What is scholarly about discussing any aspect of religion?

[ippy]

Why not work on finding some solid evidence that would support and perhaps take religions off of the fiction shelf, first and the if this can be done it would justify having as many long and serious discussions anyone could ever want.

If the solid evidence was found there would of course be the added bonus of no, often referred to as, atheists, all wondering how come these people allowed themselves to became so deluded?

These discussions about the, maybe not the best description, inns and outs of the bible, effectively the workshop manual, seem so meaningless and pointless when there is apparently no means proving any of it as factual.

ippy     

[~TW~]

If solid evidence was found rather like this    http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html        A few names and so on,it would be rejected by people on this forum and has been rejected.

 So the old book with the names of these people now found buried cant be true because you cant trust this old book .Ask shaker and BR and his mates.
~TW~

[Jack Knave]

In reply to the title : Wittgenstein....?

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Religion is what you are, it is in your genes, it is your history, it is what made us, US, search Archaeology, cave paintings, any culture you choose, you can't escape it.

ippy old son it is part of what we are, if you discuss religion you are discussing us, take a deep breathe old son, religion has shape us for better or worse.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

Why not work on finding some solid evidence that would support and perhaps take religions off of the fiction shelf, first and the if this can be done it would justify having as many long and serious discussions anyone could ever want.

ippy, religion is part and parcel of what a human being is.  It is what he or she believes.  Whilst it has become associated with spiritual faith

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.

(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=r&p=20&allowed_in_frame=0) that is only one understanding of the word.  As such, this board would cease to exist if we didn't discuss 'reliogion' in its broadest sense.

As for your very narrow sense, evidence has been placed on this board numerous times but by its very nature that evidence hasn't always met the very stringent, I'd even go as far as to say narrow definition of those who want everything to be explicable in terms of a naturalistic understanding.

If the solid evidence was found there would of course be the added bonus of no, often referred to as, atheists, all wondering how come these people allowed themselves to became so deluded?

This is a claim that is very unlikely to pan out, ippy.  Even within the naturalistic camp there are those who understand and interpret the same evidence in different ways.  If God had wanted us all to accept everything 'sight unseen' he would have created us as robots with no brains. 

These discussions about the, maybe not the best description, inns and outs of the bible, effectively the workshop manual, seem so meaningless and pointless when there is apparently no means proving any of it as factual.

ippy   

I suppose the same could be argued for the whole menagerie of ideas that surrounds the Big Bang theory at al, all of which are dependent on human interpretation of the same evidence.  If we were to take your viewpoint, we could ask why debate and discuss that topic?  I appreciate that you aren't too keen on seeing ideas that contradict your own but that is how we learn.

[Shaker]

As for your very narrow sense, evidence has been placed on this board numerous times

Makes a change from somewhere else, I guess, though I doubt any of us will be any closer to seeing it were we naive enough to ask you to provide this alleged evidence.

If God had wanted us all to accept everything 'sight unseen' he would have created us as robots with no brains.

Ah, the old begging the question fallacy - makes a change, I suppose.

I appreciate that you aren't too keen on seeing ideas that contradict your own but that is how we learn.

Sounds just like you and the negative proof fallacy - you're incapable of learning about that.

[Rhiannon]

In answer to your question, Ippy, there's a good deal of scholarly stuff to look at around religion, mostly blowing holes in it.

[~TW~]

In answer to your question, Ippy, there's a good deal of scholarly stuff to look at around religion, mostly blowing holes in it.

 Blow a hole in this                                   http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html     your comments are twirpish
~TW~

[Gordon]

Blow a hole in this                                   http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html     your comments are twirpish
~TW~

So? That there is 1st century archaeology that involves early Christians is no great surprise, so you'll need to tell us why else this is significant.

What is also no surprise is the hyperbolic confirmation bias of the writer of this article, who begins 'Does your heart quicken when you hear someone give a personal testimony about Jesus? Do you feel excited when you read about the ways the Lord has worked in someone's life?' I'd say that their confirmation bias is showing.

Since this article first appeared in the Jerusalem Christian Review, which isn't a specialist journal, what do professional archaeologists make of this currently?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

As for your very narrow sense, evidence has been placed on this board numerous times...

You seem to have forgotten that when we ask where exactly this has been done you pat your pockets, glance at your watch and suddenly tell us there's someone on the other side of the room you reeeeaaaalllllyy must speak to and then make a quick exit.

Just for once, why not tell us where this "evidence" is?

...but by its very nature that evidence hasn't always met the very stringent, I'd even go as far as to say narrow definition of those who want everything to be explicable in terms of a naturalistic understanding.

It's not "narrow" that to be classified as evidence something must have a logic to distinguish it from just guessing, from one of the many biases that bedevil such claims etc. By contrast, your false syllogism goes like this:

1. "God" cannot be disproved.

2. I really want there to be "God".

3. Therefore "God".

Only when you finally grasp why this is bad thinking - it's a grim marriage of the negative proof fallacy and confirmation bias - will you grasp your error.

As for the OP, as I understand it there is much scholarly research into matters like the historicity of the claims religions make but none into the central tenets of the immaterial doings they also claim. After all, how would anyone go about researching such a thing and serious philosophy has long since moved on to leave the field to buffoons like William Lane Craig who, albeit unwittingly, deliver the last rites to any serious consideration for anyone but the credulous.

[~TW~]

  So? That there is 1st century archaeology that involves early Christians is no great surprise, so you'll need to tell us why else this is significant.

 Well according to your brain dead mates the information and tombs that  are mentioned in an old book which according to these brain dead people simply is not true.

 So what is significant,it proves your brain dead mates are brain dead 
~TW~

[floo]

The definition of religion is, "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." It cannot be attributed to any other philosophy which doesn't have a god figure at the centre of it. Some twits say atheism is a religion which it isn't.

[Stranger]

ippy, religion is part and parcel of what a human being is.

The etymology of the word is irrelevant to its usage in modern English.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

As for your very narrow sense, evidence has been placed on this board numerous times...

Where?

...but by its very nature that evidence hasn't always met the very stringent, I'd even go as far as to say narrow definition of those who want everything to be explicable in terms of a naturalistic understanding.

How many times are you going to repeat this, despite having been told that people will accept any objective evidence or methodology regardless of whether it's "naturalistic"?

This continued assertion of yours is blatant dishonesty.

If God had wanted us all to accept everything 'sight unseen' he would have created us as robots with no brains.

So why is there no hint of a shred of objective evidence and no suggestion of any reasoned arguments to support the notion of this god?

I suppose the same could be argued for the whole menagerie of ideas that surrounds the Big Bang theory at al, all of which are dependent on human interpretation of the same evidence.

I find it very telling that, rather than present any evidence or arguments for your position, you try to drag science down to the level of religion.

Science is clear. It has conjecture, hypotheses and theories - the big bang theory is clear and accepted by the vast majority of scientists. It covers the origin of the observable universe in a hot, dense state approximately 13.5 billion years ago. I think you'll find the "menagerie of ideas" relate to hypotheses and conjectures beyond that scope.

Now, back to that evidence you claim you've presented - where is it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

The entomology of the word is irrelevant to its usage in modern English.

"Entomology"? Have they found scarab beetles?

(Just kidding by the way)

Anyways, for some reason TW seems to be implying that because some physical stuff has been found that corresponds with some bible content (hardly a surprise I'd have thought) then the theological bits must be true too. Weird thinking, but hey-ho.

[Stranger]

Some,

"Entomology"? Have they found scarab beetles?

Damn that spell chucker!

 

[Gordon]

So? That there is 1st century archaeology that involves early Christians is no great surprise, so you'll need to tell us why else this is significant.

 Well according to your brain dead mates the information and tombs that  are mentioned in an old book which according to these brain dead people simply is not true.

 So what is significant,it proves your brain dead mates are brain dead 
~TW~

Nope - nobody is arguing against there being archaeology that confirms that there were 1st century Christians, or even that these tombs might relate to these early Christians.

The point is why you think these artifacts were worth a mention here if nobody disputes that there were Christians in the 1st century, especially since some of them were responsible for the NT.   

[~TW~]

Nope - nobody is arguing against there being archaeology that confirms that there were 1st century Christians, or even that these tombs might relate to these early Christians.

The point is why you think these artifacts were worth a mention here if nobody disputes that there were Christians in the 1st century, especially since some of them were responsible for the NT.

So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.
~TW~

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.
~TW~

Who is back peddling?

No one doubts that there where Christians around back then. The fact that people believe something though does not mean that the belief is true.

[Gordon]

So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.
~TW~

Don't be silly - agreeing with you that there were Christians in the 1st century is hardly back-pedalling, since there is copious evidence that there were such people.

What is your point regarding these people?

[~TW~]

   The fact that people believe something though does not mean that the belief is true.

 What-----like nothing went bang
~TW~

[floo]

Of course Christians were around back then, who is disputing that fact? But as ST says, just because people believe something to be true doesn't mean it is.

[~TW~]

Don't be silly - agreeing with you that there were Christians in the 1st century is hardly back-pedalling, since there is copious evidence that there were such people.

What is your point regarding these people?

Well according to your brain dead mates the information{some of it} come from a daft old book which is simply un-true.So maybe you could call a meeting of your brain dead mates and explain{be gentle} they are wrong.
~TW~

[BeRational]

So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.
~TW~

New York exists.

Does that mean you believe in Spiderman as well?

[~TW~]

At least progress has been made.We have Christians.We  have some names,We have the symbol of the cross. We have this week a first Shaker telling us the world is about 7000 years old and we also have 2016 not bad.Progress.
~TW~

[Stranger]

Well according to your brain dead mates the information{some of it} come from a daft old book which is simply un-true.So maybe you could call a meeting of your brain dead mates and explain{be gentle} they are wrong.

Please link to any post that claimed there were no Christians in the 1st Century.