Atheists and Skeptics Have the Truth. Christians Do NOT. (priests, bishop, Catholic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in the case of the available documentation about Jesus and the Apostles and the early church, they are working with VERY thin evidence.
And this fact is why I wrote the TRUTH No 4:
Truth No 4: if God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise. But God left no such compelling evidence. The proof for this fact is truth No 1 above. That would mean the Christian god, if he even exists, doesn't give a tinker's damn whether or not we believe in Jesus.
Doesn't it stand to reason that the Christian god would NEVER have left such "very thin evidence" of Jesus if he had wanted us to believe in Jesus???????
This fact NEVER occurs to Christians or they just push it out of their consciousness because it is too inconvenient a truth.
One then reaches the conclusion through simple logic that the Christian god couldn't have cared LESS whether or not we believe Jesus was real OR his son OR the savior of mankind.
I may be an atheist, but for you to make that claim...now I want some evidence from you.
Okay
Researcher Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, compared belief in God and IQs. Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the average IQ of non-atheists.
Researcher Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, compared belief in God and IQs. Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the average IQ of non-atheists.
Seems to me you're picking and choosing. From the same article, you fail to mention: "...However, other studies have questioned these explanations and correlations and have countered that any correlations are due to a complex range of social, economic, educational and historical factors, which interact with religion and IQ in different ways. Less developed and poorer countries tend to be more religious, perhaps because religions play a more active social, moral and cultural role in those countries."
and
"The Lynn et al. paper findings were discussed by Professor Gordon Lynch, from London's Birkbeck College, who expressed concern that the study failed to take into account a complex range of social, economic and historical factors, each of which has been shown to interact with religion and IQ in different ways. Gallup surveys, for example, have found that the world's poorest countries are consistently the most religious, perhaps because religion plays a more functional role (helping people cope) in poorer nations. Even at the scale of the individual, IQ may not directly cause more disbelief in gods. Dr. David Hardman of London Metropolitan University says: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief." He adds that other studies do nevertheless correlate IQ with being willing or able to question beliefs."
and
"A critical review of the research on intelligence and religiosity by Sickles et al. observed that conclusions vary widely in the literature because most studies use inconsistent and poor measures for both religiosity and intelligence. Furthermore, they noted intelligence differences seen between people of varying religious beliefs and non-theists is most likely the result of educational differences that are in turn the result of holding fundamentalist religious beliefs rather than the result of innate differences in intelligence between them".
Here's the problem, Thrillobyte...all the things that you propose have no more historical evidence than what the christians propose.
I'm glad to argue the OP with anyone, even atheist like myself:
Where specifically do you find me being less than totally honest in my OP--or any post for that matter?
* No historian mentions Jesus, the son of God. TRUTH.
* Two infamous Josephus passages so heavily doctored by Christians that they are worthless as evidence for Jesus' existence. TRUTH
* The gospels were NOT written by any apostles or individuals associated with Jesus. TRUTH.
* if the Christian god had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, he would have left a mountain of evidence proving this. By application of simple logic, TRUTH.
* God, if he exists, does not interfere or participate in human affairs. TRUTH
Lie: Jesus Christ was prophesied in the Old Testament, proving he is the Messiah.
Truth: No he wasn't. The name Jesus or Yeshua never appears in the Old Testament, certainly not as a savior.
By their very nature it would be impossible to apply historical technique to some of these. But those don't rely on history, they rely on simply truth and logic.
The second point about Josephus has plenty of historical references to prove it is true. We have no texts of the Testimonium before Eusebius. The ones that turn up during his time show heavy doctoring and "writing into the margins" things Eusebius wanted the texts to say. This is pretty much beyond question by secular historians.
Good Points. Just because someone "Claims: to "Experience" God is not in any way Proof of the existence of something Divine or Supernatural. Claiming that "traditionally" people have believed in God does NOT in any way make God real or true....What we are talking here is a social myth or a "relative truth" meaning it is true ONLY from the viewpoint of someone who accepts it.
For many of us, we do not believe that a god exists because there is, at the end of the day, no evidence, no measurability, no provability for it. That makes it a popular myth, and saying that something is true does not make it true.
I remember when a theist friend gave me this Josh McDowell book to read. He claimed it would prove to me that God exists. I read it, and all I found were a hundred or so pages of saying "God is real" over and over....as though the author was trying to convince himself that something was real just by repeating it over and over again. I think that Joseph Goebbels was the one who pointed out that if the government could repeat something enough, then people would start to believe it.
Saying something over and over does not make it real or true. It may influence perception and belief. Saying that "Well other people believe it" still does not make it true. People have been wrong before, will be again, and I think the weakest argument is to do something or believe something just because others do.
BUT we as humans are naturally social creatures. We evolved into a tribal community, where tribes banded together for protection, safety, food and to invent myths to explain the world which they cannot understand. Humans like to be part of a group, even if it means adapting unusual beliefs or sharing common misconceptions.
Human nature is always reinforced by rewards/failures. IF a tribe was going hungry, and having trouble gathering food, then someone might point out hat the last time they did a certain dance, the rain fell, so maybe a rain dance would bring back rain and with it, nourishment. (They had not idea of weather patterns, only that something they did appeared to influence the world around them) And at night, these tribesman dreamed sometimes of deceased relatives, or deceased tribal members, and not understanding neurology, they thought they were being contacted by the spirits of dead ancestors. Even Paul fell for that in the Bible when he had a seizure and hallucinated a vision of Jesus talking to him.
Tribesmen may have discovered hallucinogenic substances, like at the Oracle of Delphi, and accepted the altered state and proof or communication with the Supernatural world.
What we have evidence for, and explanation for, is ordinary human behavior trying to control and influence things that humans cannot influence or change, like the weather. Somewhere, God-Worship comes in as it is convenient for humans to create these gods to control these things...Sometimes, as a result of a human sacrifice or petition. It became necessary for tribes to adopt sacrifices, rituals, dogma in an attempt to understand and control these deities, in order to influence natural events in the favor of the particular tribe. Or Family. Or nation. Or church. Or religion.
And we have archeological evidence going back 100,000 years that this existed. And we have no evidence however that the actual god or Deity existed. Lots of evidence that people say "Oh yeah God exists because I say/think/believe/know He does," but they lack any hard evidence of the proof of this. And more often, their behavior has turned people like us away from wanting anything to do with them, and not always because of what they claim to believe, but because of the actions of their group, which often violates human rights and freedoms. Personal experience and personal belief, is not proof of a god, it is proof that the human mind can create and think of ways to describe experiences thoughts and feelings which otherwise cannot be fully understood or articulated.
And this cat likes being free from religion, as I can then go out and explore and learn anything I want, whereas many religious people I know are forbidden by their religion from doing so.
Can I get an AMEN from the peanut gallery?
Amen! None from the Christians will be forthcoming though, Cat.
I think atheists have a problem sometimes separating spiritual from religious.
You can believe in and even experience God/a higher power and not be religious or associated with
any particular religion.
It seems on this forum that atheists always lump everyone not an atheist into the “religious†category. Maybe I’m wrong….
Also, wasn't the OP once Christian? And once he converted from Christianity to atheism, did his IQ suddenly take a leap forward?
I'd also like to see some evidence that Christians don't "read or study."
And that most secular people outside of Christianity would question their ability to even reason and discern.
Since you were once a Christian phet, apparently the OP (having once been a Christian himself) believes that *your* ability to 'read or study', 'reason and discern' would be questioned by most secular people.
Sorry, but I think this thread has devolved close to the point of ridiculous.
You demonstrate my point perfectly about Christians not discerning, Mink. Here's my post. What two words did I use to qualify my statement? Do you see "I think" before the part about Christian's ability to reason and discern? Slipped right past you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
See, this is what I mean about Christians? They simply don't read or study. In fact, I think most secular people outside Christianity would question their ability to even reason and discern. By and large, Christians are lower on the IQ scale than secular non-religious people, that's a fact. They have absolutely no desire to get beyond the propaganda they regularly consume either from the Bible or their pastors and televangelists. Here is TRUTH NO 1 from my OP NO 1 below. And I've stated it more than a dozen times here and elsewhere:
"Truth No 1: there is NO historical evidence for Jesus son of God or the apostles, period. Despite all the lies Christians put forth about there being so much evidence for Jesus in the historical record it is just more lies and half-truths disguised as truth to keep the Big Lie afloat. The truth is there simply is no historical evidence a god man named Jesus as described in the gospels ever lived nor did the 12 men he supposedly gathered around him and walked with them for 3 years before being crucified. NONE of this is supported by historical fact. No historian mentions all the supernatural events that the gospels claim occurred after Christ's supposed crucifixion, even though the Gospels claim Jesus' fame spread far beyond the borders of Israel. There may be a possibility an ordinary man who was a Jewish zealot was crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome but again no historian mentions one."
I'm always careful to distinguish between the Jesus of the Bible AND an ordinary Jesus who was crucified like any criminal who ran afoul of the Romans upon which the Jesus legend Son of God miracles worker savior of the world legend was based upon. I readily acknowledge there may have been an ordinary man who died on a cross, was buried and turned to dust and it was this person or persons upon which the Jesus myth was based.
NO historian outside the biased Christian circle believes the Jesus of the Bible was a real person. WHY? Because NO historian of the period mentions a miracle working Son of God named Jesus.
First of all, I never said it was "in the Bible." It's a saying that's been around for several decades, at least. It's not a saying that *I* made up, and I never said I did. Plus, I'm not Sola Scriptura.
Second, even though those exact words are not in the Bible, the principle certainly is, in a number of places.
Consider how often someone approached Jesus and asked them to do something for them. And Jesus would ask (paraphrasing), "Do you believe I can do this for you?" And once the person said, "Yes", Jesus gave them what they asked for.
Third, I never said that asking for 'proof' was a 'sin'. I understand that other (Christian) folks do that, but *I* don't.
God doesn't want us to believe without seeing proof; He wants us to believe before seeing proof. There's a difference.
Well then why on earth would you say that God says, "Believe and I'll show you"? That's a direct quote and only the Bible can claim to make direct quotes from God, Mink. How could you possibly know God says that? Unless of course you have audible conversations with God and he told you that.
Seems to me you're picking and choosing. From the same article, you fail to mention: "...However, other studies have questioned these explanations and correlations and have countered that any correlations are due to a complex range of social, economic, educational and historical factors, which interact with religion and IQ in different ways. Less developed and poorer countries tend to be more religious, perhaps because religions play a more active social, moral and cultural role in those countries."
and
"The Lynn et al. paper findings were discussed by Professor Gordon Lynch, from London's Birkbeck College, who expressed concern that the study failed to take into account a complex range of social, economic and historical factors, each of which has been shown to interact with religion and IQ in different ways. Gallup surveys, for example, have found that the world's poorest countries are consistently the most religious, perhaps because religion plays a more functional role (helping people cope) in poorer nations. Even at the scale of the individual, IQ may not directly cause more disbelief in gods. Dr. David Hardman of London Metropolitan University says: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief." He adds that other studies do nevertheless correlate IQ with being willing or able to question beliefs."
and
"A critical review of the research on intelligence and religiosity by Sickles et al. observed that conclusions vary widely in the literature because most studies use inconsistent and poor measures for both religiosity and intelligence. Furthermore, they noted intelligence differences seen between people of varying religious beliefs and non-theists is most likely the result of educational differences that are in turn the result of holding fundamentalist religious beliefs rather than the result of innate differences in intelligence between them".
If you want to split hairs on it, okay. But the main finding still holds true or it wouldn't have appeared in bold. I didn't bold that:
Atheists BY AND LARGE have a higher IQ than theists. That's a fact, phet.
I'm glad to argue the OP with anyone, even atheist like myself:
Where specifically do you find me being less than totally honest in my OP--or any post for that matter?
* No historian mentions Jesus, the son of God. TRUTH.
* Two infamous Josephus passages so heavily doctored by Christians that they are worthless as evidence for Jesus' existence. TRUTH
* The gospels were NOT written by any apostles or individuals associated with Jesus. TRUTH.
* if the Christian god had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, he would have left a mountain of evidence proving this. By application of simple logic, TRUTH.
* God, if he exists, does not interfere or participate in human affairs. TRUTH
Lie: Jesus Christ was prophesied in the Old Testament, proving he is the Messiah.
Truth: No he wasn't. The name Jesus or Yeshua never appears in the Old Testament, certainly not as a savior.
By their very nature it would be impossible to apply historical technique to some of these. But those don't rely on history, they rely on simply truth and logic.
The second point about Josephus has plenty of historical references to prove it is true. We have no texts of the Testimonium before Eusebius. The ones that turn up during his time show heavy doctoring and "writing into the margins" things Eusebius wanted the texts to say. This is pretty much beyond question by secular historians.
So where do you find fault with my OP?
I don't feel you present any balance. You show no openmindnedness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
