What Is God Made From?

[BashfulAnthony]

Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith!   

Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.

Imo, it is not, imo;  and I don't think her posts suggest otherwise, imo:  if you know what I'm saying, which is imo...

[floo]

Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith!   

Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.

Thanks darling!

I have never claimed to have great intelligence, but at least I recognise the fact unlike some! 

[BashfulAnthony]

Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith!   

Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.

Thanks darling!

I have never claimed to have great intelligence, but at least I recognise the fact unlike some! 

Imo, that is correct, imo.  Big of you to admit it, imo.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith!   

Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.

Low-quality jibe there;  but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.

[Jack Knave]

How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?

And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.

If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true, just that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true

Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.

So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?

You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!

[Jack Knave]

People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.

Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?

And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.

And he got killed.

You also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.

So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.

What makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?

Talking to someone? What this about?

When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?

And he got killed

You have no proof for that, just speculation based on some stuff written 2000 years ago and as to why they wrote it.

As for the second bit my reply is the same. You have no proof for this just a the NT written 2000 years ago and a bag full of speculation.

[floo]

I know I have said it before a few times, but will repeat it. People see what they want to see, like the famous Angel of Mons, which was a made up story!

[Jack Knave]

...
Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.

What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.

Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.

Your whole premise is based on speculation

1) So you claim, but have not demonstrated.

and your ability to correctly guess how all this came about.

We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about.

2) The same goes for lots of things, e.g. in physics, yet we come to conclusions..

And these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...

3)How?

Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.

4) 100%? I agree. However, I take it you accept that things like the Armada and the Battle of Hastings and the Roman invasion of Britain happened. Why so unsure on this one (apart from, perhaps, it making great claims on you personally if it is true)?
[/quote]

-------------------------------------------------------


1) Yes I have because you admit in 4) that what you have is not 100%. If it is not 100% then it is just speculation!!! If you don't have categorical proof then it is just mere speculation as I have been saying all along.

2) Yes, but we don't base our entire fundamental life style on it. It is just useful stuff or something for our intellectual amusement. And the conclusions science comes to are based on facts, as seen by us, and where there is doubt, usually, this is acknowledged by proposals of what it could be. And when new evidence comes along that changes our views our views change. The whole process is in flux, not set in stone based on no viable and useful evidence as your faith is.

3) Your lack of understanding of human nature and what was going on in mankind's outlook at the time beggars belief, Alan. Where do you think any myths came from? How did any religion and its weird ideas come from? Even today the crazy ideas of Scientology have taken off in our so called enlightened days. That's human nature, peoples' emotional needs running their lives.

4) Trying to second guess my position won't work, Alan. As I have said before all history is subject to speculation and any sane person wouldn't base their fundamental life and outlook on it. I.e. it makes no odds to me whether those events actually took place or not it is just history; it's come and gone.

[Alien]

...

North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il is the best golfer in the world, hands down. On his first ever trip to the golf course, he shot 38-under par, including 5 hole-in-ones! This is reported by the government controlled media. He routinely shoots 3 or 4 hole-in-ones every time out.

Not quite as old as your examples, Alan.  Do you not have even a niggling doubt about this report,

Yes, thanks. So how many independent witnesses do we have and do we have any good reason to believe them?

Exactly, Alan, have you any for the Resurrection?  I'm sure if you go over to N Korea, they'll provide you with as many as you'll find in the Bible to back up that story.

Mary Magdalene, the 11, Cleopas and his travelling companion, James (the Lord's half brother).

Now tell me the names of those in North Korea.

Names in a book, Alan, that's all.  I can give you ten Korean names but we won't know any more about them than James, Cleopas or Mary Magdalene

Let's try it. What are you ten Korean names?

- nor can we question any of them and see if we believe their version of events.

That's correct, but the people to whom the gospels and letters were written could have done, yet the Christian faith took off.

If you doubt the sincerity of those NT people on what basis do you believe anything in history before your own generation?

