For those who falsely think atheists cant get along with believers.
Offline Here is an example of two polar opposites GETTING ALONG. And of all networks to display this FOX! Yes, the world is coming to an end.
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/hitchens-christianity-fraud/
If I am blunt and blasphemous with you, it is not because I hate you the person, it is because YOU have no evidence for the claims you make. THATS IT.
In all our verbal battles against each other we are ALL still human. We are all capable of the same range of human emotion and actions. The only difference between an atheist and a theist is that we don't buy claims of magic. BUT we are all part of the same planet and we cannot isolate ourselves from each other.
Just because I think you are full of shit on a claim(ANY CLAIM) not just that of religion, does not mean I think you are a bad person. It just means my position is that you got it wrong.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
"If I am blunt and blasphemous with you, it is not because I hate you the person, it is because YOU have no evidence for the claims you make. THATS IT."
Clifford's Principle, eh? I definitely suggest that you read this piece by Professor Peter Van Inwagen.
However, let's assume for the moment that Clifford's Principle, or something like it, obtains. What are we then to make of this:
"The only difference between an atheist and a theist is that we don't buy claims of magic."
Really? What evidence do you have for this? Since there's no contradiction involved in holding both (1) God doesn't exist (probably doesn't exist, there's no evidence that God exists, etc.) and (2) there is real magic in the world, I'd wager that there are atheists who believe in magic (in fact, I happen to know one).
Incidentally, doesn't your claim also commit the atheist to a heck of a lot more than "a lack of belief in God(s)"?
Finally, *Christians don't believe in magic*. For example, the striking differences between the accounts of Jesus' miracles in the Gospels and the "magic" of other first century miracle workers has been noted by many scholars. So, in what sense are you using the term 'magic' here?
Anyway, I do agree with the main point of your post: Of course we can -- and, in most cases (though not all), must -- agreeably disagree.
Edejardin
You do believe that an invisible deity with an ethereal quantum existence watches over you every minute of the day and can intrude into the physical workings of this universe on your behalf - am I right?
Now, you might not describe such a being as having magical properties but it would definitely have properties not shared by any carbon-based being we have ever observed in this universe.
There's no question that there are parallels between events that are magical and events that are miraculous. Surely, both defy the natural process.
Additionally, many of the miracles mentioned in the bible are common to other cults of the time and I am sure the scholars who note the variance you mention are biblical scholars.
Finally EJ, how can you defer to the NT an air of unquestionable rightness when no one knows who wrote it and it's unsupported by the other historians of the day? (Pls don't mention Josephus).
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Atheistextremist, a few questions:
(1) Do you identify 'magical' with 'non-natural'?
(2) Assuming you're aware of the *similarities* that obtain between, say, the accounts of Jesus' miracles in the gospels and other first century (or, if you prefer, 'ancient' or 'classical') accounts of various miracle workers, is it also the case that you're aware of the *differences*?
(3) What does the fact that S is a 'biblical scholar' have to do with anything? We have to deal with the arguments, regardless of the source (remember the discussion on another thread about the genetic fallacy?)?
(4) Why can't one mention Josephus? (Be very careful here: there's a *ton* of misinformation out there about Josephus.)
Edejardin
I don't believe magic or miracles are actually possible - so when I talk about them - yes I am talking about things that defy the universe's natural laws. Things springing into being from nothing for example - like creation
or a baked dinner with a twitch of the nose or feeding thousands with 5 loaves and seven fishes or casting demons into pigs or raising people from the dead or turning water into wine or walking through a closed door.
The NT is a hodge podge of myths supposedly relating to events and individuals in Judea and yet written in a foreign language, in a foreign country by nobody knows whom. I have not found a reason to believe the NT is not the long-polished contrivance of the early catholic church and if you can clearly prove otherwise, do.
I think we would agree that biblical scholars argue to support their viewpoint. There is simply no reliable proof jesus existed leave alone actually performed any miracles whatever. If you have real proof outside the NT for these miracles - please direct me to it without delay.
As for Josephus, you surely can't deny the fabrication applied to the Jewish War by Eusebius - the whole "About that time there lived in Judea a man, if it be right to call him a man, for he was the christ..."
As a practising Jew, Josephus had a zero chance of coming out with an observation like this discounting the fact the first copy of Josephus this insert appears in was found in the library of the church's immoral historian - a man who had earlier written to friends saying more evidence was needed for Jesus so "for our purposes let us turn to Josephus the Jew..."
This insertion was written by a believer and a believer prepared to commit fraud for his faith at that.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I don't believe Brian's justifiable call for proof of miracles or for proof of the existence of god can be glibly palmed off as an example of Clifford's Principle.
If we were bound to discuss this topic in terror of being branded as adhering to clifford's principle no one would ask for or be required to provide proof of anything.
Given that the existence of god is supported only by the bible which includes claims that are singularly unprovable and dubious, insisting on more proof - indeed on some proof - is the least we can do.
Let's consider creation, noah's ark, the garden of eden, rising from the dead after 3 days. All these things defy anything that has ever been seen or for which there is any evidence, whatever.
Most the evidence (or lack of evidence) points to other conclusions.
So instead of asking circuitous questions by way of reply, please provide proof for the life of Jesus that's not in the bible. Or a miracle - just one little miracle.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck