Religion, stupidity, and throats!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Mortai Gravesend:
Considering there is no evidence of who is right morally in regards to something it's pretty ridiculous to say "we got the evidence on our side". Morality isn't something that you put in terms of evidence. That slavery is evil has no evidence because quite simply morality isn't something based on evidence.

I meant the creation of the universe, evolution and the origin of life. When religion is wrong on all those accounts, why bother with the rest. There is nothing in those books that is actually useful. Not for people who can think for them selves.

keiskay:
so by your logic we cant prove that any form of music existed before 3400bc since we have not found any other pieces of music older then that.

No?

keiskay:
or that there were any cultures or civiliztaions before 115000 bc since there is no recorded proof of anything before then.

No?

keiskay:
the old testament was written during the dark ages when recorded history wasnt really done, we have other documents simillar to it like the illiad by homer (which was proven to be semi-true due to the finding of a city in the area troy was supposed to be).

Um, also No?

keiskay:
there have been no archaeological foundings that have yet to prove the bible false.

You don't have to prove things FALSE. You have to demonstrate them TRUE. Burden of evidence.

keiskay:
there are also secualr histories of people mentioned in the bible as well, such as gallio, sergio pallus, herod the great and king agrippa, heck the ancient elba tablets mentioned the cities of sodom and gomorah.

And Barack Obama appeared in Spider-man comics. That doesn't mean SPIDER-MAN is real.

If I tell you I have a dog in my garage, you may believe me, you may not, but it's a fairly mundane claim. People commonly own dogs as house pets, people have garages, this is not an unusual claim, and it is of little global importance. The standard of evidence you would employ with regard to the claim is very low. You could probably accept it out of hand. If I showed you that I had a dog leash in my car, and a receipt for dog food in my wallet, you'd probably accept the claim as true.

If I told you I had a dragon in my garage, that claim is extraordinary. The level of evidence necessary to demonstrate the claim true is much higher, and the claim is of substantial importance. No one has ever seen a dragon before. It would be a new species. Dragons aren't kept as house pets. Discovery of a dragon would overturn whole fields of science. If I showed you a "dragon leash" in my car, and a receipt for "dragon food" in my wallet, you would probably think I was pranking you, and would demand to see the dragon itself, before you believed I could possibly have one in my garage. If I didn't show you the dragon, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to dismiss my claim as not true, and insufficiently supported by the evidence.

We know that humans are capable of making music. We have anthropological evidence of music arising in cultures with no written language. We know that it is common among our species to produce music. We have archaeological evidence of simple instruments dating back thousands of years. Whether or not we have located pieces of music older than 3500BC, the claim that "music existed prior to 3500BC" is mundane, and we have sufficient evidence to suggest that music at least probably did exist prior to the earliest piece we have discovered.

If, however, you wanted to claim that Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 21 existed prior to 3500BC, though - now you're going to have to supply substantial evidence to support the claim, as it is extraordinary. The claim indicates that not only was the concerto around prior to the life of the person who wrote it by 4000 years (give or take) it also pre-dates the instrument for which it was written by the same expanse of time.

the specificity and fantasticality of the claim are important when it comes to determining whether something is likely to be true.

Humans form societies, and societies form cultures. This is a mundane claim. So is the claim that societies and cultures existed prior to the earliest one we have on record. It's probably true. Not DEFINITELY true, but probably true.

what you seem to be failing to grasp is that I don't deny that some parts of the bible are historically accurate to at least some degree.

Egypt is a real place. Lots of men named Yeshua lived in that region around the time of Jesus' supposed life. But none of this indicates that the specific events and people described by the bible all occurred or existed, respectively. This is doubly true of the supernatural claims made by the bible, with are extremely extraordinary in nature and should require TREMENDOUS evidence for acceptance as truth.

Did a guy named Jesus exist? Probably. Did he wander the middle-east, with a small group of followers. Maybe. Was he the son of "god" and a performer of miracles? Very unlikely.

keiskay:
but your going to ignore all that secualr evidence like most antitheist do.

No, I'm not. I'm going to acknowledge that the parts of the bible with non-biblical support are details that were likely taken from reality. Many of the places named are real places. Many of the people named are real people. But just like Obama and New York being featured in Spider-man comics doesn't indicate that spider-man is a real super hero with spider-powers, the factual existence of Herod and Jerusalem do not indicate that Jesus Christ walked on water and restored sight to the blind.

See Spot Run:
No, I'm not. I'm going to acknowledge that the parts of the bible with non-biblical support are details that were likely taken from reality. Many of the places named are real places. Many of the people named are real people. But just like Obama and New York being featured in Spider-man comics doesn't indicate that spider-man is a real super hero with spider-powers, the factual existence of Herod and Jerusalem do not indicate that Jesus Christ walked on water and restored sight to the blind.

Seconded.

The Spiderman fallacy is all about sneaking the subset of extraordinary claims of a system of claims in under the radar by showing the ordinary ones to be valid.

See Spot Run:

sharks9:

But you're treating the whole Bible as one document, which it's really not. It's a collection of documents. Take the Gospels for instance, you have 4 different writers writing at 4 different times. Now I know they don't agree on everything, but wouldn't you accept the fact that Jesus existed based on the fact you have 4 different documents supporting this fact?

Not per se, no, considering they were each written long after the supposed death of Christ, and likely by people who were not actually around to withness his life, given the time frames and life expectancies involved.

But I'm willing to accept that elements of the bible are true. New York city exists, too. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't take that to mean that the whole of the book is true on it's face. This is ESPECIALLY true of those parts for which we cannot produce extra-biblical evidence.

They weren't written too long after after his death, 40-60 years approximately. Not to mention several of the disciples were still alive around that time. That's better than other historical figures.

No, but the more places and people we can confirm are true, the more likely things such as Jesus' teachings are true.

sharks9:
They weren't written too long after after his death, 40-60 years approximately. Not to mention several of the disciples were still alive around that time. That's better than other historical figures.

I'd like some evidence of that, if you don't mind.

sharks9:
No, but the more places and people we can confirm are true, the more likely things such as Jesus' teachings are true.

Actually, no. Just as the likelihood of spider-man existing isn't increased by him swinging around in New York.

keiskay:
[quote="See Spot Run" post="528.337722.13658147"][quote="sharks9" post="528.337722.13658104"]so by your logic we cant prove that any form of music existed before 3400bc since we have not found any other pieces of music older then that. or that there were any cultures or civiliztaions before 115000 bc since there is no recorded proof of anything before then. the old testament was written during the dark ages when recorded history wasnt really done, we have other documents simillar to it like the illiad by homer (which was proven to be semi-true due to the finding of a city in the area troy was supposed to be). there have been no archaeological foundings that have yet to prove the bible false. there are also secualr histories of people mentioned in the bible as well, such as gallio, sergio pallus, herod the great and king agrippa, heck the ancient elba tablets mentioned the cities of sodom and gomorah. but your going to ignore all that secualr evidence like most antitheist do.

I'd really like to know how you reckon someone could prove a negative in archeology. Are you expecting me to present a case of someone finding a huge deposit of fossilized concepts of Jesus not being the son of god?

Elcarsh:

keiskay:
[quote="See Spot Run" post="528.337722.13658147"][quote="sharks9" post="528.337722.13658104"]so by your logic we cant prove that any form of music existed before 3400bc since we have not found any other pieces of music older then that. or that there were any cultures or civiliztaions before 115000 bc since there is no recorded proof of anything before then. the old testament was written during the dark ages when recorded history wasnt really done, we have other documents simillar to it like the illiad by homer (which was proven to be semi-true due to the finding of a city in the area troy was supposed to be). there have been no archaeological foundings that have yet to prove the bible false. there are also secualr histories of people mentioned in the bible as well, such as gallio, sergio pallus, herod the great and king agrippa, heck the ancient elba tablets mentioned the cities of sodom and gomorah. but your going to ignore all that secualr evidence like most antitheist do.

I'd really like to know how you reckon someone could prove a negative in archeology. Are you expecting me to present a case of someone finding a huge deposit of fossilized concepts of Jesus not being the son of god?

funny thing about science or archeology there is no negatives. Mathematicians frequently apply Proof by contradiction. This is when you assume the proposition (e.g. the negative proposition that there is no Santa Claus) is true. Then you demonstrate from that proposition either that the proposition is also false, or, alternately, that the proposition leads to some faulty conclusion.

also you confidently believe in a negative so you must be able to prove your negative, you cannot, so stop using a faulty argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

sharks9:
They weren't written too long after after his death, 40-60 years approximately. Not to mention several of the disciples were still alive around that time. That's better than other historical figures.

