to be as descriptive as you are in post #1. I think there is probably some benefit from natural selection perspective to believe in something for which there is no evidence. indeed and the essence of my story reflects this natural selection perspective.It is a purely functionalistic mechanistic view, based on human psychology,socio-anthropology, and simple observation and analysis.
Who was it that said 'religion was the first form of propaganda'?

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2007, 07:00 PM
my story was simply my viewpoint,..i dont doubt that every view on this topic is flawed!
It's also irrelevant to the truth claims of the religion.

Axiom
05-04-2007, 07:20 PM
It's also irrelevant to the truth claims of the religion.
religion is based on lies ,and like all the best lies has elements of truth(ie. human relationship dynamics,fable like metaphors revealing life aspects etc)

"People are more apt to believe the big lie than the small one" A.Hitler

and the big lie is IMHO is that god is as fictitious as the sun god,the moon god,santa claus and the tooth fairy.......but i am always open to evidence to the contrary.
What is it that compels you to believe that the bible is the word of god, rather than that of man ,only?

Desmond
05-04-2007, 07:26 PM
"People are more apt to believe the big lie than the small one" A.HitlerOr, as Stephen King said, "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2007, 07:30 PM
religion is based on lies

Where is the lie in Christianity, i.e. not only a falsehood but an intentional one? Why would Jesus's disciples die for what they knew to be a lie. The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html) offers 17 reasons why Christianity could not have survived in the ancient world unless it had indisputable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

Rincewind
05-04-2007, 08:42 PM
Where is the lie in Christianity, i.e. not only a falsehood but an intentional one? Why would Jesus's disciples die for what they knew to be a lie. The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html) offers 17 reasons why Christianity could not have survived in the ancient world unless it had indisputable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

That would seem to be a applying modern standards to the ancient world. Most people in the ancient world were not educated, did not have access to reliable news services, did not travel more than a few miles from their place of birth, etc etc etc.

Besides, doesn't your arguments hold equally well for Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc, etc etc? They can't all be true. And in terms of a quick take-up, Islam was more successful than Christianity in terms of the spread of the religion in the years immediately after the death of the founder. Islam's spread through the middle east and northern africa after the death of the prophet Mohammad was nothing short of phenomenal.

Desmond
05-04-2007, 08:44 PM
Besides, doesn't your arguments hold equally well for Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc, etc etc? They can't all be true.Perhaps, but they can all be equally true. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2007, 11:12 PM
That would seem to be a applying modern standards to the ancient world. Most people in the ancient world were not educated, did not have access to reliable news services, did not travel more than a few miles from their place of birth, etc etc etc.

This is more chronological snobbery. Some of the disciples were very well educated (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html), and oral tradition is very reliable in oral cultures (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html).


Besides, doesn't your arguments hold equally well for Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc, etc etc?

You clearly didn't read the article. None of the founders of the other religions rose from the dead.


They can't all be true.

Indeed not. But one could be.


And in terms of a quick take-up, Islam was more successful than Christianity in terms of the spread of the religion in the years immediately after the death of the founder. Islam's spread through the middle east and northern africa after the death of the prophet Mohammad was nothing short of phenomenal.

Irrelevant to the case. Islam does not depend on Mohammad conquering death, but Christianity could never have survived the death of its founder, unless His closest disciples were firmly convinced that He had conquered death.

Axiom
05-04-2007, 11:24 PM
Indeed not. But one could be.
indeed ,one "could" be , but not "would" be .

Rincewind
06-04-2007, 12:19 AM
This is more chronological snobbery. Some of the disciples were very well educated (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html), and oral tradition is very reliable in oral cultures (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html).

Some of the disciples not the majority of the population. We are talking about the bunnies here not the ones perpetuating the myth to extend their power base.


You clearly didn't read the article. None of the founders of the other religions rose from the dead.

No but they all made similarly ludicrous claims.


Indeed not. But one could be.

Nope, since the argument is valid for all of them then they all have to be. If that leads to a contradction (as it does in this case) then we have a reducto ad absurdum. That is the assumption that your argument is any good is disproved.


Irrelevant to the case. Islam does not depend on Mohammad conquering death, but Christianity could never have survived the death of its founder, unless His closest disciples were firmly convinced that He had conquered death.

