Atheism...the religion of...science?

[Nick Soapdish]

Ceridwen018, Linwood,

I agree with your analysis... I was just clarifying C.S. Lewis's arguments. To me, the faith must rest on the Bible being an inspired, divinely purposed document.

They are an appeal to emotion.

There is also an appeal to intuition and reason in Mere Christianity. However, we all know these topics cannot be decided by logic alone.

 

[linwood]

There is also an appeal to intuition and reason in Mere Christianity. However, we all know these topics cannot be decided by logic alone.

Very true.

Thats what I`ve been trying to get across.

 

[Fade]

Actually Lewis presented three options:

1) Jesus is who He says He is -- the Son of God
2) Jesus is a lunatic (equivilant to someone claiming themselves a poached egg)
3) Jesus is evil

The context of this was an answer to the claim that Jesus was simply a good moral teacher, so there was no reason to include an option that Jesus did not exist (the premise assumed He did).

Lewis's reasoning that Jesus could not have been just a good moral teacher was that no "good" person would make such absurd claims about themselves.

This logic falls apart when one considers the fact that we don't really know what Jesus said. We have second hand accounts that are somewhat contradictory at best. We have Jews, Christians and Muslims all claiming seperate things.
C.S. Lewis is relying on the premis that the bible is correct. Since this is unreasonable to presume in the first place any logical argument he makes is illogical at best.

Also consider this. Jesus said he was the son of God. Fair enough, what is wrong with claiming this? My personal view is that he meant we are all the sons/daughters of God. Has anybody seen 'Life of Brian'?

 

[the tasty anarchist]

To tell you the truth, im an "athiest" because the whole bible which many religions worship, can be proven to have many discrepancies within in it, it has been rewriteen by so many different people, numerous amounts of them changing to help support their own political status. As well as that i believe that religion is a kind of depressant on free thinking. It hampers on how you would think or act in any one situation.

 

[justintron_2003]

nice views on things im atheist because i cant belive in a intangible being that i cant see or touch that rules us from above not to be seen , and also there are so many things that could not of happened in the bible

 

[herospirit]

This logic falls apart when one considers the fact that we don't really know what Jesus said. We have second hand accounts that are somewhat contradictory at best.

Define second hand. By all rights the gospel is written by disciples, the very ones who knew Him, and studied under Him. In the very essense appointed by Him to preach the message. By no means do I in this light consider them second hand, but first choice.

C.S. Lewis is relying on the premis that the bible is correct. Since this is unreasonable to presume in the first place any logical argument he makes is illogical at best.

In order to describe the religious beliefs of Christianity it was only "logical" that He assume it was true. A premise is a basis for an argument, when Christianity is the argument, it would only make since to do such. If you find falsity outside of an argument, it is irrelevant, but if you find falsity within, that is what makes the premise incorrect, or illogical. This is why it is necessary to reason within an argument. Great cities are brought down from within. Incase you didn't know C.S. Lewis was an atheist before he bacame a Christian. He saw the simple truth, that if He wonted to prove Christianity false, it could only be done from within. In trying to find falsity, he found it within himself.

Also consider this. Jesus said he was the son of God. Fair enough, what is wrong with claiming this? My personal view is that he meant we are all the sons/daughters of God. Has anybody seen 'Life of Brian'?

If you truly believe thats what He meant, then you obviously dont understand what it is that you don't believe. In this presumption, that is not without cause, I have to wonder if in turn you know what you believe. If you say that the doctorine is false, show me where it contradicts itself.

 

[linwood]

Define second hand. By all rights the gospel is written by disciples, the very ones who knew Him, and studied under Him. In the very essense appointed by Him to preach the message. By no means do I in this light consider them second hand, but first choice.

This is absolutely untrue and shows great ignorance of your own religion.
None of the canonized Gospels were written by direct disciples of Jesus and the Christians who canonized it never said they were.
The very titles of the books themselves are evidence of this.

In order to describe the religious beliefs of Christianity it was only "logical" that He assume it was true. A premise is a basis for an argument, when Christianity is the argument, it would only make since to do such. If you find falsity outside of an argument, it is irrelevant, but if you find falsity within, that is what makes the premise incorrect, or illogical. This is why it is necessary to reason within an argument. Great cities are brought down from within. Incase you didn't know C.S. Lewis was an atheist before he bacame a Christian. He saw the simple truth, that if He wonted to prove Christianity false, it could only be done from within. In trying to find falsity, he found it within himself.

For the 50th time...You cannot evidence spirituality with logic.
If the premise is wrong or unfounded then it is not "true".
The logic may be correct but it is ultimately untrue.

If you truly believe thats what He meant, then you obviously dont understand what it is that you don't believe. In this presumption, that is not without cause, I have to wonder if in turn you know what you believe. If you say that the doctorine is false, show me where it contradicts itself.