Except, you know, no.

Average life expectancy at the time of Jesus was around 45 years. The first gospel is dated (through literary criticism, not through actual physical dating, since the oldest copy of any of the copies of the gospels we have is dated to the 4th century.) by scholars to around 70AD. that's 35, maybe 40 years after the supposed death of christ. Judging from life expectancy, the author would have been what, maybe 10 years old at the time of the events described?

The later gospels, Matthew and Luke date to 80-100AD, which makes it even less likely that they were written by anyone who was actually alive at the time of christ's life. Addittionaly, they are regarded as having been written using Mark as a source.

John is dated to 90-100AD. it is unlikely in the extreme that it was written by anyone alive during the time of christ.

sharks9:
No, but the more places and people we can confirm are true, the more likely things such as Jesus' teachings are true.

Association fallacy. This is the point I've been trying to make. The more people and places you confirm are true, the more people and places you confirm are true. I could write a story in intricate detail about the history of New York from 2001-present that is correct in every single detail. I could still include additional elements that are fabricated (like spider-man). The fact that every single detail of my account of New York is historically correct does not make it more likely that Spider-man exists.

keiskay:
funny thing about science or archeology there is no negatives. Mathematicians frequently apply Proof by contradiction. This is when you assume the proposition (e.g. the negative proposition that there is no Santa Claus) is true. Then you demonstrate from that proposition either that the proposition is also false, or, alternately, that the proposition leads to some faulty conclusion.

Yeah, er, maths =/= archaeology.

What evidence are you going to find for something that never existed?

None.

Oirish_Martin:

keiskay:
funny thing about science or archeology there is no negatives. Mathematicians frequently apply Proof by contradiction. This is when you assume the proposition (e.g. the negative proposition that there is no Santa Claus) is true. Then you demonstrate from that proposition either that the proposition is also false, or, alternately, that the proposition leads to some faulty conclusion.

Yeah, er, maths =/= archaeology.

What evidence are you going to find for something that never existed?

None.

im sorry but until evidence has been found for a negative or positive, there is no certain proof.

Elcarsh:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I just find anti-theists in general to be very smug and annoying. No, they aren't treating atheism like a religion, they are just making me sigh. Something can hardly be called a discussion when one side is trying to bash the other at every turn.

Well, very often there is a reason for that. If someone claims that creationism should be taught in schools then there is little else to do than bludgeon them and throw them out.

I have to agree with RedEyesBlackGamer, the amount of "haha, what you really believe in the invisible man in the sky! trolololol!" that this site has, just makes me realize that while the WBC might be protestant-christian trolls, a lot of people on this site are atheist trolls. I also find it amusing that the same people that like to troll/belittle anybody that believes in the Divine, are the same people who tell me that I'm being unkind and mean to Bronies and how I should not make such negative comments about them. So bashing people on this site because they believe in the Divine is ok, but if I start making fun/putting down people who are Bronies I'm crossing the line? Hypocrisy much? As for Creationsim, take a look at my response to your comment about Mr. Hitchens.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Elcarsh:

keiskay:
hmm no one has ever stated richard dawkins and stephen fry were doing so.

You're new here, right? You wouldn't believe all the shit that Dawkins and the late, great Hitchens get around here.

I believe in the Divine and I like Mr. Hitchens very much, I have seen Mr. Dawkins but as far as I know he only talks about things relating to atheism vs theism where as Mr. Hitchens covers a range of topics.

As I mentioned in my response to your response to RedEyesBlackGamer, I was going to go on about Creationism and how it is relavent to Mr. Hitchens. After reading your comment that " If someone claims that creationism should be taught in schools then there is little else to do than bludgeon them and throw them out" I immediately thought of a video where Mr. Hitchens talks about people with unpopular opinions, and while he talks about Holocaust deniers, it equally applies to Creationist and is something you should seriously think about before making such comments again.

The particular part of the video I want you to look at is at 3:47-5:48

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Elcarsh:

keiskay:
if you are so blind as to see that some of the antitheist here are cramming there beliefs down peoples throats then thats your own problem. i have read post that literally said "i tried to convert them to atheism". you also fall into your own trap of saying not all religious people are stupid by saying its dumb for them to believe in something without evidence. you believe there is no god without evidence dont you? if you have evidence i would like to gladly see it. while antitheist may not always proclaim in the street religion is evil, they do a ton of it on this board. you cant go through half threads without someone proclaiming religion is evil and god is evil. now if you view discussion as calling everyone else wrong and what they believe to be evil then so be it, just don't get angry when some people call you out on your hypocrisy.

1. Really, some people need to learn to stop demanding that atheists prove a negative. Without evidence there is no reason to believe in something. QED, there's no reason to believe in god. What follows naturally is that I don't. See, it's logical.

Also, when both sides finally present their "evidence" that the Divine does/doesn't exist its very clear that both sides are lacking definitive proof and that in the end the only conclusion that can be made is that, as of right now, people can't prove their stance 100% one way or another. I think the reason for why neither side can provide "proof", is touched upon in Espistemology.

keiskay:
im sorry but until evidence has been found for a negative or positive, there is no certain proof.

... the implication of which is that you should not accept it as a true claim.

Stagnant:
I think a lot of people need to stop speaking in general terms about all atheists. Even if the majority of atheists aren't claiming X or most atheists also belong to subgroup Y, it makes it very easy for a theist to point out one counter-example and make us look stupid, regardless of whether we meant it that way or not.

lol, you realize that we are just doing the same thing that I see people on this website do, right? For example, atheists discussing Christian's in general terms and stating that they believe in creationism and that they don't believe in the theory of Evolution. Except, when it comes to Catholicism, the Pope said evolution exist and oppose the idea of men living at the same time as dinosaurs. smh at the double standard that people want

See Spot Run:

keiskay:
im sorry but until evidence has been found for a negative or positive, there is no certain proof.

... the implication of which is that you should not accept it as a true claim.

that your personal preference to the situation. since we cannot determine if its true or false we must both make a faith based claim on what we view of it's validity. you have faith thats its false, i have faith thats it true.

Volf99:

Stagnant:
I think a lot of people need to stop speaking in general terms about all atheists. Even if the majority of atheists aren't claiming X or most atheists also belong to subgroup Y, it makes it very easy for a theist to point out one counter-example and make us look stupid, regardless of whether we meant it that way or not.

lol, you realize that we are just doing the same thing that I see people on this website do, right? For example, atheists discussing Christian's in general terms and stating that they believe in creationism and that they don't believe in the theory of Evolution. Except, when it comes to Catholicism, the Pope said evolution exist and oppose the idea of men living at the same time as dinosaurs. smh at the double standard that people want

That was a message to my fellow atheists, and it applies equally to christians.

keiskay:
that your personal preference to the situation. since we cannot determine if its true or false we must both make a faith based claim on what we view of it's validity. you have faith thats its false, i have faith thats it true.

No, that is stupid.

Whether the claim is true or not is unkonwn. We should regard it as "unknown". We should NOT assert it as fact. Ever.

Until we can demonstrate that a claim is true, the intellectually honest among us will recognize that if we care to hold only beliefs that we know to be true, we are OBLIGED to discard it.

See Spot Run:

keiskay:
that your personal preference to the situation. since we cannot determine if its true or false we must both make a faith based claim on what we view of it's validity. you have faith thats its false, i have faith thats it true.

No, that is stupid.

Whether the claim is true or not is unkonwn. We should regard it as "unknown". We should NOT assert it as fact. Ever.

Until we can demonstrate that a claim is true, the intellectually honest among us will recognize that if we care to hold only beliefs that we know to be true, we are OBLIGED to discard it.

lol what, you know that man has progressed by going against what used to be true. almost all doctors believed that the heart and the brain were impossible to operate on. til a group of individuals believed this supposed truth to be wrong and were able to successfully operate on the brain and the heart. anyone with any shred of intellectual honesty will be open to possibilities and know that it is impossible to know everything. what you are stating is intellectual ignorance.

keiskay:
lol what, you know that man has progressed by going against what used to be true. almost all doctors believed that the heart and the brain were impossible to operate on. til a group of individuals believed this supposed truth to be wrong and were able to successfully operate on the brain and the heart. anyone with any shred of intellectual honesty will be open to possibilities and know that it is impossible to know everything. what you are stating is intellectual ignorance.

That might be one of the most tremendously idiotic paragraphs I've ever read.

Answer this question:
1. do you care if what you believe is true?

See Spot Run:

keiskay:
lol what, you know that man has progressed by going against what used to be true. almost all doctors believed that the heart and the brain were impossible to operate on. til a group of individuals believed this supposed truth to be wrong and were able to successfully operate on the brain and the heart. anyone with any shred of intellectual honesty will be open to possibilities and know that it is impossible to know everything. what you are stating is intellectual ignorance.

That might be one of the most tremendously idiotic paragraphs I've ever read.

Answer this question:
1. do you care if what you believe is true?

hmm truthfully, i am apathetic towards it. it has not harmed me in anyway, and the lack of evidence doesn't sway me either way. But i will not consider it false until proven so as is with everything.

also before the first successful heart surgery, all evidence pointed against it ever being possible. prior to the first success all others had been a failure that resulted in death. so for the longest time it was regarded as impossible and any doctor to even suggest trying again was consider crazy and radical and often met opposition.

keiskay:
hmm truthfully, i am apathetic towards it. it has not harmed me in anyway, and the lack of evidence doesn't sway me either way. But i will not consider it false until proven so as is with everything.

Then we're done here.

See Spot Run:

Except, you know, no.

Average life expectancy at the time of Jesus was around 45 years. The first gospel is dated (through literary criticism, not through actual physical dating, since the oldest copy of any of the copies of the gospels we have is dated to the 4th century.) by scholars to around 70AD. that's 35, maybe 40 years after the supposed death of christ. Judging from life expectancy, the author would have been what, maybe 10 years old at the time of the events described?

The disciples were probably all under the age of 20 except for Peter, seeing as when Jesus caught a fish with a coin in its mouth for the temple tax, only Peter and Jesus paid the tax because children under the age of 20 were exempt.(Matthew 17:24-27)

As for the exact deaths of the apostles, we don't know for most of them but it's believed that all but John died a martyr's death. I found a site that makes a guess at each of the dates of death and the probability that that date is correct. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/DeathoftheApostles.pdf

The later gospels, Matthew and Luke date to 80-100AD, which makes it even less likely that they were written by anyone who was actually alive at the time of christ's life. Addittionaly, they are regarded as having been written using Mark as a source.

John is dated to 90-100AD. it is unlikely in the extreme that it was written by anyone alive during the time of christ.

Again, John lived until approximately 100 AD, which would give him time to write his Gospel.

Association fallacy. This is the point I've been trying to make. The more people and places you confirm are true, the more people and places you confirm are true. I could write a story in intricate detail about the history of New York from 2001-present that is correct in every single detail. I could still include additional elements that are fabricated (like spider-man). The fact that every single detail of my account of New York is historically correct does not make it more likely that Spider-man exists.

You could, and I'm not saying the mention of real people and places proves the Bible is true, but it adds to its credibility.

See Spot Run:

keiskay:
hmm truthfully, i am apathetic towards it. it has not harmed me in anyway, and the lack of evidence doesn't sway me either way. But i will not consider it false until proven so as is with everything.

Then we're done here.

do you care what you believe is true?

keiskay:

See Spot Run:

keiskay:
hmm truthfully, i am apathetic towards it. it has not harmed me in anyway, and the lack of evidence doesn't sway me either way. But i will not consider it false until proven so as is with everything.

Then we're done here.

do you care what you believe is true?

Yes. I actually do. And If you don't, I'm not going to waste my day trying to teach you to think critically. Enjoy your ignorance. We're done.

sharks9:
The disciples were probably all under the age of 20 except for Peter, seeing as when Jesus caught a fish with a coin in its mouth for the temple tax, only Peter and Jesus paid the tax because children under the age of 20 were exempt.(Matthew 17:24-27)

Which is fine, but doesn't change the fact that they would have had to have all outlived the average life expectancy of their era by dacades in order to have written their respective gospels.

sharks9:
As for the exact deaths of the apostles, we don't know for most of them but it's believed that all but John died a martyr's death. I found a site that makes a guess at each of the dates of death and the probability that that date is correct. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/DeathoftheApostles.pdf

Being martyred would tend to indicate an early death, rather than a late one as well, so that seems at odds with the idea that they outlived the men of their era. Not impossible, but the claims are, at least, in conflict. The date offered for the death of matthew in your document also conflicts with the scholarly dating of the writing of the gospel. They claim he wrote it 10 years before his death, but then place his death ten years BEFORE the actual dating of the scripture.

sharks9:
Again, John lived until approximately 100 AD, which would give him time to write his Gospel.

