How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

[Durandal]

Wow, what if you nailed a Mormon girl in a hot tub on Sunday?

[Durandal]

Oh, and the human body is 75% water. Do you become 3/4 of a devil every Sunday?

These people are fucking insane.

[Jonathan]

He hasn't been back since I posted my last rebuttal, except to answer my accusation about his not coming back. More than likely, he's realized he can't answer my points and is desperately running around the library looking for something that can. Never mind that it doesn't even occur to him that the reason he can't answer me is because he's wrong. Really, if he'd just concede the argument I might even be able to convince Wong to remove his Fundie Moron title. But anyway, Justforfun00, don't blame yourself for him running away, I'm the one who did that.

Wishful thinking. I have the books I need and have been compiling my evidence. However, I am a busy person and this discussion is not a high priority. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

[Jonathan]

Hmmm, I wonder where Jonathan went?

Sometimes I think I'm a thread killer. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but when I post something it seems the threads die. LOL.

Don't worry, I'm still here. I've been busy.

[Jonathan]

Your main goal is to get people to stop thinking, and blindly accept the literal truth of "facts" which are both scientifically absurd and self-contradictory.

I must say that it's rather arrogant of you to presume to know what my goals are. I have no desire to stop people thinking. On the contrary, if people came to faith without having thought about it, what value would it have?

Have you managed to convince your professors that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old yet?

Why would I? I don't believe that it is and certainly for scientific purposes, there is know reason to model it as anything other than billions of years old. A stance have repeatedly uttered. Of course, to be aware of this, it would be necessary to read my posts, rather than assuming what is in them and allow for the possibility of different Christians having different opinions, rather than tarring them all with the same hateful ignorant brush. Though of course, if you have read my posts, then there's no need for you to worry about such an accusation, is there?

Or that the Bible represents objective data?

I've discussed it briefly over dinner, but there's never really been time to talk about it properly sadly.

Or are you carefully avoiding those issues in order to avoid being flunked out of the program? It will be hard maintaining that double-life, Jonathan.

I made it quite clear in my application and interview how important my beliefs were to me. Fortunately people here are tolerant enough to think that people here don't discriminate on the bass of belief. Merit and ability are far more important. such a pity the same attitude isn't to be found everywhere in the world, don't you think?

[Jonathan]

Wanna know how I'd do it?

I'd educate the people, and close down religious schools. I would place the emphasis on science, and take religion out of the educational system, every last bit of it.

Make them learn about science and logic? Like they would in Physics? Or Chemistry? Or Mathematics? Or Computer Science? or Biochemistry? You mean like the subjects that most of the Christians I know are studying?

Then, if you want to be fancy about it, I'd ban fundementalism. Anybody caught preaching this bull would be executed right on the spot.

Yawohl, mein Fuhrer!

I honestly see no other way. They won't face up to reality, and they're dragging us and our children and their children along with them in their ride of delusions.

It's true! If you don't follow them, they'll kill you all! Haven't you seen the murderous hordes of Christians prowling the streets, threatening to lynch the atheists? You don;t think they're learning about God's love in church every Sunday do you? No, it's weapons training! Don't go out alone at night. You never know when one of those evil Christians might be lurking!

[Jonathan]

I feel a little better knowing you are much younger than I assumed, and are still going though school. It was so discouraging to think of you as someone finished with academic learning and likely to have no further chance in learning proper logic.

Mind you there is no guarantee you WILL, but at least there's a chance.

I'm quite familiar with logical arguments. So far however, this debate has been the equivalent of me calling a pen blue and being derided for calling ti red.

Suggestion. Print off some of the debates given and show them to some people and get their response.

I already have. You wouldn't like what you have to say.

Preferably people with no clear decision towards atheism or Christianity. Agnostic would be ideal. Don't even bother asking opinions of definite believers because they will likely NOT look at this objectively. Same with atheists, although they would be objective and very likely fair,

That is so sanctimonious. Oh yes, the atheists are perfectly trustworthy, but perish the thought that a Christian might be able to act without bias. You reveal yourself as nothing but a bigot there.

it would be too tempting to say they were being biased.

I find that remark insulting, but not unexpected given the previous ones.

I think it would be good for you to verbalize some of the points flung back and forth here out loud with other people and see if the discussion might bring home some things you have not truly grasped.

I really hate to sound patronizing, but Jonathan, when you have a dozen people or more all agreeing on certain points and just ONE (you) saying otherwise, you really should look at the likelihood of you being the one in error. There's a saying I like that sums it up. "If one man calls you an ass, ignore him. If 10 men call you an ass, buy a saddle".

Funny that so many people on a board like this that would react like this. It's hardly an objective group. There are plenty of people outside of here who agree with me. Your numbers are irrelevant. All that matters is the logic and veracity of arguments. So far, the bulk of comments have been ridiculing arguments I have not made and deriding attitudes I do not have.

I know you think that everyone here is on each other's "side" because we're a big amorphous group of proud atheists.

You're very presumptuous. far too many mistakes have been made already by people who claim to know what I think.

Wrong. I'm not an atheist.

then what, pray tell, are you?

I have not always agreed with some on this board. I read many posts where there have been differences between members of the boards, and some of it is because there ARE Christians here that are still respected because they know what is logical and what is not and are not trying to bend reality to suit an argument.

The same is applicable to me.

Anyhow, I hope you really try to understand the points being made against you and not dismiss them as irrelevant because of SUBJECTIVE reasons. I"m not arguing with you that subjective reality is unimportant, but ANYTIME objective analysis is available to be had, it MUST be deferred to. This is a singularly imperative point that you have to understand for further discussion to be fruitful.

Actually, for further discussion to be useful, people must listen to the arguments I am making, rather than the ones they choose to believe I am making. And they must concede that their viewpoint is no more objective than mine, something people seem rather attached to.

[Darth Wong]

I'm quite familiar with logical arguments. So far however, this debate has been the equivalent of me calling a pen blue and being derided for calling ti red.

Bullshit. You have been saying the Bible is objective evidence rather than subjective hearsay testimony. You start with this premise, you refuse to question it under any circumstances, and you base every one of your arguments upon the assumption that it is true.

Actually, for further discussion to be useful, people must listen to the arguments I am making, rather than the ones they choose to believe I am making. And they must concede that their viewpoint is no more objective than mine, something people seem rather attached to.

Once again, bullshit. People are listening to your arguments, but they dismiss them because an argument is no stronger than its premise, and your premise is that the Bible is objective evidence rather than subjective hearsay testimony. That premise is simply ludicrous by any definition of the term.

[EDIT: by the way, stop selectively responding to the weakest of your opponents' arguments, such as seizing upon anyone who says something really inflammatory and exaggerated about fundies such as "they should all be killed off" and treating it as a serious proposition. That is dishonest rhetorical technique and you know it]

We are more objective than you because we restrict our idea of objective evidence to objective reality, not the ignorant rantings of long-dead self-proclaimed prophets. Your impenetrable Wall of Ignorance is built upon the foundation of confusing the Bible with evidence.

[fennyCWAL]

No, the situtation isn't that bad, but we do have people in power who are fundementalists, people who want to throw out evolution and science from the school system. And they're getting away with it. A whole generation of kids are growing up with a wall of ignorance around them. And fundementalism is spreading, mind you.

People who are clouding the rest of our judgements with their damn preaching, and renouncing science if it so much as infringes on the text of some old book.

We honestly don't need religion in the 21st century.

Now, I'm of course assuming I had absolute power..in which case I'd do alot more than just ban fundementalism.

[Coyote]

Haven't you seen the murderous hordes of Christians prowling the streets, threatening to lynch the atheists? You don;t think they're learning about God's love in church every Sunday do you? No, it's weapons training! Don't go out alone at night. You never know when one of those evil Christians might be lurking!

While I recognize this for the rhetoric that it is, and I myself do not support the idea of banning religion, I cannot refute the amount of bloodshed that has happened as a result of religion. And of religions, it cannot be denied that Christianity in particular has been quite bloodthirsty. Between Insquisitions and Crusades, the amount of vitae poured in the streets by "God-fearing men doing God's work" is a good reason to cast a jaded eye on the intent of the faithful.

While much of today's battles have shifted to the political arena, there are to this day bands of people who intend to wall themselves off from the world and live by strict, militant religious law. From crackpot Christian groups in the Western world, to cave-dwelling Muslims, to dogmatic Hebron settlers in Palestine, religion creates a lot of turbulence where ordinarily there would be none. You cannot wash your hands of that by pretending that this sectarian violence has no bearing on modern society...

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I think it would be good for you to verbalize some of the points flung back and forth here out loud with other people and see if the discussion might bring home some things you have not truly grasped. I really hate to sound patronizing, but Jonathan, when you have a dozen people or more all agreeing on certain points and just ONE (you) saying otherwise, you really should look at the likelihood of you being the one in error. There's a saying I like that sums it up. "If one man calls you an ass, ignore him. If 10 men call you an ass, buy a saddle".

Funny that so many people on a board like this that would react like this. It's hardly an objective group. There are plenty of people outside of here who agree with me. Your numbers are irrelevant. All that matters is the logic and veracity of arguments. So far, the bulk of comments have been ridiculing arguments I have not made and deriding attitudes I do not have

I think its very amusing that you state "All that matters is logic and veracity of arguments" while preceding it by stating "There are plenty of people outside of here who agree with me." I would also insist that you make a logically valid and true argument on why the Bible should be taken as literal objective evidence, since you did state that "logic and veracity of arugments" is the lone matter by which arguments should be judged. I remind you that failure to do so completely destroys any arguments you might make as to the existence of the God by using the Judeo/Christan/Islamic holy books as evidence for your God's existence.

[Justforfun000]

Quote:
Preferably people with no clear decision towards atheism or Christianity. Agnostic would be ideal. Don't even bother asking opinions of definite believers because they will likely NOT look at this objectively. Same with atheists, although they would be objective and very likely fair,


That is so sanctimonious. Oh yes, the atheists are perfectly trustworthy, but perish the thought that a Christian might be able to act without bias. You reveal yourself as nothing but a bigot there.

That does not in any way show me to be a bigot. there is a completely different essence of points of view between people who accept things on faith OVER logic. A definite believer is going to think that logic must be wrong in favour of their belief no matter HOW well presented. So their own belief system precludes them from being objective. Atheists are by and large very rational people that will accept ANY point of view that can be backed up by logic and evidence. Including claims of religion. So it is a perfectly fair statement.

Funny that so many people on a board like this that would react like this. It's hardly an objective group. There are plenty of people outside of here who agree with me. Your numbers are irrelevant. All that matters is the logic and veracity of arguments. So far, the bulk of comments have been ridiculing arguments I have not made and deriding attitudes I do not have.

Oh? Now who's making judgements? Why do you think you have the right to claim people on here are not an objective group? They have shown nothing BUT objectivity. I have already explained how there is still differing viewpoints between members on this board but they still do not reject logic when it is presented to them with a firm backing.

Of COURSE there are many people out there who agree with you. the point is WHY they agree with you. Is it because of sharing the same FAITH or because you proved your views?

As far as ridiculing your arguments, people would not be ABLE to ridicule them if they were intrinsically sound. You repeatedly post premises without foundation and you expect people to accept them as proof. That is why they are being ridiculed. Again, you do not seem to comprehend what constitutes valid proof, or even logical thought in it's entirety.

I know you think that everyone here is on each other's "side" because we're a big amorphous group of proud atheists.


You're very presumptuous. far too many mistakes have been made already by people who claim to know what I think.

You demonstrated that is EXACTLY what you believe by your blanket statement above: "Funny that so many people on a board like this that would react like this. It's hardly an objective group."

