Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Tomorrow is Tuesday. Do you use the term? If so, you are undoubtedly a worshipper of Tiw, the god of single combat, victory and heroic glory in Norse mythology. What other reason could there be for your acceptance of the name?

What other reason? How about because I speak English and that's what it's called in English, the etymology of the name has nothing to do with it.

I also sometimes use "Jesus Christ" as an expletive. That does not make me a Christian.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

So you arrived at your position via your own research, ...

Essentially, yes. Do you recall my post early in the Religion I thread?

Originally Posted by Actor

One day in Sunday School when I was a kid about 12 years old the teacher announced that next week's lesson would be "why we know that God exists." I was thrilled. I wanted to know. I spent the next week in anticipation.

When the great day came the teacher had all of us sit in a circle, then, starting with the kid on her left, she went around the circle and had each kid tell why he knew God exists. Each kid gave an answer I'd heard before. "Because the sunset is beautiful." "Because science does not have all the answers." By the time it was my turn I had realized that this was not a lesson, it was a test. So I came up with some bullshit answer, I don't remember what.

The rest of the day was one of the worst in my life. l was very depressed. For a week I had anticipated a great revelation. I got one.

Why do we know God exists?

We don't!

I spent the next 6 years doing my "research", not easy in a small Oklahoma town whose school library consists mostly of Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books. (I think the only non-fiction book they had was The Naked Communist, the manifesto of the John Birch Society.) During my first college another student asked me right out of the blue "B

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... and have rarely cited other sources who have unearthed supportive arguments?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

So you arrived at your position via your own research, ...

Essentially, yes. Do you recall my post early in the Religion I thread?

Originally Posted by Actor

One day in Sunday School when I was a kid about 12 years old the teacher announced that next week's lesson would be "why we know that God exists." I was thrilled. I wanted to know. I spent the next week in anticipation.

When the great day came the teacher had all of us sit in a circle, then, starting with the kid on her left, she went around the circle and had each kid tell why he knew God exists. Each kid gave an answer I'd heard before. "Because the sunset is beautiful." "Because science does not have all the answers." By the time it was my turn I had realized that this was not a lesson, it was a test. So I came up with some bullshit answer, I don't remember what.

The rest of the day was one of the worst in my life. l was very depressed. For a week I had anticipated a great revelation. I got one.

Why do we know God exists?

We don't!

I spent the next 6 years doing my "research", not easy in a small Oklahoma town whose school library consists mostly of Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books. (I think the only non-fiction book they had was The Naked Communist, the manifesto of the John Birch Society.) I did read the Bible from cover to cover. During my first semester at college another student asked me right out of the blue "Brother, are you a Christian?" I asked him some questions and he left after telling me I was going to burn.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... and have rarely cited other sources who have unearthed supportive arguments?

I have not kept track of how often I have quoted mainstream atheist authors. I will say this: up until about five years ago I was unaware that there were any books available on atheism, books such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, etc. I see nothing wrong with citing best selling authors.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

The overwhelming majority of scholars that accept an historical Jesus?

The overwhelming majority of these scholars are employed by the religion industry. For them to say otherwise would be analogous to someone who works in the advertising depart of the Ford Motor Company to come out and say Toyotas are the best cars. Give it time. In 20-30 years this majority may not be so overwhelming.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Your question should be "who was Justin?" Obviously it was Justin Martyr, a person I assume we can both agree actually existed. I agree that the dialog is possibly "a fictional literary device" but then I must ask you "why did Justin put those words in his fictional character's mouth?" The dialog is hard evidence that the question of Jesus historicity was extant circa 160 C.E.

In your pipe dreams. He merely employed the literary device of "devil's advocate" as a teaching tool. None of your high school teachers or professors in college ever did that? Here's a little hint: Read the entire dialogue and I venture to say that you'll find the answer to your question. Not so much, though, from just a tiny snippet.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Be careful with Justin. He was not a fan of sola scriptura, nor were any Early Fathers, it has been argued (successfully, IMHO).

Thanks for the heads up. But fear not...ol' Justin would never be able to convert me to the contrary and heretical view of scripture.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The overwhelming majority of these scholars are employed by the religion industry. For them to say otherwise would be analogous to someone who works in the advertising depart of the Ford Motor Company to come out and say Toyotas are the best cars. Give it time. In 20-30 years this majority may not be so overwhelming.

There you go again....a skeptic full of false hope obtained by kicking the perennial can down the road ...AGAIN!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Carrier, Van Voorst, O'Neill. Names. If we are going to discuss this writer v. that writer then it's all ad hominem and appeal to authority without addressing the issue under discussion.
Nor did they argue that Hercules or Dionysus did not exist although few today would argue that they did. Prior to Copernicus, Galileo and Newton there was no alternative to superstition. To argue that someone else's god does not exist was to invite a counter argument that your's does not exist. Boxcar wanted an example of an ancient who disputed the existence of Jesus. I gave him one who at least indirectly acknowledged the possibility.

How many different religions were there in the ancient world? Thousands. How many different religions are there today? Thousands. Can they all be true? No.

How many different sciences are there today? One. Did North Korea build its nukes using a different science than our guys in Alamogordo used? No. There are two things that are absolutely true about science:

• There is only one.
• It works.

If you get sick or are injured you go to the hospital. You do not go there for religion. You go there for the science. Because the science works. Even if the doctors tell you that you have an incurable disease the science still works because the science tells them they can't save you.

The question of the historicity of Jesus only came about as a serious discussion in the nineteenth century. It needed science to bring it about. It needs science to seriously investigate it. If no ancient writer steeped in superstition ever questioned it then that is not surprising. It's also irrelevant.

Question: Why is Jesus called Jesus? His name was Joshua. Jesus is a Greek name.

Really? You're attempting to draw an analogy between Science and Religion? Moreover, not all scientists are in agreement with the their science -- most especially the forensic variety. But all non-believing scientists do have this in common -- they all share Adam's sin nature, which means they're born enemies of God. They all have a natural anti-God bias. All those pagan scientists, along with the rest of the fallen world, are infected with the sin "disease" for which science has no cure. (Yes, yes I know..kick the can down the road again and wait a few hundred years and someone will come up with a cure to make us humans perfectly sinless.)

Oh...and Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're attempting to draw an analogy between Science and Religion?

It's a comparison, not an analogy. The point stands. Science works. Religion does not.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Moreover, not all scientists are in agreement with the their science -- most especially the ones with degrees from Liberty University.

FTFY!

Originally Posted by boxcar

But all non-believing scientists do have this in common -- they all share Adam's sin nature, which means they're born enemies of God. They all have a natural anti-God bias. All those pagan scientists, along with the rest of the fallen world, are infected with the sin "disease" for which science has no cure.

Religion is the disease. It's caused by the god virus. Science is the cure.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...and Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua.

And you're going to tell me Yeshua is not a variation of Joshua?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

It's a comparison, not an analogy. The point stands. Science works. Religion does not.
FTFY!
Religion is the disease. It's caused by the god virus. Science is the cure.
And you're going to tell me Yeshua is not a variation of Joshua?

Part of the definition of "analogy" is: comparison based on such a resemblance.

And if you are a typical representative of an agent of science, no one ever has to be concerned about science being a "cure" for the "disease of religion". You are one of the most inept atheistic apologists I've ever encountered on the internet. Whether you're a typical believer in atheistic naturalism of a finite universe or a believer in a timeless, never-ending, always was universe, either view runs into the unyielding, unforgiving brick wall of one or more fundamental Laws of Logic. And you're so desperate to find an ancient skeptic who questioned the existence of Jesus Christ, you have stooped to citing someone who is very likely a fictional character! I trust the megabytes of irony
in this strategy has not eluded you.

Regarding Jesus' name: Maybe Joshua is a variation of the Hebrew "Yeshua". Put that in your hash pipe and puff on it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Part of the definition of "analogy" is: comparison based on such a resemblance.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And if you are a typical representative of an agent of science, no one ever has to be concerned about science being a "cure" for the "disease of religion". You are one of the most inept atheistic apologists I've ever encountered on the internet.

If you want an expert "atheistic apologist" why don't you call in to The Atheist Experience show on 5 November and talk to Matt Dillahunty. The show runs from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. CST (that would be 5:30 to 7:00 swamp time). The phone number is 1-512-686-0279. I don't think you'll do too well against Matt.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Whether you're a typical believer in atheistic naturalism of a finite universe or a believer in a timeless, never-ending, always was universe, either view runs into the unyielding, unforgiving brick wall of one or more fundamental Laws of Logic.

You have yet to produce a cogent argument to support that. You have no idea how logic works. You just spout "Law of non-contradiction" whenever you get in trouble.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you're so desperate to find an ancient skeptic who questioned the existence of Jesus Christ, you have stooped to citing someone who is very likely a fictional character! I trust the megabytes of irony in this strategy has not eluded you.

So why did Justin make up this fictional character in the first place? Why did he put those words in this fictional character's mouth. Answer that.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Regarding Jesus' name: Maybe Joshua is a variation of the Hebrew "Yeshua".

Yeshua ben Joseph to be precise.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Whatever.
If you want an expert "atheistic apologist" why don't you call in to The Atheist Experience show on 5 November and talk to Matt Dillahunty. The show runs from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. CST (that would be 5:30 to 7:00 swamp time). The phone number is 1-512-686-0279. I don't think you'll do too well against Matt.
You have yet to produce a cogent argument to support that. You have no idea how logic works. You just spout "Law of non-contradiction" whenever you get in trouble.
So why did Justin make up this fictional character in the first place? Why did he put those words in this fictional character's mouth. Answer that.
Yeshua ben Joseph to be precise.

Why are you asking me for Justin's rationale? But if I had to guess, he was employing the devil's advocate literary device. You've never used this device? You have never seen or heard anyone use this strategy? And why are you appealing to Justin, anyway? He was a believer in Christ -- or at the very least believed Jesus existed. You would learn that if you read his other works.

And I have forgotten more about logic than you'll ever know. And besides, I have shown how a finite universe from a purely naturalistic perspective cannot have caused itself. Logically, NOTHING can cause or create itself. Such idiocy is self-refuting. And the universe cannot inherently be self-existing and at the same time consist of Change, Time, Birth and Death -- all of which are antithetical to self-existence. The Law of Identity tells us that a thing cannot act contrary to its essence (nature) because each thing is the SAME with itself and DIFFERENT from another!

As far as your hero Matt D goes...invite the gent over here. I'll be happy to make his acquaintance but I can't guarantee that he'll feel the same way about me after I'm finished making chopped liver of his atheism.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As far as your hero Matt D goes...invite the gent over here. I'll be happy to make his acquaintance but I can't guarantee that he'll feel the same way about me after I'm finished making chopped liver of his atheism.

Matt has a busy schedule. Just call the number during the show. Better yet call before the show because the lines fill up quickly. Have a question to ask or something you want to discuss. How hard can that be?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Matt has a busy schedule.

As I do.

Just call the number during the show. Better yet call before the show because the lines fill up quickly. Have a question to ask or something you want to discuss. How hard can that be?

I would have much more than one question for him. Better he pop over here. He can engage me at his leisure. Besides...if you fancy yourself as a disciple of his, either your learning curve is long or he is short on his teaching skills. Either way...since you haven't impressed me, I doubt he will.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I would have much more than one question for him.

Good.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Better he pop over here.

Why is that better? I mean if he popped over to swampland someone would have to pay for travel to and from Austin, TX. Plus hotel and car rental. How is that better than you making a phone call?

Originally Posted by boxcar

He can engage me at his leisure.

I don't think he has much leisure. He's a working atheist.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Besides...if you fancy yourself as a disciple of his, ...

I'm no one's disciple. Student maybe but not disciple. Disciples are not allowed to question.

Originally Posted by boxcar

...since you haven't impressed me

I've impressed you a lot. You think I'm the most dangerous man alive. You probably think I'm the antichrist.


Hey, maybe you have already called the show and are not telling us.

YouTube