Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

Jesus, Allah, Vishnu are just images that are culture based. They are like differently shaped computer icons that we click on. What happens after we click is the same for everyone. Spiritual reality is common....religions are different. Different paths to the same destination.

If that were true then there would necessarily have been a convergence of religions, as the 'computer icon' - as you describe it - would rapidly have been recognised to be irrelevant.

But, of course, there hasn't been convergence - indeed there is divergence, which fragmentation of 'high level' similar religion into sects, distinct denominations etc, each of which consider theirs to be the 'true faith' And often with such blind faith as to their flavour of religion to be correct that they are prepared to convert (sometimes by force), kill and persecute those of different faiths.

Not really consistent with your PollyAnna-ish 'many computer icons leasing to the same place' view, is it Sriram.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why?

Because they have expertise and training in the subject. New atheism does not count as such

What makes you think modern academic historians gave up history at 15?

I don't and never have done nor said they do or have. Which modern academic historians are you thinking of? Why would a modern historian be better qualified at ancient history than an ancient historian?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

which ancient historians would you like us to defer to? Name names.

Compared to those who gave up history at 15 anybody who studied it above GCSE level so that's Pugh, Drew, Barney Mcgrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub.........Seriously though trained ancient historians or ancient historians who are published or peer reviewed.
Being an atheist or even scientist is not really a qualification for the work.

Who should we defer to show how ancient history is done? Not those who effectively dismiss it for what are really grounds of science and scientism. That excludes all of history on the grounds of unrepeatability. But since you wanted the names of those I think we should defer to include B.D.Ehrman, James Dunn, H.S. Reimarus, Geza Vermes, John Romer.

Which ancient historians do you think we should defer to?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't and never have done nor said they do or have.

Except I made a point about a supposed resurrection not being taught as historic fact in mainstream educational establishments, and you replied by asking why we should listen to people who gave up history aged 15. Try reading your own posts.

Which modern academic historians are you thinking of?

All of them. Or at least all of them who are not either teaching in religious schools and colleges or peddling a religious conviction.

Why would a modern historian be better qualified at ancient history than an ancient historian?

Because modern history involves evidence and a method to gather, evaluate and interpret that evidence objectively with analysis, critical evaluation and critical thinking. This methodology substantially post-dates whatever “method” was available to the credulous locals who eventually wrote down the resurrection account long after it happened and, apparently, made no attempt to eliminate the various possible real world alternative explanations. The existence of any manner of “historical” ancient accounts of different supposedly miraculous events you think to be ridiculous should tell you this.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Except I made a point about a supposed resurrection not being taught as historic fact in mainstream educational establishments, and you replied by asking why we should listen to people who gave up history aged 15. Try reading your own posts.

All of them. Or at least all of them who are not either teaching in religious schools and colleges or peddling a religious conviction.

Because modern history involves evidence and a method to gather, evaluate and interpret that evidence objectively with analysis, critical evaluation and critical thinking. This methodology substantially post-dates whatever “method” was available to the credulous locals who eventually wrote down the resurrection account long after it happened and, apparently, made no attempt to eliminate the various possible real world alternative explanations. The existence of any manner of “historical” ancient accounts of different supposedly miraculous events you think to be ridiculous should tell you this.   

Did you say when you gave up history?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Did you say when you gave up history?

I have no idea what point you think you're making here. Try to address the arguments you were actually given.

[Stranger]

Who should we defer to show how ancient history is done? Not those who effectively dismiss it for what are really grounds of science and scientism. That excludes all of history on the grounds of unrepeatability. But since you wanted the names of those I think we should defer to include B.D.Ehrman, James Dunn, H.S. Reimarus, Geza Vermes, John Romer.

So do any of these claim there is ample historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, as Alan has claimed?

Further, you can't actually ignore science because it gives you the prior probability or credence to assign to a claim before considering the supplied evidence. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not some vague principle, it comes directly from Bayesian inference.

[jeremyp]

Compared to those who gave up history at 15 anybody who studied it above GCSE level so that's Pugh, Drew, Barney Mcgrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub.........

Lol. You can't even get the Trumpton firemen's names right.

Seriously though trained ancient historians or ancient historians who are published or peer reviewed.

So we have established that you mean historians of ancient history, not historians who lived in ancient times.

Being an atheist or even scientist is not really a qualification for the work.

Who should we defer to show how ancient history is done? Not those who effectively dismiss it for what are really grounds of science and scientism. That excludes all of history on the grounds of unrepeatability. But since you wanted the names of those I think we should defer to include B.D.Ehrman, James Dunn, H.S. Reimarus, Geza Vermes, John Romer.

Well, you've got a theologian and an Egyptologist in your list there, but let's not quibble.

How do you think those five people would teach the resurrection to their history students (were three of them not dead)? I would suggest they would approach it the same way as Tom Holland does i.e. there is no evidence that there was a resurrection, but there is evidence that some people in the 1st century believed there was one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lol. You can't even get the Trumpton firemen's names right.

It's Windy Miller...Is that the sound of your Windmill Windy? Or is it the sound of Barrels being scraped?

I would suggest they would approach it the same way as Tom Holland does i.e. there is no evidence that there was a resurrection, but there is evidence that some people in the 1st century believed there was one.

Is that a direct quote? That's fine as long it's not a euphemism for ''It never happened''.

[Sriram]

If that were true then there would necessarily have been a convergence of religions, as the 'computer icon' - as you describe it - would rapidly have been recognised to be irrelevant.

But, of course, there hasn't been convergence - indeed there is divergence, which fragmentation of 'high level' similar religion into sects, distinct denominations etc, each of which consider theirs to be the 'true faith' And often with such blind faith as to their flavour of religion to be correct that they are prepared to convert (sometimes by force), kill and persecute those of different faiths.

Not really consistent with your PollyAnna-ish 'many computer icons leasing to the same place' view, is it Sriram.

There are more and more people (in many societies) who now consider themselves 'spiritual' rather than religious. This is a growing trend because people are realizing that there is a secular spiritual basis for religious practices and stories. It will take time but by and by more and more people will shift from religions to being spiritual. Religions will never die out completely but they will become less influential. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I have no idea what point you think you're making here. Try to address the arguments you were actually given.

Fortunately I have a close relative who is a history PhD and am able to run your statements past her.

It is you who changed the pitch and game Hillside. My beef is against the understanding of history by people like yourself and Professor Davy on the grounds of it's basic and distorting scientism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Fortunately I have a close relative who is a history PhD and am able to run your statements past her.

Good – then presumably she’s been able to correct you too

It is you who changed the pitch and game Hillside.

No I haven’t. Possibly though Jeremy has found a way through the dense thicket of inarticularcy you practice – by “ancient historians” did you not actually mean ancient historians at all but rather modern historians of ancient history? That at least would make some sort of sense.

My beef is against the understanding of history by people like yourself and Professor Davy on the grounds of it's basic and distorting scientism.

Then your “beef” is yet another of your endless parade of straw men – there is no scientism. Perhaps if you finally looked up what that term actually means you’d stop making this same mistake over and over again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

There are more and more people (in many societies) who now consider themselves 'spiritual' rather than religious. This is a growing trend because people are realizing that there is a secular spiritual basis for religious practices and stories. It will take time but by and by more and more people will shift from religions to being spiritual. Religions will never die out completely but they will become less influential.

If you want to claim a state of being "spiritual" perhaps you should start with defining what you mean by it and then telling us what evidence there is for it so as to distinguish is from wishful thinking.

Good luck with it though.

[Dicky Underpants]

Compared to those who gave up history at 15 anybody who studied it above GCSE level so that's Pugh, Drew, Barney Mcgrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub.........Seriously though trained ancient historians or ancient historians who are published or peer reviewed.
Being an atheist or even scientist is not really a qualification for the work.

Who should we defer to show how ancient history is done? Not those who effectively dismiss it for what are really grounds of science and scientism. That excludes all of history on the grounds of unrepeatability. But since you wanted the names of those I think we should defer to include B.D.Ehrman, James Dunn, H.S. Reimarus, Geza Vermes, John Romer.

Which ancient historians do you think we should defer to?

Well, from your list, I'd like to comment on just three. H.S. Reimarus might be considered the father of the modern historico-critical method as applied to the scriptures, and he regarded Jesus as entirely mortal, and a man suffering from Messianic delusions. He denied the Resurrection entirely, as well as the supposed miracles of Jesus. Two more modern ones, Bart. D. Ehrman and Geza Vermes are concerned with ascertaining what may be gleaned about the historical Jesus, and likewise wish to strip him of any supernatural connotations, however much they may admire him as a courageous man and moral example in some respects.
I am indeed pleased that you think we should defer to them. However, I'm somewhat surprised, given your own theological inclinations. And, of course, none of these do anything to substantiate Alan's absurd claim that there is ample historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are more and more people (in many societies) who now consider themselves 'spiritual' rather than religious. This is a growing trend because people are realizing that there is a secular spiritual basis for religious practices and stories. It will take time but by and by more and more people will shift from religions to being spiritual. Religions will never die out completely but they will become less influential.

Firstly as BHS points out 'spiritual' is such a nebulous term that it becomes rather meaningless without some kind of definition.

But you are right there are many societies (probably the UK included) where people increasingly describe themselves as religious. But certainly in the UK I don't see this as a fundamental shift - rather it is simply a manifestation of a more fundamental shift from religious to non-religious, with people who once might have described themselves as 'religious' describing themselves as 'spiritual' as they can't quite yet call themselves non religious or atheist. However, as society moves on those groups will feel more comfortable just calling themselves non religious. So 'spiritual' is a kind of gateway term in a journey with societies from being predominantly religious to being predominantly non religious.

So sure more and more people shift from religious to spiritual, but also more and more people shift from spiritual to non religious.

[Outrider]

There are more and more people (in many societies) who now consider themselves 'spiritual' rather than religious. This is a growing trend because people are realizing that there is a secular spiritual basis for religious practices and stories.

Perhaps. Or, perhaps, they're falling for the same play on hopes that has been religion's purview for centuries, but at least they recognise organised religion for the divisive power-grab it seems to be.

It will take time but by and by more and more people will shift from religions to being spiritual.

Which will be an improvement. Individuals with loopy ideas are just a distraction; organised religion is an attempt to codify those loopy ideas, and that too often ends with trying to force them on others.

Religions will never die out completely but they will become less influential.

If they become irrelevant, that's fine. People are free to believe, they just need to leave everyone else to be equally as free to believe (or not).

O.

[jeremyp]

It's Windy Miller...Is that the sound of your Windmill Windy? Or is it the sound of Barrels being scraped?Is that a direct quote? That's fine as long it's not a euphemism for ''It never happened''.

When we say "there is no evidence for the resurrection, it means there is no reason to suppose it happened.

Edit: there are two Pughs, by the way and no Drew.

[Maeght]

Anyone watched any of the Centre Place lectures on YouTube. Very good.

[Alan Burns]

Likewise other evidence is found in the divine teachings revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the Qur'an.  Have you accepted it, or did you seek reasons to reject it ?

Try looking up Sam Shamoun who had amazingly detailed knowledge of both the Koran and the Christian bible to see why I have to reject the writings of Muhammad.

[Sebastian Toe]

Try looking up Sam Shamoun who had amazingly detailed knowledge of both the Koran and the Christian bible to see why I have to reject the writings of Muhammad.

So, you did seek reasons to reject it!

[Sriram]

Firstly as BHS points out 'spiritual' is such a nebulous term that it becomes rather meaningless without some kind of definition.

But you are right there are many societies (probably the UK included) where people increasingly describe themselves as religious. But certainly in the UK I don't see this as a fundamental shift - rather it is simply a manifestation of a more fundamental shift from religious to non-religious, with people who once might have described themselves as 'religious' describing themselves as 'spiritual' as they can't quite yet call themselves non religious or atheist. However, as society moves on those groups will feel more comfortable just calling themselves non religious. So 'spiritual' is a kind of gateway term in a journey with societies from being predominantly religious to being predominantly non religious.

So sure more and more people shift from religious to spiritual, but also more and more people shift from spiritual to non religious.

Atheism is basically materialistic. Nothing except the physical can exist.

Spiritual is about acknowledging the existence of the non physical and accepting its connection with ones inner self.....existence of an after life etc.

[Maeght]

Atheism is basically materialistic. Nothing except the physical can exist.

Spiritual is about acknowledging the existence of the non physical and accepting its connection with ones inner self.....existence of an after life etc.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods, nothing more.

[Stranger]

Atheism is basically materialistic. Nothing except the physical can exist.

No, it is not.   

Spiritual is about acknowledging the existence of the non physical and accepting its connection with ones inner self.....existence of an after life etc.

So, believing things for which you have no evidence and pretending it's an 'acknowledgement'. Other definitions of 'spiritual' are available.

[Sriram]

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods, nothing more.

Yes...I agree. Strictly by definition that is true. But in practice, especially in the west, atheism and materialism go hand in hand. It is rare to find an atheist who beliefs in a soul or an afterlife. 

[torridon]

Try looking up Sam Shamoun who had amazingly detailed knowledge of both the Koran and the Christian bible to see why I have to reject the writings of Muhammad.

So, you are admitting, then, instead of accepting, you went looking for reasons to reject. So you do exaclty what you accuse atheists of.  You have double standards.