Or they were hoodwinked into believing he cheated death or decided to go along with the story for personal gain. Many believed Houdini cheated death many times, until he didn't. The same could just as easily been the case for Jesus, even more so as he was performing in a more superstitious time.

Axiom
06-04-2007, 12:31 AM
How,why,when did the concept of religion arise?
we know my thesis, we know jonos, anybody else willing to give their answer to this question?

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2007, 01:42 AM
Where is the lie in Christianity, i.e. not only a falsehood but an intentional one? Why would Jesus's disciples die for what they knew to be a lie.

Do you think the S11 hijackers (assuming you believed that they did it!) honestly believed they would find virgins in heaven? I don't.


The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html) offers 17 reasons why Christianity could not have survived in the ancient world unless it had indisputable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

Many of these seem to assume that it is natural for the religious mind to operate logically, to seek to worship what is already accepted, and to shun things considered senseless by the social standards of the day.

Yet all manner of cults over the ages show us that the religious mind in the early stages of cult formation often operates in much the reverse way to this, and that having "every possible disadvantage" is quite often an advantage.


Some of the disciples were very well educated, and oral tradition is very reliable in oral cultures.

That it can be when it wants to be (when it comes to dry recitations of politically insignificant details like lists of names) does nothing to disprove the possibility of deliberate falsehood, tales growing in the telling or memory drift.

Desmond
06-04-2007, 01:47 AM
How,why,when did the concept of religion arise?
we know my thesis, we know jonos, anybody else willing to give their answer to this question?I suspect when Moses saw the buring bush, it might have given him a clue.

Axiom
06-04-2007, 02:12 AM
I suspect when Moses saw the buring bush, it might have given him a clue.
So there was no religion prior to this event???

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2007, 09:45 AM
Some of the disciples not the majority of the population. We are talking about the bunnies here not the ones perpetuating the myth to extend their power base.

What power base? They all faced martyrdom. Spare me your conspiracy theories.


No but they all made similarly ludicrous claims.

More ipse dixits.


Nope, since the argument is valid for all of them then they all have to be.

Nonsense, since the others are not so much centered on a Person and His Works, including conquest of death. And since this is a well-attested fact of history, this rules out all the other religions.


Or they were hoodwinked into believing he cheated death or decided to go along with the story for personal gain.

Who hoodwinked them into believing that Jesus not only survived but had gloriously conquered death? A barely alive and badly wounded Jesus in need of extreme medical attention could not have done that.


Many believed Houdini cheated death many times, until he didn't. The same could just as easily been the case for Jesus, even more so as he was performing in a more superstitious time.

Houdini had a stage. The Romans were not so co-operative. A failed execution would have meant the failed soldier faced execution himself.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2007, 09:53 AM
Do you think the S11 hijackers (assuming you believed that they did it!) honestly believed they would find virgins in heaven? I don't.

Who knows? If they did, they presumably honestly believed they would find them. However, the first suicide bombers, the Tamil Tigers, were secular Marxist in leaning. But if the Resurrection were false, it would mean that the disciples were tortured and died for what they knew was false, despite many chances to retract.


Many of these seem to assume that it is natural for the religious mind to operate logically, to seek to worship what is already accepted, and to shun things considered senseless by the social standards of the day.

Nice ipse dixit. Rather, the problem with many people today is to project our culture onto theirs, particularly our guilt culture v their honor/shame society. Also an assertion that religion = illogic, yet according to Rodney Stark, Christianity encouraged reason (The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success).

Rincewind
06-04-2007, 10:25 AM
What power base? They all faced martyrdom. Spare me your conspiracy theories.

The early christians were their power base.


More ipse dixits.

No just facts. All religions have non-scientific claims in them. The existence of various gods, concepts such as karma and rebirth. Etc, etc, etc. Just because a number of people believe them to be true, doesn't make them necessarily true. People believe things which are false too. Which is why faith is no means of a system of belief.


Nonsense, since the others are not so much centered on a Person and His Works, including conquest of death. And since this is a well-attested fact of history, this rules out all the other religions.

This is a bold faced lie. The resurrection is a tenet of faith and not a historical fact at all. Not even a little bit.


Who hoodwinked them into believing that Jesus not only survived but had gloriously conquered death? A barely alive and badly wounded Jesus in need of extreme medical attention could not have done that.

Well it is unclear as to whether the disciples were hoodwinked or complicit in the trick.


