5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Coito ergo sum]

Thankyou for your thoughtful responses Ces. I'll have another look through and pick some bits we may make some progress on.

What fascinates me is the dismissal of scripture from most people here, something not shared with atheist history scholars such as James Crossley who love to engage with scripture.

I love to engage with scripture. What does that have to do with calling it evidence of god. If your scripture is evidence of god, then so is the HIndu Vedas/Gita, the Norse Eddas and the Aztec and Egyptian hieroglyphs evidence of their gods.

From my point of view scripture is a collection of 1st century literature on Jesus and the early church.

Late first century for a couple, early second second century and later for some, and hundreds of years BC for others. The current "scripture" (the various versions of the books of the Bible) were written in several languages, by many people over the course of over a 1000 years. For most of that time, they were separate books, in scroll form, copied and recopied. In the Christian era, various churches and sects around the mediteranean referred to various books, gospels, etc., and argued over which ones were correct and true. Finally, in the 4th century AD, commissioned by Constantine, councils of bishops engaged in the committee project of reviewing, debating and voting on the scriptural validity of various books of the Bible. Eventually, a "Bible" was finally compiled that was deemed authoritative by the Church at that time, shortly before or around 400AD. About a millenium or so later, Martin Luther rolled around and he and others of his time sparked the Protestant Reformation, and they had been arguing that the Catholic church was up to no good (with the indulgences and whatnot, among many other things). Now, one of their major beefs was that the Catholic Bible (the one put together around AD 400 and in force for over 1000 or 1100 years or so at that point) had too many books in it - that five books of the bible, give or take, were not really canonical. Luther wanted to add the Book of Revelation to the non-canonical books of the Bible, but he didn't get that done as the other Protestant Reformers didn't agree with him on Revelation, by and large. So, after the Reformation we had a Protestant Bible and a Catholic Bible, with the Catholic Bible keeping the Deuterocanonicals in there, and the Protestants jettisoning them. Over the next 400 or so years, we get dozens of other "versions" of the Bible created from the Protestant version, and that brings us to the present day.

Fair enough encapsulation?

And yet what I often here is "show me evidence about Jesus, but don't use that collection of historical material about Jesus you've got because we don't think you can use it".

I think you can use it. But, you can only use it as far as it goes. You analyze it like any other historical text. Who wrote it? What claims are they making? Did they have first hand, second hand, or third hand info? Are we looking at an original or later copies with the originals destroyed? Do we have any corroborating evidence for the claims?

We can use Homer's Iliad as evidence of Achilles and his father Zeus, and we can use the Odyssey as evidence of the Golden Goose and the Cyclops, and we can use other Greek writings as evidence that Zeus fathered Perseus by taking the form of a shower of gold too, right? We know that Homer's Iliad was right about a lot of things - it was not just some flight of fancy. But, we don't believe the claims of miracles just because some of the factual items (like the existence and location of Troy and the fact of the Trojan War) as evidence that the more extraordinary claims are true. Do we?

That, I think, is a culture that has developed here and is a little odd because usually if you are against something you would, I would normally presume, want to engage with it at its heart rather than only engaging with peripheral aspects.

I am always exceedingly pleased if a believer wants to discuss the Bible with me. I would love to. Let's talk about it. What would you like to talk about?

I enjoy reading the Bible. Lots of good reads in there for book nerd like me. I like some of the poetry. I like the stories and allusions, etc. I like a lot of the Old Testament, and I've read it cover to cover. Enjoyable and thought provoking.

It was also noted by Christian scholars that Dawkins himself never engaged with the heart of Christianity, the resurrection, in any level of depth.

I am not sure what you mean. What depth did Dawkins miss? One of the things that I see quite often is that believers will make the assertion that someone is not getting or looking at something in enough depth or nuance, but then they never explain what that depth or nuance is. I am wide open to new information. What is it that Dawkins is missing?

I presume that was because either he was being tactful, or he knew that was an area that he didn't have the scholarship to engage with the historians on (which is reasonable, the man only has so many hours in a day and none of us can engage with everything in depth).

Quite possible. However, in any other context, the burden is generally on the person making the affirmative assertion to present the evidence and rational basis for their assertions. What is this information you allude to, and what are you offering it to prove or support?