The implication of which is that he quite likely lived after christ. It is unlikely that he was 80-100 years old when he wrote it. Not impossible, but unlikely.

sharks9:
You could, and I'm not saying the mention of real people and places proves the Bible is true, but it adds to its credibility.

No it doesn't. How hard is this to understand? A fiction book is a fiction book, whether it happens in Narnia or Manhatten. The only parts lent credibility are the parts you can actually link to the real world.

keiskay:
lol you show no critical thinking in any way if being critical means closing off possibilities and being absolutely biased and close minded then i would rather be ignorant.

Once again: I am finished with this discussion. You have no idea what you're talking about. I am not going to engage a discussion of critical thought if you don't care whether your beliefs are true. You are now on my ignore list. Have a fine day.

See Spot,

Average life expectancy won't help you evaluate how old a grown adult in antiquity would likely have lived to. The Classical world had extremely high mortality rates for under fives, thus skewing the numbers if you just take an average of overall human livespans. Parkin's (Demography and Roman Society) figures are that 27% of people lived beyond 45. And it is quite frequent to have people living into their 60-70's. For about a year I studied epigraphs from Roman Egypt and it was not uncommon for people (who at least claimed) to reach that age were certainly not unknown at all.

There is no real problem in accepting that the gospels were written by people close to the events. Indeed, the standard interpretation is that they were written when they were was because they realized they were approaching the last years of the eyewitnesses and storytellers being around. I believe that Robert McIver's recent "Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels" goes into the demographics in some depth.

Don:
Average life expectancy won't help you evaluate how old a grown adult in antiquity would likely have lived to. The Classical world had extremely high mortality rates for under fives, thus skewing the numbers if you just take an average of overall human livespans. Parkin's (Demography and Roman Society) figures are that 27% of people lived beyond 45. And it is quite frequent to have people living into their 60-70's. For about a year I studied epigraphs from Roman Egypt and it was not uncommon for people (who at least claimed) to reach that age were certainly not unknown at all.

There is no real problem in accepting that the gospels were written by people close to the events. Indeed, the standard interpretation is that they were written when they were was because they realized they were approaching the last years of the eyewitnesses and storytellers being around. I believe that Robert McIver's recent "Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels" goes into the demographics in some depth.

Which is why I said "unlikely" but "not impossible". I did research the claim when I made it, including a look at some histoical census records from roman egypt. The elderly did exist, yes. In small numbers. Numbers small enough to make the survival of FOUR fo Jesus' apostles to extreme old age unlikely.

I grant that it's possible that the gospels were written by the apostles for which they're named. I am unconvinced by the evidence that this is the case.

See Spot Run:

Which is fine, but doesn't change the fact that they would have had to have all outlived the average life expectancy of their era by dacades in order to have written their respective gospels.

Not by decades. Check out the table in this link. http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
By that table the disciples should be expected to live another 37 years or so after the death of Jesus, though they obviously could have lived longer.

Being martyred would tend to indicate an early death, rather than a late one as well, so that seems at odds with the idea that they outlived the men of their era. Not impossible, but the claims are, at least, in conflict. The date offered for the death of matthew in your document also conflicts with the scholarly dating of the writing of the gospel. They claim he wrote it 10 years before his death, but then place his death ten years BEFORE the actual dating of the scripture.

They could've been martyred later in life, martyrdom doesn't always mean a young death. I hadn't noticed that and I agree that he's off on that one. Though he does only give probability for those dates of death and they're by no means 100% accurate.

The implication of which is that he quite likely lived after christ. It is unlikely that he was 80-100 years old when he wrote it. Not impossible, but unlikely.

It's a lot more unlikely to think they added John as a disciple even if he's born after Christ's death. It's thought that he was the youngest disciple because of the fact that he lived to such a great age.

sharks9:
By that table the disciples should be expected to live another 37 years or so after the death of Jesus, though they obviously could have lived longer.

