Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The old testament god was a capricious sociopath given to fits of violent vengeance disproportionate to any perceived crimes or sin.

The new testament god is poorly depicted mish-mash[/quote] And your literary qualifications stretch further than ''I know what I like.''?

of that and some nurturing mother-goddess with a beard

What's wrong with that?

Given that we know the whole 'fall of man' bit is nonsense.

Er Human History? everyday experience?

Except that I didn't dismiss the idea of a 'personal god', I dismissed the claim that Christianity is a monotheism.

That's extreme...are you a jesus Myther too?

[Outrider]

You what?

It's not funny that we have places where great weight is placed on eye-witness testimony, it's tragic.  It's not even vaguely contentious that eye-witness testimony is terribly unreliable.

Rome.....Now that WAS a vested interest

Right... that doesn't actually even begin to address the point that I made.

People don't commit to a dead man, they have to believe he is still around in living spiritual form. I would have thought.

If he's only around in spiritual form - assuming that's a valid assumption in the first place - the presumably they very much are committing to a dead man.

And your literary qualifications stretch further than ''I know what I like.''?

Your literary qualifications need to stretch as far as being able to read - it's readily apparent that the two characters are different to anyone that reads it.  If it wasn't widely reported that they were supposed to be the same person you'd assume that they were entirely separate claims.

What's wrong with that? (god depicted as a nurturing Earth-mother type with a beard)

Intrinsically, nothing.  As part of a claim of a continuous line from the previous depiction of a fragile hatemonger, it represents a massive attack on the suspension of disbelief required to buy into the story.

Er Human History? everyday experience?

Human history is a gradual progression from primitive to more advanced, from savage to increasingly restrained, and from prone to the violent predations of life to exerting more control.  History, to date, is the story of the rise of man, not the fall.  Which is not to avoid pointing out that the 'fall of man' referenced was the specifics of the allegation of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit nonsense.

That's extreme...

Really?  You have any number of 'divine' entities of varying power: father, Jesus, holy spirit, angels of varying degrees, Lucifer, other fallen angels, arguably saints... how does that constitute a 'monotheism'?

...are you a jesus Myther too?

Do I think there was actually someone upon which the whole 'son of god' story is hung?  Far more well-read scholars than I are of the general opinion that there was probably a real life figure upon whom the stories are based.

Do I buy the whole 'divine magician resurrected from the dead' bit? No, not even slightly.  At best I think there may have been a pacifist preacher of some sort, but I'm not even confident of putting any weight in classifying his output, given that we have so few accounts of what it might have been, and those are hopelessly unreliable by this point.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not funny that we have places where great weight is placed on eye-witness testimony, it's tragic.  It's not even vaguely contentious that eye-witness testimony is terribly unreliable.

No, I really meant, what the hell is this?

when you're trying to establish grounds for imprisoning gay people you really need a more solid justification than 'Bob's grandmother's friend's neice reportedly said her ex-boyfriend saw him cast a demon into a herd of pigs'...

Right... that doesn't actually even begin to address the point that I made.

If he's only around in spiritual form - assuming that's a valid assumption in the first place - the presumably they very much are committing to a dead man.

No they aren't they are committing to Christ who is God.

Human history is a gradual progression from primitive to more advanced, from savage to increasingly restrained, and from prone to the violent predations of life to exerting more control.

You do realise that those are euphemisims for causing the extinction of many species in our ecosystem, deforestation and getting to the brink of climate devastation don't you?

History, to date, is the story of the rise of man, not the fall.

Sentimental bollocks

Which is not to avoid pointing out that the 'fall of man' referenced was the specifics of the allegation of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit nonsense.

Fall of man happening all the time. Some atheists were just one Dawkins away from being rabble roused.

Really?  You have any number of 'divine' entities of varying power: father, Jesus, holy spirit, angels of varying degrees, Lucifer, other fallen angels, arguably saints... how does that constitute a 'monotheism'?

Only the first three are divine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That is irrelevent to the issue of a God swayed by hard prayer.

No it isn’t – ether you think there’s a god who intervenes in response to prayers or you don’t. Makes no difference to me as I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor by the way have you), and I have no good reason to think “he” exists at all (and nor by the way have you – or at least no good reason that you’ve ever felt like sharing).   
 

I have done not two or three posts back.

Where?