Anyway, you may be aware that one of the foremost scholars on 1st century Judaism and Christianity is N.T.Wright. Now it is possible you won't give him any credence because he is a Christian,

I am happy to give him all the credence in the world.

but I would hope both Christian and non-Christian scholars are listened to.

O.k.

Below is a link to a couple of articles by N.T.Wright (they are quite lengthy, especially the first). If these spark any interest in 1st century Christian history (as I think Christians and non-Christians would agree that the resurrection of Christ is of key importance; without it Christianity holds no water) then you may be interested in picking up some of N.T.Wright's books.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesu ... ection.htm
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm

I am quite familiar with early Christian history. I am not sure what you're offering these links to prove or support. That there is a God? That Jesus is God? That Jesus is the Son of God? What?

This is a frustrating course of action that many Christians seem to engage in during these discussions. Offering up tomes and writings that you think should be considered, and leaving it to us to read through it to try to glean the point you are making. I will be happy to read the material, but what do you want me to conclude from it? What is your understnanding of what Mr. Wright's writings conclude?

Catch you later, and I'll see if there is anything in our posts that I think can get us past the "prove it, no you prove it, no you prove it, no you prove it......" point.

I thought I proved it. I explained exactly why I don't believe in your god, which is what you asked, and my analysis is both rational and logical.

I do wonder occasionally if there is an experiment that could disprove God, but I haven't though of one yet.

There is no experiment that will disprove Allah or Vishnu or Odin either, but that is no reason to believe in them.

Finding something that could never possibly happen if there was a God (which is the antonym we would need)

God is not a gradable term. So, you're misusing this "antonymic pair" thing. Antonymic pairs are gradable terms, like "long vs short." God vs. no god are not gradable pairs. Plus, the correct phrasing would be "gods" vs. "no gods," or "God" vs. "no god or any other god". You're using the word "God" to mean your particular god, so it is not "any old god" - it's your god. The possibilities are not "your god" vs "no god" it's "your god" vs. no god + "any other god"

is not easy when the proposition of God is one who is omniscient, all powerful and refuses to be put to the test. (On a first read through your replies, I still did not see any mutual exclusivity with the presence of God in any of your points I'm afraid).

Good talking to you Ces.

There can never be any "mutual exclusivity" between what I type and an omnipotent, omniscient being. An omnipotent being can, by definition, do anything, including those things that we think are impossible or are logically inconsistent. The mere fact that you can bring to mind the concept of a thing that is all powerful and all knowing does not mean that such a thing exists.

Heck, omnipotence must imply the power to both exist and not exist at the same time, or to exist in any number of forms or no form at all at any given time, different times, or the same time. If the entity "can't do those things that we find to be out of the realm of possibility, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.

But, once again, your concept of such a being is no more (or less) deserving of belief than someone else's concept of a being - is it God? Is it Allah? Is it Vishnu? Is it Odin, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus? Your demand for "mutual exclusivity" is equally applicable to those suspected beings. Therefore, if one uses your logic one must believe in them all. However, people don't believe in them all - they choose one or more and reject the rest, and then look around in wonder why others don't believe in their deity(ies) too.

[colubridae]

First thedistillers, now Theo. Is this the best they've got?

I have only been on ratz for about a month and was on rdf for about four months before that.

The most fascinating creatures are people like distillers/theo/vintage78/dr klass. There were dozens of them.

What puzzles me is why they come to atheist forums.

They always show themselves up as ridiculous. Their ideas always end up after pages of drivel, being simply a protestation of blind faith.

Look at theophilis… Any experiment that fulfils a prediction demonstrates no god. His answer well ‘that just happens to be the way god wanted it!’
It’s like ‘my god’s penis is bigger than your science’s penis’
As far as he is concerned the facts don’t enter into it.
‘Your belief in god is roughly equivalent to believing that the earth is flat’
No reply.


They always ignore the strikingly apposite comparison of their belief to the belief in fairies/pixies/quran/bible/’any other dumb ass story’
Comparisons which can’t be avoided. And make the believer look like a gullible buffoon.

They always quote from their own religious text, but only the quotes they like.
They simply ignore quotes they don’t like.
I was laughed at by one because I threw back at his jesus quotes, jesus quotes which he didn’t like. ‘How could I do that if I didn’t believe in the bible?’

They ignore the hatred and persecution espoused by their own brand.
Etc etc etc

So why are they here?

Is it to ‘prove’ their belief against the ‘test of the atheist’

Are they trying to proselytize.