And the gospels were written between 60-110AD. That's decades.

sharks9:
They could've been martyred later in life, martyrdom doesn't always mean a young death.

Which is why I said that the premise was "at odds with" and "in conflict" with the timeline, and not that it refuted it. I said, in as many words that it was "not impossible" for them to be martyred late in life.

sharks9:
It's a lot more unlikely to think they added John as a disciple even if he's born after Christ's death. It's thought that he was the youngest disciple because of the fact that he lived to such a great age.

my point here is that I do not find the evidence sufficient to suggest that the gospels are necessarily a reliable and historical account of the life of Jesus christ. This has nothing to do with who was and wasn't a desciple and when. I am unconvinced that even the authorship of the gospels is genuine.

See Spot,

Well if you researched it then it was misleading for you to cite the average figure and then feign surprise at notion that is wasn't unusual for people to live significantly beyond it.

But in any case you have made an elementary error. The only Gospels that are claimed to have been written by eyewitnesses are Matthew and John. Mark and Luke weren't apostles, they were merely the people who recorded the history from eyewitnesses- as indeed Luke's prologue to his gospel states. So again the truth isn't quite as you have stated it. Again McIver goes into quite a lot of detailed work examining with some precision on how many eyewitnesses there would likely have been by the time of the Gospels' authorship.

Don:
Well if you researched it then it was misleading for you to cite the average figure and then feign surprise at notion that is wasn't unusual for people to live significantly beyond it.

Surprise? What surprise? I explicitly stated in my original post that it was possible that they had lived that long, I just find the evidence that they actually did so unconvincing.

Don:
But in any case you have made an elementary error. The only Gospels that are claimed to have been written by eyewitnesses are Matthew and John. Mark and Luke weren't apostles, they were merely the people who recorded the history from eyewitnesses- as indeed Luke's prologue to his gospel states. So again the truth isn't quite as you have stated it.

This statement completely contradicts the understanding of the synoptic gospels.

Mark came first. Matthew and Luke were written with reference to Mark. John came last.

If Mark wasn't an eyewitness, he wrote the initial account of Jesus second-hand.

If Matthew was an eyewitness, he shouldn't have needed to reference Mark, doubly true if the work of mark WAS second-hand.

The dating of the gospel of John implies that the author would have had to have been between 80-100 years old at the time of writing, in oder to also have been an eyewitness.

Again, it's all POSSIBLE - but the evidence does not nicely and cleanly support the claim that the gospels definitely were written even by eyewitnesses to the events they describe, let alone supporting the claim that they were authored by the desciples to which they were attributed.

keiskay:
hmm truthfully, i am apathetic towards it. it has not harmed me in anyway, and the lack of evidence doesn't sway me either way. But i will not consider it false until proven so as is with everything.

If this is the case then why Christianity? Should you not show the same faith towards Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc etc. They are all equally without evidence. How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Should you not show a similar level of faith in the FSM?

It is a ridiculous statement to say you do not consider any claim false until it is proven to be false. If that was the case you would be considered delusional and probably be in a mental institute.

By the way, I am the reincarnation of Christ, I have just been playing it on the down low, my last visit did not end so well so you can probably understand why.

pyrate:
...By the way, I am the reincarnation of Christ, I have just been playing it on the down low, my last visit did not end so well so you can probably understand why.

Well my Lord, this doesn't really remain consistant with the last time you were here. Last time, you said we should do our work proudly for the Father until death. So, what, you come back just to pussy out?

Fucking Christians...

pyrate:

keiskay:
hmm truthfully, i am apathetic towards it. it has not harmed me in anyway, and the lack of evidence doesn't sway me either way. But i will not consider it false until proven so as is with everything.

If this is the case then why Christianity? Should you not show the same faith towards Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc etc. They are all equally without evidence. How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Should you not show a similar level of faith in the FSM?

It is a ridiculous statement to say you do not consider any claim false until it is proven to be false. If that was the case you would be considered delusional and probably be in a mental institute.

By the way, I am the reincarnation of Christ, I have just been playing it on the down low, my last visit did not end so well so you can probably understand why.

yes yes and i am richard dawkins.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked