Can We Have A New Section.....
Editor's Blog1 min ago
Why Should God Appear/exist At All?
217 Answers
I asked this in naomi's 'Atheist Authors' thread, below, in response to khandro's query.
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad -
I stated re-writing (as I stupidly failed to save my text) my rebuttal to your post of 00:44 Wed 23rd Sep 2015 but I've lost the will.
I can clearly see from your posts that you take a great deal of time and effort to research your arguments and present your case. I applaud this approach from the bottom of my heart. I may not often agree with what you say, but no one can accuse you of not researching your subject. Like you, I do lots of research before posting. From your previous post, I investigated your sources and read other material written by them including those who have published rebuttals of their claims. Personally, I found your argument wanting and I explained at length why I felt that way. My reply to you took me about two hours to formulate.
But my post was removed by the AB mods. Quite why, I don't know. It was cutting - as is my style - but it contained no insults to your personally. And now I'm sick to the back teeth of this kind of censorship. If the powers that be at AB can and do arbitrarily remove posts without any explanation or justification, even when they haven't broken any house rules, then quite frankly, I'm finished with this site.
I stated re-writing (as I stupidly failed to save my text) my rebuttal to your post of 00:44 Wed 23rd Sep 2015 but I've lost the will.
I can clearly see from your posts that you take a great deal of time and effort to research your arguments and present your case. I applaud this approach from the bottom of my heart. I may not often agree with what you say, but no one can accuse you of not researching your subject. Like you, I do lots of research before posting. From your previous post, I investigated your sources and read other material written by them including those who have published rebuttals of their claims. Personally, I found your argument wanting and I explained at length why I felt that way. My reply to you took me about two hours to formulate.
But my post was removed by the AB mods. Quite why, I don't know. It was cutting - as is my style - but it contained no insults to your personally. And now I'm sick to the back teeth of this kind of censorship. If the powers that be at AB can and do arbitrarily remove posts without any explanation or justification, even when they haven't broken any house rules, then quite frankly, I'm finished with this site.
Hypognosis , //Actually, stood on the sidelines and equally ignorant of the contradictions you were hinting at, it was equally frustrating that you were avoiding going into details. Your last two posts are thus very handy. Thank you.//
So sorry for the oversight – I didn’t realise other people wanted evidence. You say “equally ignorant” but I can’t believe that Clanad, with his apparent in depth knowledge of the bible, is ignorant of these discrepancies, so even if time had permitted me to type it all out, inclination did not. Fortunately someone else had taken the trouble to do it and I found that on the internet.
//Was there a school of thought which holds that contradictions prove the existence of multiple witnesses?//
Some claim that – but it doesn’t necessarily follow, and in this instance it would be ludicrous to believe that. This episode is fundamental to the very existence of Christianity and I think it demonstrates clearly that these accounts were cobbled together long after the alleged event, as they were, by people who weren’t there.
So sorry for the oversight – I didn’t realise other people wanted evidence. You say “equally ignorant” but I can’t believe that Clanad, with his apparent in depth knowledge of the bible, is ignorant of these discrepancies, so even if time had permitted me to type it all out, inclination did not. Fortunately someone else had taken the trouble to do it and I found that on the internet.
//Was there a school of thought which holds that contradictions prove the existence of multiple witnesses?//
Some claim that – but it doesn’t necessarily follow, and in this instance it would be ludicrous to believe that. This episode is fundamental to the very existence of Christianity and I think it demonstrates clearly that these accounts were cobbled together long after the alleged event, as they were, by people who weren’t there.
Birdie, don’t let it get to you. People get precious about religion and, sad to say, overly enthusiastic censorship by those with scant knowledge of the subject has lost this section too many ‘brains’ already. I had a perfectly legitimate post removed because both the Christian who complained and the ‘zapper’ who did the deed weren’t aware that it was factual. I repeated it and provided evidence in a subsequent post.
-- answer removed --
Naomi -
Thanks. You're right of course. It's just so frustrating to have a post removed that you've spent the last couple of hours researching. That's why I'm asking for a "sin-bin" arrangement but I can't see this happening any time soon, if ever. It's a request born of frustration :-(
"... overly enthusiastic censorship by those with scant knowledge of the subject has lost this section too many ‘brains’ already..."
Now that's true. There were some absolutely fantastic contributors to this site a few years ago that you and I both know abandoned it due to the aforementioned "overly enthusiastic censorship". Such a shame.
Thanks. You're right of course. It's just so frustrating to have a post removed that you've spent the last couple of hours researching. That's why I'm asking for a "sin-bin" arrangement but I can't see this happening any time soon, if ever. It's a request born of frustration :-(
"... overly enthusiastic censorship by those with scant knowledge of the subject has lost this section too many ‘brains’ already..."
Now that's true. There were some absolutely fantastic contributors to this site a few years ago that you and I both know abandoned it due to the aforementioned "overly enthusiastic censorship". Such a shame.
@naomi
//I've no doubt that Clanad was perfectly aware of the contradictions even if other people weren't.//
Oh, I dunno. Call me inattentive or call it srlective attention but I have a habit of locking onto core meaning and glossing over peripheral detail. Headline is that a dead guy comes to life, moves a rock that took a team to roll into place *from the inside of the cave*, goes for a walk, meets up with pals, gets beamed up to the mothership. Which witness saw what, where and what time is detail which goes in one ear and out the other. Therefore, I find it easier to forgive believers who have similar problems noticing the discrepancies.
When you hear a cover version of a song, you notice stylistic differences straight away. About one cover version in a hundred is actually better sounding than the original but that is personal preference for you. Setting out the texts side by side, like that, is an *exercise* and you need some kind of motivation to go to that kind of effort. Thus, I can understand why a fellow atheist might want to try it but I can't imagine why Clanad would ever bother.
//I've no doubt that Clanad was perfectly aware of the contradictions even if other people weren't.//
Oh, I dunno. Call me inattentive or call it srlective attention but I have a habit of locking onto core meaning and glossing over peripheral detail. Headline is that a dead guy comes to life, moves a rock that took a team to roll into place *from the inside of the cave*, goes for a walk, meets up with pals, gets beamed up to the mothership. Which witness saw what, where and what time is detail which goes in one ear and out the other. Therefore, I find it easier to forgive believers who have similar problems noticing the discrepancies.
When you hear a cover version of a song, you notice stylistic differences straight away. About one cover version in a hundred is actually better sounding than the original but that is personal preference for you. Setting out the texts side by side, like that, is an *exercise* and you need some kind of motivation to go to that kind of effort. Thus, I can understand why a fellow atheist might want to try it but I can't imagine why Clanad would ever bother.
Ho, Hum… as you've already fessed up, naomi, to copy and pasting a lengthy (thereby evocative?) list of supposed contradictions, I won't mention that a very quick query pinpoints at least a dozen sources. The fact is these are a compilation of contradictions that have accumulated for, in some cases, centuries… but… each one has been directly answered multiple times and you can just as easily find those responses since you are adept at perusing "lists".
Fact is, you say "...This episode is fundamental to the very existence of Christianity and I think it demonstrates clearly that these accounts were cobbled together long after the alleged event, as they were, by people who weren’t there…" yet Christianity has continued to flourish and grow. Additionally, world renown scholars of either side have studied the writings and one thing often agreed upon is that they carry the weight of honesty and straightforwardness.
For example, there are words or word groupings that come into favor and use (just as they do today) and then disappear. But the Old and New Covenant contain such words and that alone accurately dates many of the writings.
Hypognosis says "...moves a rock that took a team to roll into place *from the inside of the cave*…" yet Scripture clearly states in Mark 16:4 his use of the Greek word "apokekuvlistai" to describe the casualness of the movement stone that had covered the entrance to Yeshua's tomb. Meaning, a stone so large that, according to a footnote found in the Bezae Manuscripts in your own Cambridge Library that ‘And when He was laid there, he (Joseph) put against the tomb a stone which 20 men could not roll away.’ Interestingly enough, John uses a different Greek word (hrmevnon) in John 20:1. This word means “to pick something up and carry it away." This discussion is important in the overall description by men that were either eyewitnesses (John) or interviewed eyewitnesses (the women) that focused on the apparent flinging of the stone as though is were a pebble.
Look… do I think for a moment that presenting historically reliable data agreed upon by many scholars that really don't "have a dog in the hunt" (to use a phrase often used here in the U.S.) will have any affect on the "usual suspects" views… no, of course not. But in Naomi's case I find it somewhat comical that her professed belief that the planet Earth was populated by space travelers eons in the past raises nary an eyebrow… regardless of the scientific evidence of such a possibility.
One more brief story illustrating the profound use of language in Scripture… The use of the Greek word anthrakia is among one of the most moving anologies used to describe a profound set of moments in Peter's life… both illustrating the profound love of Ha Massiach … the first is on the night of Peter's denial of Yeshua in front of Annias' house… the young girls accusation that Peter was a follower occurred as he stood by a charcoal fire used by the common people to warn themselves. This type of fire has a distinct odor and warmth unlike flame type fires… the second (and only times) the word is used in all of Scripture occurs later in John when he describes Peter returning from fishing only to see The Lord preparing breakfast on the beach… in the first occasion, in front of the fire, Peter deny's Yeshua 3 times, but in the second occasion Peter affirms his love for Yeshua 3 times. In each case the writer has made a seemingly small but detailed use of a specific word describing a charcoal fire that would have pierced Peter's soul on the second time on the beach… same smell and warmth that would have certainly brought to Peter's mind his betrayal…
This is not small thing in determining the accuracy and timeliness of John's narrative… say what you want… millions have reached the same conclusion. The fact that you haven't does not negate the first…
Fact is, you say "...This episode is fundamental to the very existence of Christianity and I think it demonstrates clearly that these accounts were cobbled together long after the alleged event, as they were, by people who weren’t there…" yet Christianity has continued to flourish and grow. Additionally, world renown scholars of either side have studied the writings and one thing often agreed upon is that they carry the weight of honesty and straightforwardness.
For example, there are words or word groupings that come into favor and use (just as they do today) and then disappear. But the Old and New Covenant contain such words and that alone accurately dates many of the writings.
Hypognosis says "...moves a rock that took a team to roll into place *from the inside of the cave*…" yet Scripture clearly states in Mark 16:4 his use of the Greek word "apokekuvlistai" to describe the casualness of the movement stone that had covered the entrance to Yeshua's tomb. Meaning, a stone so large that, according to a footnote found in the Bezae Manuscripts in your own Cambridge Library that ‘And when He was laid there, he (Joseph) put against the tomb a stone which 20 men could not roll away.’ Interestingly enough, John uses a different Greek word (hrmevnon) in John 20:1. This word means “to pick something up and carry it away." This discussion is important in the overall description by men that were either eyewitnesses (John) or interviewed eyewitnesses (the women) that focused on the apparent flinging of the stone as though is were a pebble.
Look… do I think for a moment that presenting historically reliable data agreed upon by many scholars that really don't "have a dog in the hunt" (to use a phrase often used here in the U.S.) will have any affect on the "usual suspects" views… no, of course not. But in Naomi's case I find it somewhat comical that her professed belief that the planet Earth was populated by space travelers eons in the past raises nary an eyebrow… regardless of the scientific evidence of such a possibility.
One more brief story illustrating the profound use of language in Scripture… The use of the Greek word anthrakia is among one of the most moving anologies used to describe a profound set of moments in Peter's life… both illustrating the profound love of Ha Massiach … the first is on the night of Peter's denial of Yeshua in front of Annias' house… the young girls accusation that Peter was a follower occurred as he stood by a charcoal fire used by the common people to warn themselves. This type of fire has a distinct odor and warmth unlike flame type fires… the second (and only times) the word is used in all of Scripture occurs later in John when he describes Peter returning from fishing only to see The Lord preparing breakfast on the beach… in the first occasion, in front of the fire, Peter deny's Yeshua 3 times, but in the second occasion Peter affirms his love for Yeshua 3 times. In each case the writer has made a seemingly small but detailed use of a specific word describing a charcoal fire that would have pierced Peter's soul on the second time on the beach… same smell and warmth that would have certainly brought to Peter's mind his betrayal…
This is not small thing in determining the accuracy and timeliness of John's narrative… say what you want… millions have reached the same conclusion. The fact that you haven't does not negate the first…
Correction ^^^ '...regardless of the lack of scientific evidence of such a possibility.
Lastly, WHERE'S THE BODY? Yes, capitals… let's add your evidence for what became of Yeshua's body… All that the Jews or Romans had to do to squelch the growing religion's progress would have been to present the body… no? Why didn't they?
Lastly, WHERE'S THE BODY? Yes, capitals… let's add your evidence for what became of Yeshua's body… All that the Jews or Romans had to do to squelch the growing religion's progress would have been to present the body… no? Why didn't they?
Clanad, //as you've already fessed up, naomi…,//
Grasping at straws in an effort to undermine the opponent is to be expected from you, Clanad. ‘Fessed up’ suggests attempted deceit. There is none. I said at the very beginning that the list I posted was copied and pasted from the internet.
//….to copy and pasting a lengthy (thereby evocative?)….//
Because the information is copied and pasted it is ‘evocative’? That makes no sense.
//…. list of supposed contradictions…//
They’re not ‘supposed’. They are there.
//each one has been directly answered multiple times //
Indeed - in a similar manner to that in which Islamic scholars claim to have discovered astonishing and hitherto unknown scientific ‘facts’ within the Koran. Like them, you and your ‘scholars’ see what it suits you to see.
//Lastly, WHERE'S THE BODY? Yes, capitals…
Capitals, eh? Gosh, serious stuff! There are a couple of potential answers that are rather more sensible than the explanation from some of his biographers that Jesus eventually took off into the sky under his own steam. Firstly, there is no firm evidence to suggest that Jesus existed at all – hence no body – but we’ll skip over that bit. Secondly, it’s quite feasible that Jesus survived what was arguably the quickest crucifixion in history and, as a convicted political agitator with legs conveniently left unbroken by his ‘executioners’, subsequently fled, never to be seen again – at least in that area of the world. There is a tomb in India that is reputed to be his final resting place.
//All that the Jews or Romans had to do to squelch the growing religion's progress would have been to present the body… no? Why didn't they?//
No. Apart from the distinct probability that there was no growing religion at that time – Jesus and his followers were Jews - the ‘growing religion’ came rather later - how could the Jews and Romans present the body? According to the gospels neither the Jews nor the Romans were in possession of the body. It was handed over to Jesus’ friends.
//But in Naomi's case I find it somewhat comical that her professed belief that the planet Earth was populated by space travelers eons in the past//
I don’t believe that, but spiteful derision in the midst of a serious conversation serves only to expose the gaping insecurity in your flimsy armour, Clanad so if you want to be taken seriously it's probably wiser not to do it.
As unsavoury as the truth might be to you, the bible is contradictory. Therefore until such time as evidence to the contrary is produced none of it can be considered 'gospel'.
Grasping at straws in an effort to undermine the opponent is to be expected from you, Clanad. ‘Fessed up’ suggests attempted deceit. There is none. I said at the very beginning that the list I posted was copied and pasted from the internet.
//….to copy and pasting a lengthy (thereby evocative?)….//
Because the information is copied and pasted it is ‘evocative’? That makes no sense.
//…. list of supposed contradictions…//
They’re not ‘supposed’. They are there.
//each one has been directly answered multiple times //
Indeed - in a similar manner to that in which Islamic scholars claim to have discovered astonishing and hitherto unknown scientific ‘facts’ within the Koran. Like them, you and your ‘scholars’ see what it suits you to see.
//Lastly, WHERE'S THE BODY? Yes, capitals…
Capitals, eh? Gosh, serious stuff! There are a couple of potential answers that are rather more sensible than the explanation from some of his biographers that Jesus eventually took off into the sky under his own steam. Firstly, there is no firm evidence to suggest that Jesus existed at all – hence no body – but we’ll skip over that bit. Secondly, it’s quite feasible that Jesus survived what was arguably the quickest crucifixion in history and, as a convicted political agitator with legs conveniently left unbroken by his ‘executioners’, subsequently fled, never to be seen again – at least in that area of the world. There is a tomb in India that is reputed to be his final resting place.
//All that the Jews or Romans had to do to squelch the growing religion's progress would have been to present the body… no? Why didn't they?//
No. Apart from the distinct probability that there was no growing religion at that time – Jesus and his followers were Jews - the ‘growing religion’ came rather later - how could the Jews and Romans present the body? According to the gospels neither the Jews nor the Romans were in possession of the body. It was handed over to Jesus’ friends.
//But in Naomi's case I find it somewhat comical that her professed belief that the planet Earth was populated by space travelers eons in the past//
I don’t believe that, but spiteful derision in the midst of a serious conversation serves only to expose the gaping insecurity in your flimsy armour, Clanad so if you want to be taken seriously it's probably wiser not to do it.
As unsavoury as the truth might be to you, the bible is contradictory. Therefore until such time as evidence to the contrary is produced none of it can be considered 'gospel'.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Would You Transgress To Assist An...
Motoring5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.