Because Leprechauns are tiny Irishmen dressed in green and found at the end of rainbows there are plenty of properties here to make a scientific observation. Not so with the God of Christianity.

Well that’s stupid. You may as well say that a giant orbiting teapot has a spout and a lid. And that leprechauns like dancing a jig. And that your god cured little Timmy of his rickets. Fine. Now disprove the existence of any of them. What’s stopping you?

See, the mistake you keep making (and have always made) is to think that attaching different characteristics to some truth claims – “god”, leprechauns etc – necessarily changes their status from “truth claims with no known means of investigation and verification”. It doesn’t though – god and leprechauns are still in that box unless you can find some way in which they can be investigated and verified, which is when you always disappear remember?     

Some may cite Jesus but Christianity claims that Jesus was also fully human. Other humans have reportedly detected the divine about him and the ''Jesus affair''. Indeed I did hear that one of the Greek philosophers conjectured way back that if the platonically perfect human appeared, imperfect people would be made  to feel so uncomfortable by the perfection they would end up putting the perfect person to death. Whether that story is a myth or not the idea expressed through it is certainly unfalsifiable.

And irrelevant. For epistemological purposes your god, other peoples’ gods, leprechauns, Jack Frost and tap-dancing pixies are all in the same category of truth claims with no known means of investigation and verification. If you think otherwise, finally try at least to explain why by telling us how anyone could investigate and verify your truth clam “god” any more than they could do the same thing for my truth claim leprechauns.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn’t – ether you think there’s a god who intervenes in response to prayers or you don’t. Makes no difference to me as I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor by the way have you), and I have no good reason to think “he” exists at all (and nor by the way have you – or at least no good reason that you’ve ever felt like sharing).

I think it was CS Lewis or perhaps it was Anthony Hopkins who said Prayer doesn't change God.....it changes me. God is sovereign. I know you think you have no goof reason to think God exists you have told us enough. I have no good reason intellectually to think he may not and that the claim that there are no good reasons is hyperbolic. 
 


Well that’s stupid. You may as well say that a giant orbiting teapot has a spout and a lid.[/quote]I'm smiling

And that leprechauns like dancing a jig.

I'm grinning.

And that your god cured little Timmy of his rickets.

I'm on the floor. Fine. Now disprove the existence of any of them.[/quote] I don't have to. All I have to do is to demonstrate that the case against Leprechauns is falsifiable and I have done[/quote] What’s stopping you?[/quote]Laughing hysterically...... No, I restricted my self to observable features

See, the mistake you keep making (and have always made) is to think that attaching different characteristics to some truth claims – “god”, leprechauns etc – necessarily changes their status from “truth claims with no known means of investigation and verification”. It doesn’t though – god and leprechauns are still in that box unless you can find some way in which they can be investigated and verified, which is when you always disappear remember?     
   
[/quote] As long as Leprechauns are tiny wee irish folk at the end of rainbows. The case against them is falsifiable.....and you can take that to the bank.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think it was CS Lewis or perhaps it was Anthony Hopkins who said Prayer doesn't change God.....it changes me.

Fine – so it’s a kind of self-help therapy then and no god is necessary for it to do its thing. There are lots of problems with it still I think (false hope etc), but if you want to exclude god from the story you’ll get no argument from me.

God is sovereign.

Harry the leprechaun is a bit tetchy. We can both play the un-argued assertion game. 

I know you think you have no goof reason to think God exists you have told us enough. I have no good reason intellectually to think he may not and that the claim that there are no good reasons is hyperbolic.

And a straw man. I’ve said perfectly clearly that there’s no good reason that I’m aware of. That’s because despite reading fairly widely on the subject, asking theists here to justify their beliefs in gods etc I’ve never found an argument for the claim “god” that isn’t simple to falsify. Now there may be a mystic somewhere on top of a mountain contemplating his navel who’s come up with an argument that, if I knew what it was, I couldn’t falsify but there’s no sign of it so far.

Which is odd when you think about given how many theists also evangelise for their beliefs. If they had any interest in converting rational people, why on earth would they not try at least an argument that’s logically sound to do the job? Could it be do you suppose that not one of them actually have such an argument?

Hmmm…       
 

I'm smiling

That’s nice.

I'm grinning.

So the smile is being wiped off your face then? ‘twas ever thus.

I'm on the floor.

Bit much, but it’s your problem so don’t blame me for your dusty trousers…
 

I don't have to. All I have to do is to demonstrate that the case against Leprechauns is falsifiable and I have done

Yes you do, and no you haven’t. If you’re content though for your god and my leprechauns to remain in the same box marked “truth claims with no known means of investigation and verification” then that’s fine by me. I agree – they’re epistemically the same.   

Laughing hysterically...... No, I restricted my self to observable features…

Which makes no difference whatsoever to your basic problem.

As long as Leprechauns are tiny wee irish folk at the end of rainbows. The case against them is falsifiable.....and you can take that to the bank.

That would be the bank with the bulging vault named ”mistakes Vlad has made” presumably.

So anyway, here we remain with the category “truth claims with no known means of investigation and verification” and inside it is your god, other peoples’ gods, my leprechauns, Jack Frost, the orbiting teapot and pixies tap-dancing on Alpha Centauri. I’d have thought you’d be more concerned with trying to find a way to extricate your god from that category but as you seem content for them to be epistemically the same thing it seems that for once we’re in agreement.

Why then though should anyone take your claim “god” even one jot more seriously than my claim leprechauns?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again. No explanation of how the Leprechaun with its empirically detectable features is unfalsifiable and in the same category as God and the infinite universe.

You messed up by introducing law's hierarchy of guesses. The explanation of which is completely at odds with an observable being like the Leprechaun.

Now explain why God is down in the heirarchy with Leprechauns
Without owning up to personal opinion and  your heirarchy being based on ridiculousness.

[jeremyp]

It's funny but eye witness testimony is still used today

And it's still unreliable.

and it forms part of empirical observation funnily enough.

And, funnily enough, people have invented lots of scientific protocols to eliminate the unreliability of eye witnesses. That's what the whole repeatability thing is about.

Anyway the above is all moot. Can you show me any eye witness testimony from people that met the risen Christ?

No. Thought not.

[jeremyp]

Just because predatory behaviour is acceptable in insects doesn't mean it is in humans. A dirty great portion of victim blaming you've served up there Jeremy.

Just in case you were struggling with the analogy. People were executed in ancient Rome for the crime of spreading Christianity. Furthermore, Christianity itself promotes this as being virtuous behaviour on the part of the victim.

Perhaps this is the characteristic that made it so successful: any religion that did not encourage its followers to keep spreading it even at the cost of their own lives would die out as soon as it was actively oppressed. Christianity instills a suicidal disregard for their own lives in its proselytisers and therefore oppression has no effect on its spread. In fact, if it convinces people that martyrdom is good and to be actively sought, oppression will help its spread.

[Outrider]

No, I really meant, what the hell is this?

What, you aren't aware of how unreliable eye-witness testimony is?  Here's the first link I came across with a quick search - https://www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html.  You might also want to look up the story of the basketball-tracking experiment as a glaring example of how bad eyewitness testimony can be https://www.livescience.com/6727-invisible-gorilla-test-shows-notice.html

So if your argument for validating the biblical accounts is 'eye-witness testimony' then even if the authors were genuinely eye-witnesses (which appears unlikely at best) that's not a great endorsement.

Right... that doesn't actually even begin to address the point that I made.

No, it does.  If all you want your religion to do is make you feel good of a Sunday morning, then base it on whatever the hell you'd like.  But you want to support an arrangement that, around the world, is involved in the systematic persecution and subjugation of gay people, women, the disabled and those with other philosophical viewpoints - if you want to try to justify that, then the eighteenth-hand accounts of allegations of a magic zombie aren't sufficient.

No they aren't they are committing to Christ who is God.

Who is dead.

You do realise that those are euphemisims for causing the extinction of many species in our ecosystem, deforestation and getting to the brink of climate devastation don't you?

It has consequences, it could have been done better, but I note that you're qualifying my point, not contradicting it.

Sentimental bollocks

Such a solid refutation, how will I ever recover from such a well-conceived argument...

Fall of man happening all the time.

Yeah, all that improved education, extended lifespan, reduction in communicable diseases, alleviation of cancer suffering, antibiotics, reduction in starvation and abject poverty.  We've fallen so far that people are living better and longer - won't somebody think of the children! (All of them, now that we've reduced infant mortality so far - it's so hard to think of all those children...)

Some atheists were just one Dawkins away from being rabble roused.

We have 'rabble-roused' atheists - you've got the Crusades, Hitler's Germany and the KKK for a starter, I think we're WAY down on the accountability scale for now.