How would you take that comment? Looks like you are lumping people together into a catch-all category quite nicely to me.

Quote:
Wrong. I'm not an atheist.


then what, pray tell, are you?

Not that it matters, but I am a believer in the possibility of God. I have ambivalent beliefs on what this concept might entail, but I don't COMPLETELY dismiss any religion, including Christianity. I think there might be at it's ESSENCE something that sparked their creation, and I am open-minded as to what truth might lie within the dogma.

Quote:
I have not always agreed with some on this board. I read many posts where there have been differences between members of the boards, and some of it is because there ARE Christians here that are still respected because they know what is logical and what is not and are not trying to bend reality to suit an argument.


The same is applicable to me.

Well...That may be true for SOME things you have posted. I wouldn't know because I did not read every debate you have been involved in, but from what I HAVE read you are definitely guilty of my last inference regarding many arguments you have posted.

Quote:
Anyhow, I hope you really try to understand the points being made against you and not dismiss them as irrelevant because of SUBJECTIVE reasons. I"m not arguing with you that subjective reality is unimportant, but ANYTIME objective analysis is available to be had, it MUST be deferred to. This is a singularly imperative point that you have to understand for further discussion to be fruitful.


Actually, for further discussion to be useful, people must listen to the arguments I am making, rather than the ones they choose to believe I am making. And they must concede that their viewpoint is no more objective than mine, something people seem rather attached to.

Jonathan. No. Everyone here is listening to you. The problem is you are trying to equate the word listen with "agree". The other problem is that when you are making certain arguments in your favour, you are using both faith-related anecdotes and blanket statements such as the Bible's are backed by more evidence than almost anything in our recorded history. The very vagueness of your claims are why people may be interpreting what you believe by what you are saying. You have to be more cogent and specific in your points to people or they are naturally going to interpret what you say by their understanding of your wording.

And you are deliberately fibbing, albeit probably unintentionally, when you claim that people's viewpoints are not more objective than yours.

You have one big problem with claiming to be objective here. You admit that you believe the bible to be truthful. So anytime there is a conflict between what the Bible says and our known reality, you try to justify it by saying that in some cases it is being poetic or allegorical, and in others it's the fault of translation, and so forth.

This is NOT being objective because YOUR MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP. Don't you see this? You are stating your arguments from the FOREGONE CONCLUSION that the Bible is inerrant. This is why you are not being objective. The people here have said quite fairly that they do NOT deride people for having faith in spiritual matters even though they choose themselves not to believe in the possibility. They only ask that you admit that where objective reasoning is possible, you accept that it is the final say because that is only what is sensible. You could drop apples from a tree all day long telling people below that they aren't really hitting them in the head because you believe that God plucked them from the sky before hitting them, but to everyone ELSE you will look like an idiot because the proof is in what is *drumroll* objectively happening. This may seem like a trite example, but it is still completely applicable to the difference between faith and reality. Some things are unseen and untestable and therefore are fair game for faith and belief. No scientist in the world worth his salt would argue that they have no right to say you are wrong. But anything that CAN be measured and evaluated by our physical universe IS in their bailiwick and their judgements are supreme. For God's sake man, even from your point of view this is the world God made and the universe he set his OWN laws in. Would you say that he is going to deliberately deceive everyone as to the nature of reality?

Or are you carefully avoiding those issues in order to avoid being flunked out of the program? It will be hard maintaining that double-life, Jonathan.


I made it quite clear in my application and interview how important my beliefs were to me. Fortunately people here are tolerant enough to think that people here don't discriminate on the bass of belief. Merit and ability are far more important. such a pity the same attitude isn't to be found everywhere in the world, don't you think?

Just because they accept that you have personal beliefs, don't for a second think that they would allow you to use them as an excuse to say something is the way it is because the Bible says so. Try it and see how quickly they insist you learn what your textbooks say instead.

[data_link]

He hasn't been back since I posted my last rebuttal, except to answer my accusation about his not coming back. More than likely, he's realized he can't answer my points and is desperately running around the library looking for something that can. Never mind that it doesn't even occur to him that the reason he can't answer me is because he's wrong. Really, if he'd just concede the argument I might even be able to convince Wong to remove his Fundie Moron title. But anyway, Justforfun00, don't blame yourself for him running away, I'm the one who did that.

Wishful thinking. I have the books I need and have been compiling my evidence. However, I am a busy person and this discussion is not a high priority. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

Actually it has. After a thourough analysis, I have concluded that the probability of me being wrong is one in 10^40. Now I throw your own question back at you: has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

It has been my experience that whenever a person requires several day to compile his evidence in response to a debate, one of three things is true:

1. Evidence is difficult to find. This may certainly be the case when debating obscure topics. However the current topic of debate is hardly obscure, and even a basic internet search should provide all of the evidence one would need to make a successful argument. It therefore seems improbable that the time since your last reply is due to difficulty finding evidence.

2. The opponent is compiling an overwhelming amount of evidence in order to achieve victory through exaustion. I should hope that you are not dishonest enough to do this, although the possibility has crossed my mind.

3. The opponent has no evidence, and is bluffing. In this case, I would advise my opponent to either put up or shut up. We have no use for dishonest debaters here.

Now in the event that you actually have evidence, I request that you post what you have so far here so that we may examine it. After all, surely in all this time you have at least been able to construct at least a partial rebuttal?

[XPViking]

Coyote,

There are over 150 sects of Mormonism. I'm sure each one has a different take on things.

XPViking

[Darth Wong]

There are over 150 sects of Mormonism. I'm sure each one has a different take on things.

Yes, they have 150 different ways to be wrong.

[data_link]

There are over 150 sects of Mormonism. I'm sure each one has a different take on things.

Yes, they have 150 different ways to be wrong.

LOL.

[XPViking]

I was merely pointing out that there are different sects of Mormonism which might help Coyote understand why Mormons believe in the things they do. Not an endorsement, Mr. Wong, as you seem to be implying.

XPViking

[Justforfun000]

There are over 150 sects of Mormonism. I'm sure each one has a different take on things.

Yes, they have 150 different ways to be wrong.

LOL.

Shit, someone beat me to it.

LOL. Love it.

[Jonathan]

Actually it has. After a thourough analysis, I have concluded that the probability of me being wrong is one in 10^40.

And by what method did you arrive at this conclusion?

Now I throw your own question back at you: has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

It has, however I consider the possibility remote, in the face of the evidence.

It has been my experience that whenever a person requires several day to compile his evidence in response to a debate, one of three things is true:

1. Evidence is difficult to find. This may certainly be the case when debating obscure topics. However the current topic of debate is hardly obscure, and even a basic internet search should provide all of the evidence one would need to make a successful argument. It therefore seems improbable that the time since your last reply is due to difficulty finding evidence.

I have already named one of my sources - 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. An excellent book for anyone looking for details n the subject. It no doubt asks many of the questions you do. I would similarly recommend 'Who Moved the Stone?' by Frank Morison. See if your local library has them.

2. The opponent is compiling an overwhelming amount of evidence in order to achieve victory through exaustion. I should hope that you are not dishonest enough to do this, although the possibility has crossed my mind.

I've already said on several occasions that I am not interested in a victory and certainly not one through exhaustion. If anything, I'm the one in danger of being overwhelmed because there are so many more of you and I've left dozens of posts unanswered because I simply haven't had the time to reply.

3. The opponent has no evidence, and is bluffing. In this case, I would advise my opponent to either put up or shut up. We have no use for dishonest debaters here.

You face a false dilemma. There is a 4th option - your opponent is very busy and simply hasn't had the time to put all the evidence together yet.

Now in the event that you actually have evidence, I request that you post what you have so far here so that we may examine it. After all, surely in all this time you have at least been able to construct at least a partial rebuttal?