Are their theist websites populated by morons?

Do they really not believe and are hoping for genuine conversion?

Are they seeking justification for their faiths?

Do they think their god awards points for scoring in debates?

Can someone please explain to me…

[AshtonBlack]

Some are trolls. (The ones I dislike, Hit and Run, Cut and Paste, Lalalala and fair target for ridicule. Like a theist /b/tard.)
Some have doubts and want to explore.(The ones I like. Flawed arguments, but at least willing to engage. One day the veil may rise?)
... and many gradients in between.

I'm not suggesting that ANYONE has been "deconverted" due to a interwebz debate, but it could sow some seeds, perhaps.

As long as things remain civil and everyone plays nice, I don't have a problem.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some are trolls. (The ones I dislike, Hit and Run, Cut and Paste, Lalalala and fair target for ridicule. Like a theist /b/tard.)
Some have doubts and want to explore.(The ones I like. Flawed arguments, but at least willing to engage. One day the veil may rise?)
... and many gradients in between.

I'm not suggesting that ANYONE has been "deconverted" due to a interwebz debate, but it could sow some seeds, perhaps.

As long as things remain civil and everyone plays nice, I don't have a problem.

I just keep hoping someone challenging will show up. Ain't gonna happen, I think.

[MrFungus420]

What fascinates me is the dismissal of scripture from most people here, something not shared with atheist history scholars such as James Crossley who love to engage with scripture. From my point of view scripture is a collection of 1st century literature on Jesus and the early church. And yet what I often here is "show me evidence about Jesus, but don't use that collection of historical material about Jesus you've got because we don't think you can use it".

By the same token, every holy book can be viewed the same way.

That, I think, is a culture that has developed here and is a little odd because usually if you are against something you would, I would normally presume, want to engage with it at its heart rather than only engaging with peripheral aspects.

You don't think that the existence of Jesus is at the heart of Christianity?

It was also noted by Christian scholars that Dawkins himself never engaged with the heart of Christianity, the resurrection, in any level of depth. I presume that was because either he was being tactful, or he knew that was an area that he didn't have the scholarship to engage with the historians on (which is reasonable, the man only has so many hours in a day and none of us can engage with everything in depth).

No. That's because his points are usually about gods/god belief in general, not just Christianity.

Catch you later, and I'll see if there is anything in our posts that I think can get us past the "prove it, no you prove it, no you prove it, no you prove it......" point. I do wonder occasionally if there is an experiment that could disprove God, but I haven't though of one yet. Finding something that could never possibly happen if there was a God (which is the antonym we would need) is not easy when the proposition of God is one who is omniscient, all powerful and refuses to be put to the test. (On a first read through your replies, I still did not see any mutual exclusivity with the presence of God in any of your points I'm afraid).

There is no possible test that could disprove the existence of a god.

Anything and everything can be explained away by just claiming, "that is how God/Allah/Zeus/FSM decided to do it".

[Theophilus]

I am quite familiar with early Christian history. I am not sure what you're offering these links to prove or support.

Fair point - I was expecting you to be psychic What I am saying (and it's a message that you'll see I often come back to) is that Christianity is an internally consistent world view that goes beyond just the bible - it meshes with history and with the life and experiences of the church and of pre-Christian Judaism.

The thing is Ces some people may often say (and I'm obviously paraphrasing here) "all you've got is your Bible and I'm not going to give that any credence so don't bother quoting it".

Now something I find interesting is that some atheists and some modern protestant Christians use the same assumption - that the Bible is a stand alone collection of books that stands by itself as either complete twoddle or as isolated infallible collection of scripture. There is also a tendency in some Christian circles to pretty much dismiss the old testament but that, I believe, is ripping Christianity from its roots. But as you are familiar with early Church history you will know that the Bible is not just a stand alone collection of books. We know the context of second temple Judaism (for example we have other books which are not part of the biblical canon, such as Jubilees, which extend our knowledge of Judaism around the time of Jesus, and we have the Maccabian history which tell us of the restoration of Judaism in Jerusalem and the origin of Hanukah). There is actually a rich historical context for the time before and after Christianity (as detailed by N.T.Wright among others) and everything is consistent with Christianity. Indeed attempts to explain Christianity in the absence of Christ are always quite bizarre and are based on much less evidence than traditional Christian history scholarship. I would suggest that accepting the Christian understanding of 1st century history is actually the most parsimonious explanation (not that I believe parsimony necessarily guides us to truth, but I know others are keen on parsimony).