Only the first three are divine.

So just three gods in your monotheism... and the other magical beings are just regular magical, not divine magical... is that because they need material components for their miracles rather than a focus?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just in case you were struggling with the analogy. People were executed in ancient Rome for the crime of spreading Christianity. Furthermore, Christianity itself promotes this as being virtuous behaviour on the part of the victim.

Perhaps this is the characteristic that made it so successful: any religion that did not encourage its followers to keep spreading it even at the cost of their own lives would die out as soon as it was actively oppressed. Christianity instills a suicidal disregard for their own lives in its proselytisers and therefore oppression has no effect on its spread. In fact, if it convinces people that martyrdom is good and to be actively sought, oppression will help its spread.

Jeremy.......when you undertake a tactical victim blaming....you really commit.

Do you accept no wrong in the Roman persecutions? You seem to make them sound more like more law enforcement against criminals.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And it's still unreliable.

And, funnily enough, people have invented lots of scientific protocols to eliminate the unreliability of eye witnesses. That's what the whole repeatability thing is about.

Anyway the above is all moot. Can you show me any eye witness testimony from people that met the risen Christ?

No. Thought not.

But I can show you memos from the early church which attest to an historical Jesus which note that several eyewitness to Jesus ministry were still around.

[Gordon]

But I can show you memos from the early church which attest to an historical Jesus which note that several eyewitness to Jesus ministry were still around.

Super - in relation to these how did you exclude the risks of mistakes or lies?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Super - in relation to these how did you exclude the risks of mistakes or lies?

Historians presumably put the same proviso on all ancient texts. As memos they are open to scrutiny and would be at the time in fact there is in them recommendations to people to check out the facts for themselves.
It seems that the only arguments around Jesus at this time were theological.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again. No explanation of how the Leprechaun with its empirically detectable features is unfalsifiable and in the same category as God and the infinite universe.

Not sure how many times this has to be explained you, but whether your truth claim involves a non-material or a material (leprechauns would be both by the way, as presumably would be an interventionist god) makes no difference whatever to the point that undoes you. The orbiting teapot would be material, but the clam is that it’s orbiting beyond the reach of any instruments to detect it. There’s no means to investigate/falsify the claim, just as there’s no means to investigate/falsify the claim “leprechauns” or the claim “god”. Inasmuch as these claims also have (supposedly) non-material characteristics, the problem is compounded because there’s no method to falsify either of them even conceptually.         

You messed up by introducing law's hierarchy of guesses. The explanation of which is completely at odds with an observable being like the Leprechaun.

I know it’s your thing, but resorting to lying doesn’t help you here. The only “messing up” was your mangling of the going nuclear issue. Try to focus now: truths are probabilistic – there’s no way to be categorically certain of anything (the unknown unknowns problem). Does that mean that we should treat all truth claims as of equal epistemic value (ie, go nuclear)? No of course not – we have tools and methods to grade them relative to each other but with no appeal to absolutes, and I gave you the example (which you just ignored) of jumping out of the window vs taking the lift. Presumably even you can grasp that of the two statements “defenestration is the safer way to the ground” and “taking the lift is the safer way to the ground” it’s simple and reasonable to assign a probabilistic truth value to each with no appeal to certainty?

So to your god/leprechauns problem: how would you propose to rank either as more probably true than the other? I’ll help you: you can’t.     

Now explain why God is down in the heirarchy with Leprechauns

Yet again, because neither have any known means of investigation or verification. Write it down 100 times, and if it hasn’t sunk in by then write it down 100 more. Keep going until the 20-watt bulb finally flickers into life.

Without owning up to personal opinion and  your heirarchy being based on ridiculousness.

See above.

Yet again, 0/10 – See me

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But I can show you memos from the early church which attest to an historical Jesus which note that several eyewitness to Jesus ministry were still around.

And I can show you memos from people who saw the basketball video that attest to there being no gorilla involved. So? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not sure how many times this has to be explained you, but whether your truth claim involves a non-material or a material (leprechauns would be both by the way, as presumably would be an interventionist god) makes no difference whatever to the point that undoes you. The orbiting teapot would be material, but the clam is that it’s orbiting beyond the reach of any instruments to detect it. There’s no means to investigate/falsify the claim, just as there’s no means to investigate/falsify the claim “leprechauns” or the claim “god”. Inasmuch as these claims also have (supposedly) non-material characteristics, the problem is compounded because there’s no method to falsify either of them even conceptually.         

I know it’s your thing, but resorting to lying doesn’t help you here. The only “messing up” was your mangling of the going nuclear issue. Try to focus now: truths are probabilistic – there’s no way to be categorically certain of anything (the unknown unknowns problem). Does that mean that we should treat all truth claims as of equal epistemic value (ie, go nuclear)? No of course not – we have tools and methods to grade them relative to each other but with no appeal to absolutes, and I gave you the example (which you just ignored) of jumping out of the window vs taking the lift. Presumably even you can grasp that of the two statements “defenestration is the safer way to the ground” and “taking the lift is the safer way to the ground” it’s simple and reasonable to assign a probabilistic truth value to each with no appeal to certainty?

So to your god/leprechauns problem: how would you propose to rank either as more probably true than the other? I’ll help you: you can’t.     

Yet again, because neither have any known means of investigation or verification. Write it down 100 times, and if it hasn’t sunk in by then write it down 100 more. Keep going until the 20-watt bulb finally flickers into life.

See above.

Yet again, 0/10 – See me

When last I looked Ireland was not in orbit.It is still considerably larger than a teapot.AND Leprechauns were still Irish. NOT some kind of space irish.

[Gordon]

Historians presumably put the same proviso on all ancient texts.

No doubt they do.

As memos they are open to scrutiny and would be at the time in fact there is in them recommendations to people to check out the facts for themselves.

The facts as regards the provenance of these memos are what, and on what basis have these facts been verified?

It seems that the only arguments around Jesus at this time were theological.

Even if so, that doesn't get round the risks of mistakes or lies or the uncertainties around provenance no matter what was said about Jesus: whether he was 'God' incarnate, or that he wore cool sandals.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And I can show you memos from people who saw the basketball video that attest to there being no gorilla involved. So?

Jesus was alleged to have been around for around thirty years not 30 seconds Hillside.

[Outrider]

Jesus was alleged to have been around for around thirty years not 30 seconds Hillside.

Buddha was reported to be around for around 80 years, do you believe the magical stories about him?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No doubt they do.

The facts as regards the provenance of these memos are what, and on what basis have these facts been verified?

Even if so, that doesn't get round the risks of mistakes or lies or the uncertainties around provenance no matter what was said about Jesus: whether he was 'God' incarnate, or that he wore cool sandals.

I dont know how you are with uncertainty Gordon. Some atheists wear it as a badge of honour. At the end of the day none of it is cctv. However Jesus myth is obviously fringe stuff. Given historical certainty the only contemporary arguments in Paul's time are theological ones.At the end of the day you have to judge for yourself but the go to man for you is atheist historian Bart Ehrman.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Buddha was reported to be around for around 80 years, do you believe the magical stories about him?

O.

To be honest I'm more interested in the theology of these guys the miracles come down the list.

If you think I'm one of your caricatures who is excited by a miracle the you are mistaken.

[Outrider]

To be honest I'm more interested in the theology of these guys the miracles come down the list.

If you think I'm one of your caricatures who is excited by a miracle the you are mistaken.

You don't need to be excited by them, but if you're interested in the theology - as opposed to the philosophies espoused - then you're already accepting of the claims of miracles, because without the miracles you don't have a divinity to liberate the philosophy from needing justification and moving into the navel-gazing of theology.

O.

[Gordon]

I dont know how you are with uncertainty Gordon.

I subscribe the Bertrand Russell's advice:"Do not feel absolutely certain of anything"

Some atheists wear it as a badge of honour. At the end of the day none of it is cctv. However Jesus myth is obviously fringe stuff. Given historical certainty the only contemporary arguments in Paul's time are theological ones.

Even so, the risks I mentioned earlier still apply.

At the end of the day you have to judge for yourself but the go to man for you is atheist historian Bart Ehrman.

But I'm asking you about how you dealt with the risks and provenance issues in relation to the memos you mentioned.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I subscribe the Bertrand Russell's advice:"Do not feel absolutely certain of anything"

Even so, the risks I mentioned earlier still apply.

But I'm asking you about how you dealt with the risks and provenance issues in relation to the memos you mentioned.

Frankly I concluded that final dismissal of the theological aspects of the account was God dodging.