Very well, however it is far from complete:





Historical evidence for the Gospels

I'm taking most of this information from 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. Lee Strobel was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune with a Master of Studies in Law degree with Yale Law school. Sceptical of Christianity's claims, he set out to interview world experts on the New Testament, in order to put the arguments to rest, once and for all. The evidence he was presented wit, however, was so compelling that he became a Christian and is now a teaching pastor as Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago.

He asked questions as an intelligent, sceptical atheist and came away an informed, committed Christian.

1) Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted?

Craig L. Bloomberg, PhD, high school valedictorian, National Merit Scholar, magna ccum laude graduate from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, author of 'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'

Uniform testimony of the early church is that Matthew, also called Levi, the tax collector and apostle of Jesus, was the author of the book 'Matthew'. John Mark, companion of the apostle Peter wrote 'Mark'. Luke, Paul's 'beloved physician' write both 'Luke' and 'Acts'. John the apostle, son of Zebedee wrote 'John'.

Would there be reason to lie about authorship? No, because these people, with the exception of John, were not particularly well respected, compared with the alleged authors of the apocryphal gospels - Matthew as a tax collector and the others ere not apostles, therefore there would be no good reason to allege their authorship is it wasn't true.

Papias (AD 125)
Wrote that Mark had carefully and accurately recoded Peter's eyewitness observations. Mark 'made no mistakes' and did not include 'any false statement'. It is also recorded that Mark had preserved the teachings of Jesus.

Irenaeus (AD 180) 'Adversus haereses'
'Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching, Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living in Ephesus in Asia.'

Standard scholarly dating of Gospels
Mark - 70s
Matthew and Luke - 80s
John - 90s
This is within the lifetime of eyewitness of the events of the 30s. Including hostile eyewitnesses who could have disputed the details and discredited Christianity of the Gospels were false. Compare with two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great - written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 BC, yet still considered accurate by Historians. Legendary material did no develop for another two centuries. The time gap between Jesus' ministry and the writing of the Gospels as books is a noon-issue.

Book of Acts finishes with Paul still alive and awaiting trial, suggesting that it was written no later than 62 AD. Acts is a the second book of a duology that starts with Luke, requiring that Luke be written before 62 AD. This moves the gap down to 20-30 years between ministry and writing. Some material in Luke may have been drawn from Mark, requiring that Mark be written earlier, making it more reliable still.

More likely dating:
Mark - 50s
Luke - late 50s/early 60s
Matthew - 60s-80s
John - 90s

Gospels were written after most of the epistles - Paul's writing ministry began in the 40s , with most of the major letters written in the 50s. Paul has incorporated creeds, hymns, confessions of faith fro the early church in his letters. If we take the Crucifixion to have been AD 30, Paul's conversion was about AD 32, two years later. He travelled to Jerusalem to meet the apostles three years later in AD 35. Tat puts the time between Jesus' death and the creeds being formed at less than 5 years - that's compared with more than 400 for Alexander the Great, which is still considered reliable. The doctrines of Christian belief can not be disregarded on the basis of time. There simply wasn't enough for any sort of mythology to spring up.

1 Corinthians 15:
'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.'

Christians believed from a very early time that Jesus died to save us from our sins, that he rose on the third day and that he appeared to hundreds of people.

2) Do the biographies of Jesus stand up to close scrutiny?

2.1) Intention test

Were the authors of the Gospels interested in recording the facts? Luke reads much like the preface to other generally trusted historical and biographical works of antiquity.
'Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, my most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of these things you have been taught.'

John 23:31:
'These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'

Sounds more like a theological statement than a historical one, however in order for people to be convinced, the theology must stem from accurate history.

Gospels are written in a sober and responsible manner, rather than with the extravagant flourishes and blatant mythologising encountered in other ancient writings, suggesting that accurate record of what happened was important.

2.2) Intention test

Rabbis of the time were famous for committing the entire OT to memory. Vast majority of teaching was oral due to lack of books/scrolls. People were generally better at committing things to memory and accurately recalling them due to lack of hardcopy storage means. Recording the details of the Gospels to memory would have been relatively simple, compared to the OT, especially since 80-90% of Jesus' teachings were in poetic form - had meter, balanced lines, parallelism, etc. The community would rapidly have pointed out flaws in a person's retelling of the Gospel, if it differed from what happened.

2.3) Character test

No reason to believe that the authors were anything other than men of great integrity. There has been no slurring of their names and their willingness to risk their life for the Gospels suggests that they strongly believed that what they were saying was true.

2.4) Consistency test

If Gospels were identical to each other word-for-word, they would have no value as independent witnesses. Most differences can be accounted for my paraphrase, emphasis on different details by different authors, explanatory additions, selection of incidents to recount.

Simon Greeenleaf of Harvard Law School:
'There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.'

Hans Stier, classical historian:
'Every historian is especially sceptical at that moment when an extraordinary happening is only reported in accounts which are completely free of contradictions.'

e.g. discrepancies in genealogies in Matthew in Luke:
plausible explanations:
Matthew reflects Joseph's lineage, Luke reflects Mary's.
Matthew reflects Joseph's legal lineage, Luke his human lineage.
Some names are omitted - perfectly acceptable by the standards of the ancient world.
Textual variants - names being translated differently, spelt differently, etc.

2.5) Bias test

Disciples had nothing to gain from their writings, except criticism, ostracism and martyrdom. Certainly had nothing to win financially. If anything, they were under pressure to keep quiet and deny Jesus. The fact that they willingly suffered and died for what they believed strongly suggests they believed it honestly and were men of integrity.

2.6) The cover-up test

Hard to trust a witness of they conveniently forget embarrassing or hard to explain details. More believable if such details are recounted. Plenty of passages in the Gospels that ask awkward questions. The 12 apostles are portrayed in a very unflattering light. Would have been potentially embarrassing for them.

2.7) Corroboration test

Do the places/people mentioned in the Gospels have any mention in other historical sources? See later.

2. Adverse witness test

Where there people around who could have disputed the Gospels? Yes - Christianity took root in Jerusalem, where the authorities would have been quite happy to disprove the resurrection if they could have, or disputed the recorded sayings of Jesus, offered alternative recollections of events. The Gospel survived unaltered, however.

[Darth Wong]

Worthless bullshit, Johnny. They are basically saying that they can't think of a reason why the disciples would lie or distort the truth. Ergo, they conclude that the disciples must have been tellling the truth. This is an absolutely horrendous fallacy of syllogism ("we can't personally see why A is true, so B must be true").

Moreover, even if they were telling the truth as they believed it, this hardly validates literalism. At best, the Bible is hearsay testimony from ignoramuses. At worst, it is pure bullshit.

[Jonathan]

Bullshit. You have been saying the Bible is objective evidence rather than subjective hearsay testimony. You start with this premise, you refuse to question it under any circumstances, and you base every one of your arguments upon the assumption that it is true.

And that's a blatant lie. I do not see how it is possible to be a simple misunderstanding as I have repeatedly told you of your error on this point. Yes, I believe the bible to be objective evidence because I believe it to be the word of God and that there is no more objective source than God. However, I do not start with 'it is the word of God' as my premise. I use the evidence of history, which I have posted in part, and the evidence of my own experiences, which are of course not admissible by your standards.

Once again, bullshit. People are listening to your arguments, but they dismiss them because an argument is no stronger than its premise, and your premise is that the Bible is objective evidence rather than subjective hearsay testimony. That premise is simply ludicrous by any definition of the term.

See above. You are obviously not listening to my arguments, since you don't seem to know what they actually are.

[EDIT: by the way, stop selectively responding to the weakest of your opponents' arguments,

Care to point out a stronger argument in that post which I ignored in favour of a so called weaker one? Or is this just rhetoric?

such as seizing upon anyone who says something really inflammatory and exaggerated about fundies such as "they should all be killed off" and treating it as a serious proposition. That is dishonest rhetorical technique and you know it]

You're a hypocrite and liar for that. I have been seized upon for saying mush less inflammatory things by people here. And you failed to show which arguments I was ignoring. It's easy to make a claim, harder to back it up. Especially if it has no merit.

We are more objective than you because we restrict our idea of objective evidence to objective reality, not the ignorant rantings of long-dead self-proclaimed prophets. Your impenetrable Wall of Ignorance is built upon the foundation of confusing the Bible with evidence.

It is your opinion that the bible is not a valid source of evidence. I believe that the available historical evidence supports the Bible and it is therefore a suitable source of data. You dismiss it without thought and refuse to accept that your opinion is just that - an opinion, which is no more objective than mine. If anything, it is less so, since you say it is impossible to trust the Bible - you say that as if it were an objective fact, rather than a subjective opinion.

[Jonathan]

We honestly don't need religion in the 21st century.

Do you say that as opinion, or as fact?

[Vympel]

Historicity of the Bible?

Let's take the book of Matthew: Herod's slaughter. Not mentioned by any other Gosepl writer, not mentioned in any contemporary historical work, and not mentioned in Josephus, who examined Herod's life IN DETAIL. You'd think the slaughter of children would be at least MENTIONED in historical texts.

One of your Gospel writers is an out and out liar. There's your historical accuracy for you.

[Jonathan]

While I recognize this for the rhetoric that it is, and I myself do not support the idea of banning religion, I cannot refute the amount of bloodshed that has happened as a result of religion. And of religions, it cannot be denied that Christianity in particular has been quite bloodthirsty. Between Insquisitions and Crusades, the amount of vitae poured in the streets by "God-fearing men doing God's work" is a good reason to cast a jaded eye on the intent of the faithful.

It can, has been and will be denied. There is a difference between what Christianity and says and what Christians do. All too often, the things have been rather orthogonal. If an atheist murdered a Christan for he beliefs, would all atheists stand condemned as bloodthirsty? Or atheism itself? Only if atheism preached that Christians should be killed. Christianity says 'go and make disciples of all nations', rather than kill them. It says 'love thy neighbour', not hate him. It says to repay hatred with kindness, to serve rather than seek to command, to offer ourselves humbly, rather than dictate with pride. Do not condemn Christianity for Christians being cretins.

While much of today's battles have shifted to the political arena, there are to this day bands of people who intend to wall themselves off from the world and live by strict, militant religious law.

The exact thing that Christianity frees us from. The message of the gospels is that we can not be saved by the law, but we must instead reply on God's grace. It condemns legalism and encourages love. Jesus spent a lot of time partying with sinners, telling them of the love and forgiveness he was brining over a good meal. the first thing he did after getting the disciples together was to go a wedding - not to preach, or show off his power, or gather more disciples, but simply because he was invited. He was a fun guy to be around and people liked having him at parties. Sadly we do a pretty poor job of imitating him n that regard these days. by contrast, he was despised by the Pharisees because he ignored their additions to the law, spent his time with sinners, who they considered unworthy and because he liked to party.

From crackpot Christian groups in the Western world, to cave-dwelling Muslims, to dogmatic Hebron settlers in Palestine, religion creates a lot of turbulence where ordinarily there would be none. You cannot wash your hands of that by pretending that this sectarian violence has no bearing on modern society...

I would agree that sectarian violence causes a lot of problems - I live in Northern Ireland (well, between university terms). However, such violence is in direct contradiction with the message of the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 speaks out specifically against divisions.

Just because Christians suck doesn't mean that Christianity does

[Vympel]

Oh, and citing someone from the "Trinity Evangelical College" or whatever the fuck it was as an authority was most amusing ...

The fact is we don't know who wrote the Bible- fundie proclamations to the contrary mean sweet fuck all. If Matthew (the tax collector also known as Levi blah blah) wrote the book of Matthew- why does he borrow so much material from Mark- who wasn't even an apostle? Mark was an associate of Paul for a time. The notion that Matthew would have to borrow from Mark is amazing in its stupidity.