Christianity is quite unique in its claims. The essential source of Christianity was not a guru or a prophet that people followed, but a crucified and resurrected Christ. The idea that a crucified man should be worshipped was anathema to Jews and pagans alike (you will know that the understanding at the time was that the messiah was never meant to be heralded as God and was never meant to be crucified; in hindsight we can now see passages in the psalms and the prophets where such a messiah is indeed described but that was not the belief in Palestine at the time) - there was no credibility in being executed, executed prophets were two a penny and usually the followers would just latch on to somebody else. The extraordinary start to Christianity was that of a resurrection cult that was despised by the Jewish and Roman authorities alike in the early days. I would suggest an understanding of the historical context of first century Judaism and Christianity lends further support to Christianity.

Having said that, while a study of early Christian history has convinced a few famous people (such as Malcolm Muggeridge) of the truth of Christianity I am always happy to admit that faith is always required in addition to available evidence and that faith comes from God (but that the evidence of scripture and history is consistent with the Christian world-view). It is interesting that the discussions, perhaps always inevitably on a forum like this, centre on "evidence". I'm a fairly traditional Christian so I believe that scripture, prayer and the eucharist is what feeds faith and the soul and that is obviously very "mystical" for a discussion forum like this because there a few common frames of reference. I enjoy reading N.T.Wright and it gives me intellectual support for my beliefs, but I think that would be insufficient without prayerful reading of scripture, prayer by itself and the eucharist (which I have no doubt will seem like voodoo and hocus-pocus to you).

Have a good day Ces, and all.

[Theophilus]

There is no possible test that could disprove the existence of a god.

I agree. And while the "you prove God exists.....you prove God doesn't exist" debate may be worth rehearsing just occasionally just to remind us of how reason or science alone can never break us fully away from agnosticism, the futility of the argument is also worth remembering so we don't waste too much of our lives on it. I accept I cannot prove the existence of God to you, just as you can't disprove the existence of my God to me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is no possible test that could disprove the existence of a god.

I agree. And while the "you prove God exists.....you prove God doesn't exist" debate may be worth rehearsing just occasionally just to remind us of how reason or science alone can never break us fully away from agnosticism, the futility of the argument is also worth remembering so we don't waste too much of our lives on it. I accept I cannot prove the existence of God to you, just as you can't disprove the existence of my God to me.

Will you be avoiding any other questions or have you shot your bolt?

[FBM]

The existence of something CAN be proven: just present it. Failing that, some very strong evidence that can't be explained by any other phenomenon would work. There's nothing axiomatic that makes it impossible to prove god. The only thing that prevents it is the fact that it's just...not...true.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The existence of something CAN be proven: just present it. Failing that, some very strong evidence that can't be explained by any other phenomenon would work. There's nothing axiomatic that makes it impossible to prove god. The only thing that prevents it is the fact that it's just...not...true.

"Absence of evidence is reasonable evidence of absence." i.e., with no evidence to support the presence of something, it is reasonable to presume the absence of such. For example, put a Republican in a vacuum chamber. Suck the air out of it. The air is invisible, but the human body needs air to survive. (And so does the Republican's body.) So, if the Republican dies from classic decompression and asphyxiation symptoms we MIGHT say "God" smote it, but a more reasonable thing to say is that there is no evidence of air in the chamber.

[Tigger]

@Theo:

Now, we've had all the explanations about the definitions of miracles etc etc, how you interpret them to be miracles yada yada yada, how about now not skirting the questions and actually coming up with some real stuff; evidence, proof, examples and not from biblical tales. I don't believe Aesop, and I don't believe the bible. Convert me.

Or are you the perfect politician and won't answer a direct question?

If your next response to this is some more waffle, then I assume the latter. I make large presumptions that you will even reply to this post.

Not forgotten Tigger, but I'm off out to play some music now. Catch you tomorrow evening (or maybe lunchtime).

(But I'm not trying to convert you, I'm usually in the Calvinist "only God converts people" camp).

Since I wrote that, you have now written several very long paragraphs addressing the things you want to address, yet you won't provide a black and white objective reply to questions like mine. Is it because you can't? It's ok, though, no theist ever has. I'm not trying to be rude, just firm. Write a simple paragraph without your opinions (for they are not evidence), but with some facts I can handle and believe, and I'll come to church with you.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am quite familiar with early Christian history. I am not sure what you're offering these links to prove or support.

Fair point - I was expecting you to be psychic What I am saying (and it's a message that you'll see I often come back to) is that Christianity is an internally consistent world view that goes beyond just the bible - it meshes with history and with the life and experiences of the church and of pre-Christian Judaism.

So is Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism and Islam. They are internally consistent world views that go beyond their "scriptures," and they mesh with history and the life and experiences of their followers, etc. So, what?

Christianity's internal consistency doesn't mean that there is a god or gods, does it? If so, how so?

The thing is Ces some people may often say (and I'm obviously paraphrasing here) "all you've got is your Bible and I'm not going to give that any credence so don't bother quoting it".

You can quote it. Feel free to do so, and then explain how the quote relates to the issue of the existence of god(s) or the rationality of atheism.

Now something I find interesting is that some atheists and some modern protestant Christians use the same assumption - that the Bible is a stand alone collection of books that stands by itself as either complete twoddle or as isolated infallible collection of scripture. There is also a tendency in some Christian circles to pretty much dismiss the old testament but that, I believe, is ripping Christianity from its roots. But as you are familiar with early Church history you will know that the Bible is not just a stand alone collection of books.

It is a collection of books that were written and re-written over centuries, and finally put together in one form in or around the year 400AD. There were many books that were believed by many people to be authoritative and god-breathed that were excluded because the way books got into the Bible was by vote of fallible men.

We know the context of second temple Judaism (for example we have other books which are not part of the biblical canon, such as Jubilees, which extend our knowledge of Judaism around the time of Jesus, and we have the Maccabian history which tell us of the restoration of Judaism in Jerusalem and the origin of Hanukah). There is actually a rich historical context for the time before and after Christianity (as detailed by N.T.Wright among others) and everything is consistent with Christianity.

Saying that some things are "consistent with Christianity" doesn't demonstrate that a god exists, does it? Or, that atheism is irrational, right? After all, Greek history is "consistent with" the Iliad and the Odyssey, etc., does that mean that Zeus exists?

Indeed attempts to explain Christianity in the absence of Christ are always quite bizarre and are based on much less evidence than traditional Christian history scholarship. I would suggest that accepting the Christian understanding of 1st century history is actually the most parsimonious explanation (not that I believe parsimony necessarily guides us to truth, but I know others are keen on parsimony).

I'm not following you. Can you explain how this relates to the issue of whether there is a god or gods?

Christianity is quite unique in its claims.

So are the Norse Eddas.

The essential source of Christianity was not a guru or a prophet that people followed, but a crucified and resurrected Christ.

So the books of the New Testament say. The essential source of the old Norse religion is the crucified Odin who was nailed to a tree to gain Wisdom.

The idea that a crucified man should be worshipped was anathema to Jews and pagans alike

People worshipped Odin, and he was supposedly crucified and pierced with a spear. As the Havamal states:

"I know that I hung on a windy tree
nine long nights,
wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin,
myself to myself,
on that tree of which no man knows
from where its roots run."

Note, the Druid God Esos was also crucified.

1200 years before Christ, Krishna was supposedly crucified in India. Among the sin-atoning Gods who forsake descended from heaven upon the plains of India, through human birth, to suffer and die for the sins and transgressions of the human race, the eighth Avatar, or Savior, is considered the most important and the most exalted character, as he led the most conspicuous life, and commanded the most devout and the most universal homage. And while some of the other incarnate demigods were invested with only a limited measure of the infinite deityship, Krishna, according to the teachings of their New Testament (the Ramazand), comprehended in himself "a full measure of the God-head bodily." The evidence of his having been crucified is as conclusive as any other sacrificial or sin-atoning God, whose name has been memorialized in history, or embalmed as a sacred idol in the memories of his devout worshipers.

Thammouz of Syria was a god in man form crucified, supposedly, in 1160 BC, according to the Persika -

"Trust, ye saints, your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Thammuz endured
Our salvation have procured."

I can name about a dozen more. The god/man crucifixion thing is not all that "unique." In fact, it's not unique at all, nor does it prove that any of the supposed gods exist.

And, on what basis do we ignore their scriptures when we, in your view, should not ignore the Christian scriptures?

(you will know that the understanding at the time was that the messiah was never meant to be heralded as God and was never meant to be crucified; in hindsight we can now see passages in the psalms and the prophets where such a messiah is indeed described but that was not the belief in Palestine at the time)

Well, right, it was not a belief at the time because the supposed "predictions" in the OT are really "postdictions." That is, they are vague passages that are massaged to fit what the read desires them to mean. It's kind of like reading Nostradamus. Nobody in 1930 connected "Hister" with "Hitler" but then after Hitler was already finished, people said, "hey, look, Nostradamus said 'Hister"...he predicted Hitler!" Well, a prediction is only a prediction if it tells you something in advance. looking at events after the fact and saying someone "predicted" them because they are vague enough to fit a meaning you attribute to it is not really a prediction at all.

- there was no credibility in being executed, executed prophets were two a penny and usually the followers would just latch on to somebody else.

Executed gods were not unusual either.

The extraordinary start to Christianity was that of a resurrection cult that was despised by the Jewish and Roman authorities alike in the early days. I would suggest an understanding of the historical context of first century Judaism and Christianity lends further support to Christianity.

How so? Saying it is so doesn't make it true. Nobody debates that Christianity has a historical context. So did the Roman religion with its many gods. It has a rich historical context, but that doesn't mean that Romulus and Remus were really suckled by a she-wolf.

Having said that, while a study of early Christian history has convinced a few famous people (such as Malcolm Muggeridge) of the truth of Christianity I am always happy to admit that faith is always required in addition to available evidence and that faith comes from God (but that the evidence of scripture and history is consistent with the Christian world-view). It is interesting that the discussions, perhaps always inevitably on a forum like this, centre on "evidence". I'm a fairly traditional Christian so I believe that scripture, prayer and the eucharist is what feeds faith and the soul and that is obviously very "mystical" for a discussion forum like this because there a few common frames of reference. I enjoy reading N.T.Wright and it gives me intellectual support for my beliefs, but I think that would be insufficient without prayerful reading of scripture, prayer by itself and the eucharist (which I have no doubt will seem like voodoo and hocus-pocus to you).

Have a good day Ces, and all.

You appear to only be able to get at this in a very general sense. How does "early Christian history" support the existence of a god? I'm not sure where you're getting that. Can you help me?

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no possible test that could disprove the existence of a god.

I agree. And while the "you prove God exists.....you prove God doesn't exist" debate may be worth rehearsing just occasionally just to remind us of how reason or science alone can never break us fully away from agnosticism, the futility of the argument is also worth remembering so we don't waste too much of our lives on it. I accept I cannot prove the existence of God to you, just as you can't disprove the existence of my God to me.

A couple of questions, if you would be so kind as to answer them in a straightforward yes/no manner. If you need to explain beyond "yes/no" please do - I understand that you may want to qualify or expand on the answer. But these are yes/no questions and are not trick questions:

Can you disprove the existence Odin to anyone? (yes/no) If yes, how?

Does the same type of evidence support Odin's existence as supports your God's existence? (yes/no) If no, what's the difference?

[Theophilus]

Hello Ces

I think we may be starting to talk across each other a little here. Remember my position is that the "evidence" (scripture, history) only ever takes you as far as saying that Christianity cannot be excluded as a possibility - there's nothing that would directly contradict Christianity and we acknowledge (as I think you have) that Christianity provides an internally consistent interpretation of history (whether that comes from scriptures or elsewhere) and that scriptural history and non-scriptural history dovetail neatly which is not surprising as Christianity is a continuation from the Jewish faith and historical evidence points to Christianity emerging from that Jewish faith in the 1st century named after a person called the "Christ" (who we know as Jesus).

However, that is as far as I would personally want to take the historical evidence (with a non-believer) - to point to the scriptures and say this fits with the emergence of the Church as we have historical evidence for, so don't dismiss scripture too hastily (if only to understand the historical roots of Christianity). And you reasonably ask what takes us further, why is it different to Thor etc? For me that is where faith and prayer and being drawn by God comes in, and those are experiences which are unlikely to hold much weight with a third party as they don't share that experience. Though it also worth pondering if whether the drawing to a "Thor" was a search for that same god, part of the common sense of the numinous searching among the shadows. Even in what is largely a post-Christian society in the UK you witness a strong sense of people searching for something "god-like", be it through the resurgence of pagan new-agey type stuff or the increasing conversion to Islam (which has many commonalities with Christianity as well as many significant differences). It's there, the drawing to something greater than ourselves, the sense of the numinous, in every society and in every age, and it's there in me (but not you).

But I'm interested, does it bother you that some people are more "spiritual" than others? Do you actually object to "cults" in the broad sense of the word (a group of people who have a shared culture). Do you think faith should be suppressed?

P.S. I wasn't quite sure where you got that Odin was crucified from the quote you posted - it just seems to say that an unknown person hung from a tree and was wounded with a spear that was dedicated to Odin. Anyway I think we can safely assume lots of people died from spears but I hope we can agree Roman crucifixion was something quite different. And you know that none of the generally accepted Hindu scripture (such as the Gita) have a crucified Krishna, that seems to be a post-Christian syncretism that developed and is not present in mainstream Hindu belief (and even then I don't think anywhere says Krishna was actually crucified, rather than wounded with a spear). I didn't look at the others as I assumed you put your best examples first. But you don't really want to go down the "Jesus was a gnostic Egyptian sun-worshipping Freemason" route do you? Yes Christianity has many similarities with another religion, but that religion is Judaism which it grew from in the 1st century (dull and no fascinating conspiracy theories, but simple and true), I really don't see how anyone who is familiar with old and new testaments and with 1st and 2nd century Christian history can give any credence to the wacky stories that suggest a non-Jewish root of Christianity.

[Tigger]

Hello Ces

I think we may be starting to talk across each other a little here. Remember my position is that the "evidence" (scripture, history) only ever takes you as far as saying that Christianity cannot be excluded as a possibility - there's nothing that would directly contradict Christianity and we acknowledge (as I think you have) that Christianity provides an internally consistent interpretation of history (whether that comes from scriptures or elsewhere) and that scriptural history and non-scriptural history dovetail neatly which is not surprising as Christianity is a continuation from the Jewish faith and historical evidence points to Christianity emerging from that Jewish faith in the 1st century named after a person called the "Christ" (who we know as Jesus).

However, that is as far as I would personally want to take the historical evidence (with a non-believer) - to point to the scriptures and say this fits with the emergence of the Church as we have historical evidence for, so don't dismiss scripture too hastily (if only to understand the historical roots of Christianity). And you reasonably ask what takes us further, why is it different to Thor etc? For me that is where faith and prayer and being drawn by God comes in, and those are experiences which are unlikely to hold much weight with a third party as they don't share that experience. Though it also worth pondering if whether the drawing to a "Thor" was a search for that same god, part of the common sense of the numinous searching among the shadows. Even in what is largely a post-Christian society in the UK you witness a strong sense of people searching for something "god-like", be it through the resurgence of pagan new-agey type stuff or the increasing conversion to Islam (which has many commonalities with Christianity as well as many significant differences). It's there, the drawing to something greater than ourselves, the sense of the numinous, in every society and in every age, and it's there in me (but not you).

But I'm interested, does it bother you that some people are more "spiritual" than others? Do you actually object to "cults" in the broad sense of the word (a group of people who have a shared culture). Do you think faith should be suppressed?

P.S. I wasn't quite sure where you got that Odin was crucified from the quote you posted - it just seems to say that an unknown person hung from a tree and was wounded with a spear that was dedicated to Odin. Anyway I think we can safely assume lots of people died from spears but I hope we can agree Roman crucifixion was something quite different. And you know that none of the generally accepted Hindu scripture (such as the Gita) have a crucified Krishna, that seems to be a post-Christian syncretism that developed and is not present in mainstream Hindu belief (and even then I don't think anywhere says Krishna was actually crucified, rather than wounded with a spear). I didn't look at the others as I assumed you put your best examples first. But you don't really want to go down the "Jesus was a gnostic Egyptian sun-worshipping Freemason" route do you? Yes Christianity has many similarities with another religion, but that religion is Judaism which it grew from in the 1st century (dull and no fascinating conspiracy theories, but simple and true), I really don't see how anyone who is familiar with old and new testaments and with 1st and 2nd century Christian history can give any credence to the wacky stories that suggest a non-Jewish root of Christianity.

So God is "your god" and is therefore entirely subjective. I have a headache (really) but it's my personal experience and I wouldn't expect you to have a sympathetic migraine just because I told you I was suffering. Your arguments hold no water. I'm out of here, unconvinced. Again. Slightly disappointed, too, but hardly surprised.