I hold the same belief as Fade does and I can tell by your statements in this forum that my study of Biblical text and Christian history exceeds your own.
Because one doesn`t agree with you doesn`t make them ignorant of the point.
In fact it very well could make you ignorant of the point evidenced by your disagreement.

 

[herospirit]

This is absolutely untrue and shows great ignorance of your own religion.
None of the canonized Gospels were written by direct disciples of Jesus and the Christians who canonized it never said they were.
The very titles of the books themselves are evidence of this.

Matthew, also was known as Levi. John Mark, was hand for Peter. And John wrote...the book of John You are very wrong indeed.

For the 50th time...You cannot evidence spirituality with logic.
If the premise is wrong or unfounded then it is not "true".
The logic may be correct but it is ultimately untrue.

And you cannot disprove it neither. That is why I believe hero said to test logic with logic.

I hold the same belief as Fade does and I can tell by your statements in this forum that my study of Biblical text and Christian history exceeds your own.
Because one doesn`t agree with you doesn`t make them ignorant of the point.
In fact it very well could make you ignorant of the point evidenced by your disagreement.

You arrogance is only succeeded by the foolishness to boast it. To save myself time copying and pasting over 100 verses, try reading the book you claim to know.:banghead3

 

[linwood]

Matthew, also was known as Levi. John Mark, was hand for Peter. And John wrote...the book of John You are very wrong indeed.

You are not citing Biblical scholarship you are citing Catholic dogma.

The only traditional support for Matthew being the author of the book that bears his name is Papias.

Papias states....

"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

The Gospel of Matthew was not written in Hebrew, it was written in Greek as were all of the Gospels.
Matthew also borrows heavily from both Mark and the Septuagint which are both original Greek writings.

Papias states that he did not speak directly with any of Jesus`s disciples but got his information second and third hand mostly from John the Presbyter

The Gospel of John was also not written in Hebrew and the only traditional support for it being an apostlistic writing is Iraneus in the late 2nd century.
the writings of Iranaeus are riddled with his mistaking the disciple John with the aforementioned John the Presbyter.
The Gospel of John was written around 100 CE if not later which makes an eye-witness account highly unlikely.

I am also curious as to how an illiterate Palestinian fisherman becomes fluent in literary Greek as this is the language John was written in.

Absolutely nobody believes Peter wrote Mark.
As for Mark being a follower of Peter it doesn`t show in the Gospel considering Mark is almost hostile to Peter in his writings and denies him any of Jesus`s grace in the gospel.

Mark is written in Greek not Aramaic which I believe was Peters native language.
Mark makes numerous geographical and cultural errors which peter or someone writing for Peter would never make.

Finally Mark could not have been written in Peters lifetime as the Author knows of the destruction of the temple.
Peter was dead by then.

In essence your beliefs about who wrote the Gospels are based upon some guy told another guy 100 + years after the fact...and thats it.
Thats the entire strength of your assertions.

Thats called heresay from secondary sources.

Your concepts of the Gospels are biased through dogma and not in agreement with any objective scholarly review.

You arrogance is only succeeded by the foolishness to boast it. To save myself time copying and pasting over 100 verses, try reading the book you claim to know.:banghead3

My arrogance is exceeded by very little admitedly, but apparently it is exceeded by your own.

I`ve read the Bible and suggest you go beyond what is written in the Bible and study who it was written by, when they wrote it, what their agenda was, and what their sources were.

Then perhaps we can continue this if you like.
Or you can simply continue on as you are driven by little more than revealed faith.
There is nothing wrong with that I suppose but don`t attempt to evidence your convictions with anything empirically objective if you do.

Stick with faith and faith alone, it can`t really be argued with.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I am also curious as to how an illiterate Palestinian fisherman becomes fluent in literary Greek as this is the language John was written in.

The power of God knows no such literary bounds. That you use this to denounce his gospel speaks volumes.

 

[linwood]

The power of God knows no such literary bounds. That you use this to denounce his gospel speaks volumes.

If speaking truth is denouncement of anything then it is you who have a problem Doc.

At least you live by the advice I just gave Herospirit and don`t even attempt to substantiate any claim you make but revel in faith alone.

That speaks volumes as well, volumes probably more historically evidenced than the Gospels themselves

 

[Fade]

Define second hand. By all rights the gospel is written by disciples, the very ones who knew Him, and studied under Him. In the very essense appointed by Him to preach the message. By no means do I in this light consider them second hand, but first choice.

Prove it! I suggest you read a book on the history of christianity that isn't written by a catholic.

Interesting that you think the Bible (specifically the NT) was written in Jesus' life time.