Houdini had a stage. The Romans were not so co-operative. A failed execution would have meant the failed soldier faced execution himself.

No but Jesus had one hell of a motivation. :)

Kevin Bonham
09-04-2007, 04:27 AM
However, the first suicide bombers, the Tamil Tigers

Not the first at all. Looks like you'd better stick to Bible history.


But if the Resurrection were false, it would mean that the disciples were tortured and died for what they knew was false, despite many chances to retract.

This assumes you can identify a person's motivation for living/dying solely in terms of whether or not they believe a central propaganda element used by their social movement to be true. Such an assumption is extremely simplistic.


Nice ipse dixit.

No, it is an accurate statement of the attitude displayed in the arguments you linked to. Anyone who wishes can see for themselves.


Rather, the problem with many people today is to project our culture onto theirs, particularly our guilt culture

Your guilt culture.

Not mine.

:hand:


Also an assertion that religion = illogic, yet according to Rodney Stark, Christianity encouraged reason (The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success).

You may notice (inconvenient for your case though it is) that I referred specifically to "early stages of cult formation" and not to much later impacts. In any case, the point is sociologically contentious. Obviously many religious people have acheived great things in all sorts of fields requiring great powers of reason, but the same is also true of many people who hold beliefs in particular areas that could be characterised as nutty.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 12:20 PM
This is a bold faced lie.

Lying is intentional deception, so that is a scurrilous accusation.


The resurrection is a tenet of faith and not a historical fact at all. Not even a little bit.

Another ipse dixit. You have dogmatically rejected miracles, so decreed a priori that historical documents reporting the Resurrection are false. Such circular reasoning has been typical of misotheists ever since Hume.

Rincewind
20-04-2007, 01:37 PM
Lying is intentional deception, so that is a scurrilous accusation.

Claiming that the resurrection is a well attested fact of history is untrue and you know it to be so. It is an article of faith and nothing more. Josephus is generally accepted to have been edited and the providence of the new testament is also questioned as well as a plainly biased accounts which draw on each other.


Another ipse dixit. You have dogmatically rejected miracles, so decreed a priori that historical documents reporting the Resurrection are false. Such circular reasoning has been typical of misotheists ever since Hume.

I am not saying they didn't occur. Just that there is far from conclusive evidence that any miracles did occur.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 01:57 PM
Claiming that the resurrection is a well attested fact of history is untrue and you know it to be so.

Rubbish. History depends largely on reports of eye-witnesses.


It is an article of faith and nothing more.

Fine—faith in the biblical definition is loyalty based on evidence (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html).


Josephus is generally accepted to have been edited and

There's very good evidence that his references to Christ were authentic—see Josephus: A Double Dose of the Messiah: The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html).


the providence of the new testament is also questioned as well as a plainly biased accounts which draw on each other.

As New Testament scholar N.T. Wright said, yes, they were biased but WHY were they biased? The historical fact of the resurrection explains perfectly why they became biased in favour of it. Your conspiracy theories don't.


I am not saying they didn't occur. Just that there is far from conclusive evidence that any miracles did occur.

Right, you dismiss the miracles because reports of them can't be trusted. And you don't trust the reports because they attest to miracles. Round and round we go! :P

Rincewind
20-04-2007, 02:09 PM
Rubbish. History depends largely on reports of eye-witnesses.

Yes this is true but in the case of the resurrection there is no evidence from eye witnesses. Josephus certainly wasn't one and there is no guarantee that the new testament accounts were compiled by those to whom they are named after.


Fine—faith in the biblical definition is loyalty based on evidence.

No, it is just faith. No different from faith in Islam, Hinduism or Bhuddism.


There's very good evidence that his references to Christ were authentic—see Josephus: A Double Dose of the Messiah: The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus.

Thanks but when the resurrection is generally regarded as fact by secular historians then I will sit up and take notice. Before then I won't be listening to the biased, uncritical tripe you peddle in your links.


As New Testament scholar N.T. Wright said, yes, they were biased but WHY were they biased? The historical fact of the resurrection explains perfectly why they became biased in favour of it. Your conspiracy theories don't.

The motivation needs little explanation. The establishment of all religions operate pretty much the same way. It's not like Christians did it first, last or more successfully than anyone else.


Right, you dismiss the miracles because reports of them can't be trusted. And you don't trust the reports because they attest to miracles. Round and round we go! :P

Miracles by their nature are extraordinary. To make extraordinary claims you must have extraordinary evidence. Currently your side is batting 000 with biased and derivative "eye-witness accounts" by unknown proselytists and an edited account of a Jewish (not secular) scholar working decades later.

Spiny Norman
20-04-2007, 02:43 PM
Jono, my considered view is that Rincewind, KB, et al, have no reference point for the views people such as you and I put forward. I know that God exists, as clearly do you. To us, its as clear as any other thing we know (e.g. that a certain shirt is red, or that Mt Everest is a high mountain, etc). They have not seen Him, never sensed His presence, and therefore cannot accept that He exists, let alone that He created the universe.

This is confusing to others. Perhaps they think that our "knowledge acquisition or detection equipment" is faulty. Or perhaps they think that we are somehow "shirking our duties" as regards testing and weighing evidence.

I can not disbelieve God's existence. That WOULD be shirking my epistemic duties ... it would be irrational behaviour on my part. Neither can Kevin, or Rincewind, believe God's existence. They simply have not seen Him nor convincing evidence of of His existence.

Yet we all look at the same data inputs. Now that IS a mystery.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 04:49 PM
Yes this is true but in the case of the resurrection there is no evidence from eye witnesses. Josephus certainly wasn't one and there is no guarantee that the new testament accounts were compiled by those to whom they are named after.

More ipse dixits, ignoring the actual evidence of their authorship and date of comp (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html)osition.


No, it is just faith. No different from faith in Islam, Hinduism or Bhuddism.

No, you are just applying a modern colloquial definition of an English word that is totally foreign to what the NT authors meant by the Greek pistis.


Thanks but when the resurrection is generally regarded as fact by secular historians then I will sit up and take notice.

But if they do take it as fact (as a number of them did after investigating the evidence), then they will likely no longer be secular historians, so you'll have an excuse for disbelieving anyway.


Before then I won't be listening to the biased, uncritical tripe you peddle in your links.

Translation: "My mind's made up: don't confuse me with the facts. :LOL:


Miracles by their nature are extraordinary. To make extraordinary claims you must have extraordinary evidence.

And there is. Rather, many number of features of the origin of Christianity really would be extraordinary if there really wasn't a Resurrection.


Currently your side is batting 000 with biased and derivative "eye-witness accounts" by unknown proselytists and an edited account of a Jewish (not secular) scholar working decades later.

Oh yeah, while you misotheists are the epitome of objectivity.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 04:51 PM
Jono, my considered view is that Rincewind, KB, et al, have no reference point for the views people such as you and I put forward.

Frosty, the amusing thing is that they think that they have no bias, because that is something only theists have.

Rincewind
20-04-2007, 05:24 PM
More ipse dixits, ignoring the actual evidence of their authorship and date of composition.

Yawn. tektonics must be the flavour of the month this time.


No, you are just applying a modern colloquial definition of an English word that is totally foreign to what the NT authors meant by the Greek pistis.

Not at all, I am applying a consistent definition to a word which I am using to characterising the concept of believing something without proof.


But if they do take it as fact (as a number of them did after investigating the evidence), then they will likely no longer be secular historians, so you'll have an excuse for disbelieving anyway.

Not at all. Many historians are christians without "converting" to non-secular history. If the resurrection actually happened in the same way we know that (say) Julius Caesar invaded England, then it would not be non-secular, it would be history.

Your argument is that while the resurrection is supported by evidence, it will never be a part of mainstream history, because whenever a historian discovers the "truth" he becomes a non-secular historian. However this is just false. If it was a verifiable fact then the resurrection would form a part of mainstream history.

As I said, when it does, I will sit up and take notice.


Translation: "My mind's made up: don't confuse me with the facts. :LOL:

The last resort of the conspiracy theorists. When mainstream historians generally accept it as a historical fact, then I will examine the evidence. Until then, I've looked at the evidence as an casual observer and it doesn't stack up.


And there is. Rather, many number of features of the origin of Christianity really would be extraordinary if there really wasn't a Resurrection.

And the same is true of the articles of faith of the other religions. As I have said earlier, Islam galvinised the arab world more quickly than christianity did the post-hellenic/roman world. So if that is your measure of validity, then Islam is the way to go.


Oh yeah, while you misotheists are the epitome of objectivity.

No one can be absolutely objective. However, I apply the same measure of evidence to all claims.

You on the other hand accept the bible as the literal truth. Pervert what evidence you can to support your premeditated position and ignore any evidence which is inconvenient. You mind was already made up before you started to look for evidence. That is no way to carry out an investigation.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 06:46 PM
Yawn. tektonics must be the flavour of the month this time.

Yeah, because it is well documented.


Not at all, I am applying a consistent definition to a word which I am using to characterising the concept of believing something without proof.

Then stop equivocating with it, because this is not what Christians mean by it.


Not at all. Many historians are christians without "converting" to non-secular history.

And they believe that the Resurrection really happened in space-time history.


If the resurrection actually happened in the same way we know that (say) Julius Caesar invaded England, then it would not be non-secular, it would be history.

It really DID happen in the same way as Caesar invaded Britain, and the evidence is the same: eyewitness testimony. Indeed, the textual evidence for the NT is far stronger than that of Caesar's invasion.


And the same is true of the articles of faith of the other religions. As I have said earlier, Islam galvinised the arab world more quickly than christianity did the post-hellenic/roman world. So if that is your measure of validity, then Islam is the way to go.

No, because Islam doesn't stand or fall on Muhammad's Resurrection in history, and they always had the power of the sword.


No one can be absolutely objective. However, I apply the same measure of evidence to all claims.

Yeah, right. The antitheist's "More objective than thou" just won't wash.


You on the other hand accept the bible as the literal truth.

As true propositional revelation, yes. However, I accept only the literal parts literally.


Pervert what evidence you can to support your premeditated position and ignore any evidence which is inconvenient.

No evidence for that, of course, which is par for the course for misotheists. You're just hurling elephants again. But CMI has answered this sort of nonsense (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2105), following Lakatos on the role of paradigms and protection by auxiliary hypotheses.


You mind was already made up before you started to look for evidence. That is no way to carry out an investigation.

Cf. Lewontin:


‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.’ (Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997).

Note that by 'science' he didn't mean the science of biblical creationists like Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell et al., but the dogma that matter produced mind. I believe that Mind originally produced matter.

Rincewind
21-04-2007, 12:23 PM
Yeah, because it is well documented.

Actually not documented at all anywhere in any reliable text.


Then stop equivocating with it, because this is not what Christians mean by it.

Rubbish. You don't speak for all Christians. You are just one member of small fringe of ultra-fundamentalists.


And they believe that the Resurrection really happened in space-time history.

What they believe and what is a historical fact are (in this case particularly) two completely different things. The is inconvincing historical evidence for the resurrection. What you have are a number of account in the bible and the text of Josephus which is commonly held to have been edited by the Roman church.


It really DID happen in the same way as Caesar invaded Britain, and the evidence is the same: eyewitness testimony. Indeed, the textual evidence for the NT is far stronger than that of Caesa's invasion.

Actually where many independent corroborating eyewitness reports, but also even more convincing is the physical evidence. Coins, constructions, the influence of Roman culture on Celtic life.

For the resurrection you have the bible, derivative text written by those peddling the divinity of Christ. Hardly unbiased.


No, because Islam doesn't stand or fall on Muhammad's Resurrection in history, and they always had the power of the sword.

Like the Christians have been innocent of resorting the the sword. :hand:


Yeah, right. The antitheist's "More objective than thou" just won't wash.

I didn;t say that. I just think I'm more consistently objective. If you believed the stories of the Brothers Grimm were also the literal truth, then you would also be consistently applying your level of objectivity.


As true propositional revelation, yes. However, I accept only the literal parts literally.

As interpreted by you. Science convincingly demonstrates that genesis cannot be the literal history of the earth. Most educated people have moved on.


No evidence for that, of course, which is par for the course for misotheists. You're just hurling elephants again. But CMI has answered this sort of nonsense, following Lakatos on the role of paradigms and protection by auxiliary hypotheses.

The history of the Creationist movement speaks for itself. I don't expect to convince you but any impartial reader of this thread can discover this for themselves despite you guys to promulagating misinformation.


Cf. Lewontin:

<snip>

Note that by 'science' he didn't mean the science of biblical creationists like Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell et al., but the dogma that matter produced mind. I believe that Mind originally produced matter.

Yawn. The distinction between Lewontin's position and yours has already been pointed out. Don't bore me with irrelevent repetition.

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2007, 12:34 AM
As New Testament scholar N.T. Wright said, yes, they were biased but WHY were they biased? The historical fact of the resurrection explains perfectly why they became biased in favour of it. Your conspiracy theories don't.

Again you are assuming rationality in the motives of the early founders of a cult, without the slightest evidence that it makes sense to do this with reference to other such cults.


Frosty, the amusing thing is that they think that they have no bias, because that is something only theists have.

What is your evidence that I think only theists are biased? Please quote a direct claim from me to this effect or else withdraw the statement.


They have not seen Him,

If you have personally seen God, please tell me what colour he is. A sketch would also be useful so I can cross the street and avoid, the way I do with other dodgy beggars. :lol:

Spiny Norman
22-04-2007, 06:38 AM
If you have personally seen God, please tell me what colour he is. A sketch would also be useful so I can cross the street and avoid, the way I do with other dodgy beggars. :lol:
G'day Kevin ... before I met you face to face that day in Hobart, I had no rational doubts about your existence either. I didn't know what colour you were, nor could I have drawn a sketch (other than a childish stick figure) if I had tried.

Should I have doubted your existence? It never entered my mind for a moment. We had interacted to a degree ... you'd written me some posts and PMs which I accepted, prima facie, as being genuine ... I had seen evidence of your chess games ... and others assured me that you really did exist. So I had textual and testimonial grounds for believing that you existed.

Since I have not claimed to have met him fact to face, I am curious as to why you would hold me to a standard of proof that seems to me, on the face of it, to be far higher than that demanded of people in every day life.

Perhaps next you'll be requiring that He visit a bank or a post office and offer 100 pts of documentary proof of His existence? As far as I can tell, He has no birth certificate (I don't believe you can get one when there is only a mother and no father named) and He has never held a passport (He just goes wherever He likes, whenever He likes). So the chance of a 100 point proof is certainly small.

Desmond
22-04-2007, 12:07 PM
Are you sure you're not confusing The Good Lord with Santa Claus? {btw, he is mostly white, with red garments}

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2007, 06:50 PM
Since I have not claimed to have met him fact to face, I am curious as to why you would hold me to a standard of proof that seems to me, on the face of it, to be far higher than that demanded of people in every day life.

I'm not doing any such thing. All I was doing was remarking on your use of "They have not seen Him" as a reflection on our lack of religious experience - why say it unless you have directly seen God yourself?

As for the standard of proof I won't bother setting a high bar when, as I have argued on other threads, it is not possible for an all-powerful God to "exist", as a direct consequence of the meaning of existence in all contexts not relevant to "God".


(He just goes wherever He likes, whenever He likes).

That suggests God has one or more specific locations at any point in time - do you actually believe that?

Spiny Norman
03-05-2007, 04:23 PM
It was a joke Joyce! ;)

Axiom
12-05-2008, 10:10 PM
lets get back to the genesis of religion !

upldiscovered
02-05-2009, 06:17 PM
The GENESIS of religion started at the Tower of Babyl. However the Genesis of worship of God originated the same place the energy of life originated....The true God. Thus why the word Genesis( a word-form manipulated when God "confused" the language of man..into offspring "languages") reads backwards "ASSESS ENERGY". God has been assessing the spiritual energy and vitality( or the lack thereof) of man's perspective religions( communicated via speach..language.). He has made his righteous and judicial decisions and will subsequently remove the shroud of religious confussion.

Rincewind
02-05-2009, 06:27 PM
Thus why the word Genesis( a word-form manipulated when God "confused" the language of man..into offspring "languages") reads backwards "ASSESS ENERGY".

No it doesn't ir reads SISENEG.

SI = Standards Internationale (which the Americans are slowing having to accept)

SEN = ZEN the arm of Buddhism.

IE = Latin "That is".

The conclusion is obvious. Zen Buddhism is to become the new standard religion.


He has made his righteous and judicial decisions and will subsequently remove the shroud of religious confussion.

Let's hope he starts at your place. :)

kjenhager
02-05-2009, 06:59 PM
He has made his righteous and judicial decisions and will subsequently remove the shroud of religious confussion. Or the after effects of the religious con-cuss-ion !