From Necessary Entity to Christian God.

[Gonnagle]

Not really: that the Christian Bible contains such obvious nonsense in parts, lacks provenance, has been subject to uncertain translations, is largely anecdotal and where any mistakes or lies in it are beyond checking then, for me, it has no real value and I don't see it as a source of teaching or profundity.

Every time, though it doesn't happen to me often these days, I hear someone clerically inclined say anything along the lines of 'Jesus told us/showed us/taught us/etc' I consider that they cannot be certain of that even if they believe it themselves, or maybe it gives them a warm and cozy feeling: but, for me, since what Jesus allegedly said or did is indistinguishable from fiction, then it may as well be fiction.

Therefore - the Christian Bible really does mean nothing to me.

Dear Gordon,

Obvious nonsense! is this you at your miracles thing again? true fundieism ( my new word ) the fundamental Christian also thinks this, maybe I should not bother as you are displaying true fundieism.

Lacks provenance, the Holy Bible is probably the only book in existence that has been poured over, pondered, taken apart, looked at in fine detail and yet it still stands, why? well Gordon to the rescue again, anyone for Dickens, wait anyone for Shakespeare.

Uncertain translations, oh yes definitely give you that, fundie Christians and fundie Atheists alike. A rich tradition of Greek, Hebrew and Arabic mistranslation, I give you the word "Pistis" go off and research that one word, but you won't, why? because you are a fundamental Atheist, I am right and you are wrong says the fundamentalist, as he digs his heels in further.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Obvious nonsense! is this you at your miracles thing again? true fundieism ( my new word ) the fundamental Christian also thinks this, maybe I should not bother as you are displaying true fundieism.

Lacks provenance, the Holy Bible is probably the only book in existence that has been poured over, pondered, taken apart, looked at in fine detail and yet it still stands, why? well Gordon to the rescue again, anyone for Dickens, wait anyone for Shakespeare.

Uncertain translations, oh yes definitely give you that, fundie Christians and fundie Atheists alike. A rich tradition of Greek, Hebrew and Arabic mistranslation, I give you the word "Pistis" go off and research that one word, but you won't, why? because you are a fundamental Atheist, I am right and you are wrong says the fundamentalist, as he digs his heels in further.

Gonnagle.

I know what 'pistis' means: but for me it isn't enough, and that the whole 'faith/trust/conviction' thing just isn't sufficient grounds to take the Christian Bible seriously.

It may have a long history of social influence and power politics over many centuries, though that is waning where we are, but that tradition is, for me, unconvincing given its core supernatural claims, and I don't see it as being remotely authoritative.

If you are, like me, 'pistis free' then the Bible is just a curious old book.

[Enki]

Here is an article on whether atheists can be fundamentalists. The article is 19 years old by A C Grayling. I found it quite interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/03/cananatheistbeafundamenta

[Gonnagle]

I know what 'pistis' means: but for me it isn't enough, and that the whole 'faith/trust/conviction' thing just isn't sufficient grounds to take the Christian Bible seriously.

It may have a long history of social influence and power politics over many centuries, though that is waning where we are, but that tradition is, for me, unconvincing given its core supernatural claims, and I don't see it as being remotely authoritative.

If you are, like me, 'pistis free' then the Bible is just a curious old book.

Dear Gordon,

Pistis free, oh dear !! ( please note the double exclamation marks ) I could list off a whole host of great scientific names but no, only to say science, all of science is riddled with Pistis.

Supernatural only until such times that they become Super-Natural.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Pistis free, oh dear !! ( please note the double exclamation marks ) I could list off a whole host of great scientific names but no, only to say science, all of science is riddled with Pistis.

Supernatural only until such times that they become Super-Natural.

Gonnagle.

Science is based on methodological naturalism - religion isn't: they aren't the same thing.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Enki,

A whole link on exactly what I have been trying to convey, cheers

Angry Atheist and a fundie.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Science is based on methodological naturalism - religion isn't: they aren't the same thing.

Dear Gordon,

Before the method what do you have?

Go on, say it, I dare you

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Before the method what do you have?

Go on, say it, I dare you

Gonnagle.

I've no idea what you mean.

Before having a method to investigate 'x' then, regarding 'x', there was only ignorance.

[Enki]

Dear Enki,

A whole link on exactly what I have been trying to convey, cheers

Angry Atheist and a fundie.

Gonnagle.

Glad you enjoyed it. However the article is at least trying to be serious, a world away from your tongue in cheek, inconsistent, vague taunts. I'll leave you now to your somewhat inexplicable meanderings.

[Gonnagle]

Glad you enjoyed it. However the article is at least trying to be serious, a world away from your tongue in cheek, inconsistent, vague taunts. I'll leave you now to your somewhat inexplicable meanderings.

Dear Enki,

Serious but most definitely fundamentally Atheistic, tongue in cheek, 100% me, I enjoy this forum, especially doing battle with the intellectual Atheist mind ( that is not a compliment ) inconsistent, oh yes, I usually just go with the flow, vague, me! sorry anyone with two brain cells can follow my posts, I am not an intellectual ( first person to accuse me gets a virtual kick in the nuts ) what else, oh yes, inexplicable meanderings, nah sorry you are just having a wee pop at the Gonnagle, that is allowed.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

I've no idea what you mean.

Before having a method to investigate 'x' then, regarding 'x', there was only ignorance.

Dear Gordon,

Come on say it, it is a human thing

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Come on say it, it is a human thing

Gonnagle.

I've still no idea what you are getting at: we act like humans all the time, and it seems human to me to understand that knowledge requires reliable methods, without which there is ignorance, and that some of the religious claims that some people make relate more to magical thinking than knowledge even if they are an aspect of humanity.

So, I think that claims of 'God' are magical thinking, in that they are devoid of reliable methods, and that the cultural and social connotations of Christianity are meaningless to me.

[Gonnagle]

I've still no idea what you are getting at: we act like humans all the time, and it seems human to me to understand that knowledge requires reliable methods, without which there is ignorance, and that some of the religious claims that some people make relate more to magical thinking than knowledge even if they are an aspect of humanity.

So, I think that claims of 'God' are magical thinking, in that they are devoid of reliable methods, and that the cultural and social connotations of Christianity are meaningless to me.

Dear Gordon,

I was about to have a conversation with Mr Grayling ( wonder if he would mind me calling him old AC ) but he can wait, the word you are unwilling to say is Faith, faith in your hypothesis, faith in your theory, faith in your idea, faith in your own imaginings, and then comes trial and error, but first faith.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

I was about to have a conversation with Mr Grayling ( wonder if he would mind me calling him old AC ) but he can wait, the word you are unwilling to say is Faith, faith in your hypothesis, faith in your theory, faith in your idea, faith in your own imaginings, and then comes trial and error, but first faith.

Gonnagle.

Not me: 'faith' in a religious sense would be alien to me since, as far as I can see, that kind of 'faith' presumes knowledge without adequate justification.

That is very different from an approach based on theory/hypothesis/method.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon,

 Religious sense?

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

 Religious sense?

Gonnagle.

Yep - unjustified belief (that dead people don't stay dead, etc).

[Gonnagle]

Here is an article on whether atheists can be fundamentalists. The article is 19 years old by A C Grayling. I found it quite interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/03/cananatheistbeafundamenta

Dear Enki,

My apologises, you did mention it was woefully out of date.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Yep - unjustified belief (that dead people don't stay dead, etc).

Dear Gordon,

Just checking who you are talking to, Hello forum any fundamental Christians on here nope a deafening silence, but almost sure there is a load of fundamental Atheists

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Or just 'common or garden' atheists, like me.

[Gonnagle]

Or just 'common or garden' atheists, like me.

Dear Gordon,

Aye right! or as the good Prof calls it, typical Atheist ( without the capitalisation ).

Supper time, Macaroni cheese with crusty bread

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yep - unjustified belief (that dead people don't stay dead, etc).

The Bible is quite explicit in saying that God raised Jesus from the dead as a miracle(Namely, Yes people don't rise from the dead except here God did.

Now, being a naturalist, You must believe that life and death are merely cases of how matter is arranged and with the right technology we could get a dead thing from a live thing.

It seems to me then that your chief issue then is with God, rather than miracles given you are a naturalist.

Given the poppings out of nothing, and the infinities and circular hierarchies where, to eliminate a being that lasts forever you propose beings that create and recreate themselves forever appealed to by many atheists on this forum, DON'T YOU THINK YOU HAVE TOO NARROW OF AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC VIEW OF THE COSMOS?

In any case Gordon you appear to be absent from criticism of these, once again telling me that your issue is primarily with God. In conclusion then, the forum vibe is "weird , innovative, high sounding scientism, non naturalistic and atheist stuff good. Miracles bad."

[Gordon]

The Bible is quite explicit in saying that God raised Jesus from the dead as a miracle(Namely, Yes people don't rise from the dead except here God did.

The Bible may well say that, which is reason enough to not take it seriously.

Now, being a naturalist, You must believe that life and death are merely cases of how matter is arranged and with the right technology we could get a dead thing from a live thing.

I don't, since there is no such technology either now or 2,000 years ago - so I regard the resurrection story as nonsense on stilts, and since the claimed resurrection of Jesus is critical for Christianity, I also think Christianity is nonsense on stilts. I'm sure that this is no great surprise to you.

It seems to me then that your chief issue then is with God, rather than miracles given you are a naturalist.

Nonsense - I think the miracle claims in the Bible are sufficient to dismiss it as anything other that a curious old book.

Given the poppings out of nothing, and the infinities and circular hierarchies where, to eliminate a being that lasts forever you propose beings that create and recreate themselves forever appealed to by many atheists on this forum, DON'T YOU THINK YOU HAVE TOO NARROW OF AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC VIEW OF THE COSMOS?

No - remember I'm firmly in the 'don't know' camp.

In any case Gordon you appear to be absent from criticism of these, once again telling me that your issue is primarily with God. In conclusion then, the forum vibe is "weird , innovative, high sounding scientism, non naturalistic and atheist stuff good. Miracles bad."

Vlad - I think 'God' is a figment of human imagination, so for me it isn't a serious proposition (and neither are miracle claims).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Bible may well say that, which is reason enough to not take it seriously.

I don't, since there is no such technology either now or 2,000 years ago - so I regard the resurrection story as nonsense on stilts, and since the claimed resurrection of Jesus is critical for Christianity, I also think Christianity is nonsense on stilts. I'm sure that this is no great surprise to you.

Nonsense - I think the miracle claims in the Bible are sufficient to dismiss it as anything other that a curious old book.

No - remember I'm firmly in the 'don't know' camp.

Vlad - I think 'God' is a figment of human imagination, so for me it isn't a serious proposition (and neither are miracle claims).

Yes, yes.I probably realised you were going to say all that....but it then, as I said, puzzles me why you seem to give all the cockamamie 'avoider'statements of your colleagues a by.

We are now surely in an era of Nearly Sane's "problem of induction" and Professor Davey's"Narrow anthropocentric view" and others "infinities and circular heirarchies".

All of which makes your "No, That's impossible!" Stance look rather quaint.

[Gordon]

Yes, yes.I probably realised you were going to say all that....but it then, as I said, puzzles me why you seem to give all the cockamamie 'avoider'statements of your colleagues a by.

We are now surely in an era of Nearly Sane's "problem of induction" and Professor Davey's"Narrow anthropocentric view" and others "infinities and circular heirarchies".

You seem to interpret points made by others as being statements of 'avoidance', which they aren't: as I've said to you before, I can't avoid something that I don't think is there in there first place.

All of which makes your "No, That's impossible!" Stance look rather quaint.

If there are no good reasons to think something is possible, or if the claim of 'something' is incoherent, contradictory or fallacious, then there isn't a basis to think it was ever possible in the first place.

Your own citing of technology allowing the resurrection of dead people is a case in point: it doesn't exist now, or 2,000 years ago, but to follow your suggestion, if it were possible then people would surely be routinely resurrected using technology that would undermine the 'special case' of Jesus, and that would undermine Christianity. No doubt, should that ever happen, some Christian bright spark would decide that technical resurrections were intrinsically different to supernatural ones, so that Jesus remained a 'special case', so I don't think there is any mileage in your 'resurrection technology' notion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to interpret points made by others as being statements of 'avoidance', which they aren't: as I've said to you before, I can't avoid something that I don't think is there in there first place.

If there are no good reasons to think something is possible, or if the claim of 'something' is incoherent, contradictory or fallacious, then there isn't a basis to think it was ever possible in the first place.

Your own citing of technology allowing the resurrection of dead people is a case in point: it doesn't exist now, or 2,000 years ago, but to follow your suggestion, if it were possible then people would surely be routinely resurrected using technology that would undermine the 'special case' of Jesus, and that would undermine Christianity. No doubt, should that ever happen, some Christian bright spark would decide that technical resurrections were intrinsically different to supernatural ones, so that Jesus remained a 'special case', so I don't think there is any mileage in your 'resurrection technology' notion.

Anyone who can dismiss as wild a necessary entity and suggests substituting it with a non contingent contingent, or with an infinite regress where they are assuming that everything has a cause is dodging something as is preferring that you and I have had this argument over and over again and that's somehow different from having it once.

No people don't rise from the dead, I'll never see it, but then people probably thought that about virgin births and clones.

But could God do it? Sure, I believe God could.