In order to describe the religious beliefs of Christianity it was only "logical" that He assume it was true. A premise is a basis for an argument, when Christianity is the argument, it would only make since to do such. If you find falsity outside of an argument, it is irrelevant, but if you find falsity within, that is what makes the premise incorrect, or illogical. This is why it is necessary to reason within an argument. Great cities are brought down from within. Incase you didn't know C.S. Lewis was an atheist before he bacame a Christian. He saw the simple truth, that if He wonted to prove Christianity false, it could only be done from within. In trying to find falsity, he found it within himself.

Well bully for him, doesn't mean he has a valid point.

If you truly believe thats what He meant, then you obviously dont understand what it is that you don't believe. In this presumption, that is not without cause, I have to wonder if in turn you know what you believe. If you say that the doctorine is false, show me where it contradicts itself.

If you don't believe you are the son of God then I think you may have missed the point. Why do you think God is refered to as 'The Father'? You might want to think about that for a while.
Luke 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

 

[herospirit]

Prove it! I suggest you read a book on the history of christianity that isn't written by a catholic.

Interesting that you think the Bible (specifically the NT) was written in Jesus' life time.

Well bully for him, doesn't mean he has a valid point.

If you don't believe you are the son of God then I think you may have missed the point. Why do you think God is refered to as 'The Father'? You might want to think about that for a while.
Luke 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Firstly, I'm protestant. Secondly, I didn't get that from any catholic religion. Matthew chapter 10 lists the disciples. That alone will account for 2 of gospels.

 

[linwood]

Firstly, I'm protestant. Secondly, I didn't get that from any catholic religion. Matthew chapter 10 lists the disciples. That alone will account for 2 of gospels.

Herospirit,

The Catholic/Orthadox dogma I speak of is inherent in every single Bible the world over.
It was the Catholic/Orthadox church that canonized the Bible.
It was the Catholic church that determined the very properties of Christ.

The traditions you are speaking of come directly from Catholic dogma written and instituted almost 2000 years ago.
It is imbedded within every single Christian sect that claims the Bible is the word of God whether they like it or not.

The argument that the book itself states it is something is not evidence as it is circular reasoning.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If speaking truth is denouncement of anything then it is you who have a problem Doc.

Your presumption lacks logic. If God "is", then God is all powerful. If God is all powerful, then a poor fisherman being able to write in Greek is really no problem!

But you use God's power to denounce his book? It don't make no sense where I come from.

 

[linwood]

Your presumption lacks logic.

Of course my presumption lacks logic as logic doesn`t deal explicitly with "truth".

If God "is", then God is all powerful. If God is all powerful, then a poor fisherman being able to write in Greek is really no problem!

This is why logic isn`t applicable here.
Your logic rests on the premises that God exists and is all powerful.
These premises may or may not be "true" but they are ultimately unknowable and worthless in any objective discussion which is what I thought herospirit and I were having.

But you use God's power to denounce his book? It don't make no sense where I come from.

I have never used Gods power, I don`t believe God exists so I wouldn`t attempt such a thing.

This is an objective discussion of the authorship and history of the Bible it does no good to mix faith and objectivism as one cannot always exist with the other.

 

[Quiddity]

My spider senses tell me that the word "rational" and "logic" are being defined differently by both of you. If you limit it to only those things that can be measured then you are pretty much not gonna get anywhere with theist. Just vainful demands.

 

[linwood]

My spider senses tell me that the word "rational" and "logic" are being defined differently by both of you. If you limit it to only those things that can be measured then you are pretty much not gonna get anywhere with theist. Just vainful demands.

Your spider sense is right Victor.


I`m aware I`ll get no where with NetDoc.

I was speaking to HeroSpirit who was basing his claims on what he believed to be objectively measurable sources.

 

[Quiddity]

Your spider sense is right Victor.


I`m aware I`ll get no where with NetDoc.

I was speaking to HeroSpirit who was basing his claims on what he believed to be objectively measurable sources.

I didn't intend for this to be pointed at NetDoc. I specifically said theist.
Beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions are quite natural and enclosing them to naturalistic flames don't do them justice. But I guess that's just me attaching too much meaning and you not attaching any. Who knows..

 

[linwood]

I didn't intend for this to be pointed at NetDoc. I specifically said theist.

In that case you`d be wrong as I`ve had numerous discussions and debates here and elsewhere with theists concerning an objective view of religious dogma and religious texts.
Most of them have been very enlightening.

Beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions are quite natural and enclosing them to naturalistic flames don't do them justice. But I guess that's just me attaching too much meaning and you not attaching any. Who knows..

It could be you`re attaching meaning in the wrong context for the subject.
We aren`t having a discussion of the possible spiritual methods God might or might not have used to spread his word.
We`re having a discussion concerning the objective authorship of the gospels.

I have in this thread told HeroSpirit that the only way he can get around this objectivity to defend the belief in his sources is to fall back on desires and emotions, faith if you will.

He was presenting his support for his sources in an objective manner.
I was merely responding to that.