[Alien]

the 11,

Do you mean the Twelve?

No. I meant 11 men, though, as you may be hinting, they were the group known as "The Twelve," the number decreasing when Judas committed suicide.

[Alien]

How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?

And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.

No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.

If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,

Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?

just that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true

And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.

Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.

So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?

You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!

Slaps head.

[Alien]

I know I have said it before a few times, but will repeat it. People see what they want to see, like the famous Angel of Mons, which was a made up story!

Why do you think it is comparable (rather than it just being a handy sound bite, say)?

[Alien]

People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.

Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?

And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.

And he got killed.

You also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.

So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.

What makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?

Talking to someone? What this about?

When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?

And he got killed

You have no proof for that, just speculation based on some stuff written 2000 years ago and as to why they wrote it.

As for the second bit my reply is the same. You have no proof for this just a the NT written 2000 years ago and a bag full of speculation.

Let me get this right. Are you seriously saying that Jesus was not killed?

[Alien]

...
Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.

What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.

Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.

Your whole premise is based on speculation

So you claim, but have not demonstrated.

and your ability to correctly guess how all this came about.

We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about.

The same goes for lots of things, e.g. in physics, yet we come to conclusions.

And these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...

How?

Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.

100%? I agree. However, I take it you accept that things like the Armada and the Battle of Hastings and the Roman invasion of Britain happened. Why so unsure on this one (apart from, perhaps, it making great claims on you personally if it is true)?

-------------------------------------------------------

1) Yes I have because you admit in 4) that what you have is not 100%. If it is not 100% then it is just speculation!!! If you don't have categorical proof then it is just mere speculation as I have been saying all along.

Then, to you all history, absolutely all of it, is "just speculation". There is not one thing in history which can be determined with absolutely 100% certainty.

2) Yes, but we don't base our entire fundamental life style on it. It is just useful stuff or something for our intellectual amusement. And the conclusions science comes to are based on facts, as seen by us, and where there is doubt, usually, this is acknowledged by proposals of what it could be. And when new evidence comes along that changes our views our views change. The whole process is in flux, not set in stone based on no viable and useful evidence as your faith is.

So you are not absolutely sure that gravity exists in that if you jumped off a cliff you are not absolutely sure you finish up in a heap at the bottom?

Oh and we all do lots of things without being able to be 100% certain of them, like getting in a car or a plane. Yet you are content to put your life totally in the driver's or pilot's hands.

3) Your lack of understanding of human nature and what was going on in mankind's outlook at the time beggars belief, Alan. Where do you think any myths came from? How did any religion and its weird ideas come from? Even today the crazy ideas of Scientology have taken off in our so called enlightened days. That's human nature, peoples' emotional needs running their lives.

So why do you think that is how Christianity started? It's easy to claim that, but where is your evidence. Convince me that it is not just you dodging the issue, doing a lot of God-dodging.

4) Trying to second guess my position won't work, Alan. As I have said before all history is subject to speculation and any sane person wouldn't base their fundamental life and outlook on it. I.e. it makes no odds to me whether those events actually took place or not it is just history; it's come and gone.

Really. I wonder whether any other atheists here would support that view.

Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?

[jjohnjil]

Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?


These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.

Unless you're name's Alan, of course!

[Jack Knave]

How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?

And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.

1) No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.

If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,

2) Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?

just that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true

3) And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.

Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.

So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?

You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!

4) Slaps head.

1) I was referring to the NT but the number of books is neither here nor there. It all means is the duplication of the available tittle-tattle.

2) You only have yourself to blame for this. You can't claim they knew that the events were fact when quite clearly you don't know that. That's my whole argument here about what you actually know to be true about what happened 2000 years ago. Oh yeah, that's right, you weren't there to see it!!!!

3) People join religions because they have a need. Quite obviously they were waiting for the messiah and all that and this new cult of following Jesus fitted the bill. It's just human nature to what to be loved and all that and to feel secure and safe.

4) Slaps head. What ever floats your boat.

The only fact you have here is that the NT was written by men. Its content is just speculation.

[Jack Knave]

People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.

Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?

And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.

And he got killed.

You also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.

So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.

What makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?

Talking to someone? What this about?

When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?

And he got killed

You have no proof for that, just speculation based on some stuff written 2000 years ago and as to why they wrote it.

As for the second bit my reply is the same. You have no proof for this just a the NT written 2000 years ago and a bag full of speculation.

Let me get this right. Are you seriously saying that Jesus was not killed?

I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.

[Hope]

I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.

No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians.  Oddly enough, sometimes the really important news doesn't hit the headlines like a rocket, but trickles in slowly.  When the Josephus references are considered, would you have expected a Jewish historian - clearly trying to hype the history of the Jews and Judaism - to have made a big thing of a man claiming to be their own God in human form and who then went on to criticise the leadership of his (Josephus') faith?

[Shaker]

No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians.

Well respected by whom?

Oddly enough, sometimes the really important news doesn't hit the headlines like a rocket, but trickles in slowly.

Is two thousand years long enough to constitute 'slowly'?

[jeremyp]

Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith!   

Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.

Low-quality jibe there;  but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.

Are you claiming that your jibe was somehow high quality?

[jeremyp]

the 11,

Do you mean the Twelve?

No. I meant 11 men, though, as you may be hinting, they were the group known as "The Twelve," the number decreasing when Judas committed suicide.

Why does Paul say there were twelve then?  Why did he not say "The Eleven" like you did?  Don't forget, Paul never knew them before Judas committed suicide.

Come to that, how do we know that the twelve disciples of the gospels weren't a fiction made up based on Paul's cryptic reference to "The Twelve"?  That might explain why the gospels are so vague about who most of the disciples are.

[jeremyp]

No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians.

Tacitus and Suetonius probably used Christians as their sources.  There is no evidence that they had independent contemporary sources.

When the Josephus references are considered, would you have expected a Jewish historian - clearly trying to hype the history of the Jews and Judaism - to have made a big thing of a man claiming to be their own God in human form and who then went on to criticise the leadership of his (Josephus') faith?

In the best case scenario, the two passages in Josephus were doctored by later Christians.  There is a good case that they are outright forgeries (by Christians).  Here we have prime evidence that early Christians were prepared to manufacture false documents and you want me to believe that the gospels are true, honest guv.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith!   

Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.

Low-quality jibe there;  but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.

Are you claiming that your jibe was somehow high quality?

No, I'm not. You are just looking for an argument.  The thing is, you wouldn't rate a jibe as high quality unless it contained a swear word or two.

[Alien]

Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?


These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.

Unless you're name's Alan, of course!

Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.

[Alien]

How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?

And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.

1) No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.

If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,

2) Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?

just that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true

3) And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.

Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.

So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?

You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!

4) Slaps head.

1) I was referring to the NT but the number of books is neither here nor there. It all means is the duplication of the available tittle-tattle.

So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers, but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus) now becomes "duplication of the available tittle-tattle". I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.

2) You only have yourself to blame for this. You can't claim they knew that the events were fact when quite clearly you don't know that.

Know 100%? Correct. Know enough to base my life upon it? Yes, I do know that well enough.

That's my whole argument here about what you actually know to be true about what happened 2000 years ago. Oh yeah, that's right, you weren't there to see it!!!!

What a weird criterion. So we should only believe things we have seen ourselves? Are you serious?

3) People join religions because they have a need.

What was my need then?

Quite obviously they were waiting for the messiah and all that and this new cult of following Jesus fitted the bill.

Oh, well put. It was what was predicted beforehand. Thanks for that endorsement.

It's just human nature to what to be loved and all that and to feel secure and safe.

<snigger/>

4) Slaps head. What ever floats your boat.

The only fact you have here is that the NT was written by men. Its content is just speculation.

If you want to know its content, may I suggest you read it. That's what other people do.