[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kyle

The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try.

Just because I decide to believe in the God of Anal sphincters and you can't damn well disprove his existence does not mean he does so.

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

Kyle, you have completely misread, or misunderstood what I posted - or both. I actually said that:

"Atheist's cannot prove that God does not exist" -- not, as you misquote, that "the non religious" has to "prove God exists".

Further; your statement;

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

is totally misleading and simply not true, because, 'Burden of Proof' by definition:

'It is a fundamental principle of English law that a litigant bears the burden (or “onus”) of proof in respect of the propositions it asserts to prove its claim. The burden of proof does not lie with the person who denies the allegation'.

Therefore, 'Burden of Proof' actually falls squarely upon the shoulders of the claimant - whether he be a 'believer' claiming that God exists, or an Atheist claiming that God does not exist.

[bots]

Superstition, faith, religion etc are all interlinked and all originate from events that the person is unable to explain. Historically, the majority of superstitions have been proven to be false as science advances, because people generally connect events together for their own benefit/advantage with little to back up their assertions. Like it or not, religion has, and continues to be used as a method of controlling the actions and behaviour of people to fit in with the agenda of those controlling. When spirituality is finally allowed to be divorced from religious agendas, then it may have some substance and depth, until then, its nothing more than mumbo jumbo.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

Kyle, you have completely misread, or misunderstood what I posted - or both. I actually said that:

"Atheist's cannot prove that God does not exist" -- not, as you misquote, that "the non religious" has to "prove God exists".

Further; your statement;

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

is totally misleading and simply not true, because, 'Burden of Proof' by definition:

'It is a fundamental principle of English law that a litigant bears the burden (or “onus”) of proof in respect of the propositions it asserts to prove its claim. The burden of proof does not lie with the person who denies the allegation'.

Therefore, 'Burden of Proof' actually falls squarely upon the shoulders of the claimant - whether he be a 'believer' claiming that God exists, or an Atheist claiming that God does not exist.

This is a very old argument and to save you and others time you are wrong.

But I wonder which god you are talking about. I presume that you yourself are a strict atheist for 99% of the hundreds of other gods but the one you claim to believe in?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

This is a very old argument and to save you and others time you are wrong.

But I wonder which god you are talking about. I presume that you yourself are a strict atheist for 99% of the hundreds of other gods but the one you claim to believe in?

"This is a very old argument and to save you and others time you are wrong."

Can you please expound, because I am totally confused as to what you mean by "This is a very old argument" --- What is?

Further: "and to save you and others time you are wrong"

Wrong about what? Please expound.

And please also explain why anyone with a different viewpoint to yours is decreed by you to be "wrong"? On what authority do you make such absolutes? Are you secretly the all-knowing, omniprescent and infallible true God whom you take such delight in denying?

As for: "But I wonder which god you are talking about. I presume that you yourself are a strict atheist for 99% of the hundreds of other gods but the one you claim to believe in?" -- This is ludicrous. I believe in one God. I am a monotheist. This being so, how can I believe in anyone else's God? However - unlike your good self - just because I do not share someone else's beliefs, I still respect their right to believe, and do not attempt to pour scorn on those beliefs at every opportunity.

Unlike you, I also answer every response to my posts where such a response dictates an answer.

I am genuinely intrigued LeatherTrumpet.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"This is a very old argument and to save you and others time you are wrong."

Can you please expound, because I am totally confused as to what you mean by "This is a very old argument" --- What is?

Further: "and to save you and others time you are wrong"

Wrong about what? Please expound.

And please also explain why anyone with a different viewpoint to yours is decreed by you to be "wrong"? On what authority do you make such absolutes? Are you secretly the all-knowing, omniprescent and infallible true God whom you take such delight in denying?

As for: "But I wonder which god you are talking about. I presume that you yourself are a strict atheist for 99% of the hundreds of other gods but the one you claim to believe in?" -- This is ludicrous. I believe in one God. I am a monotheist. This being so, how can I believe in anyone else's God? However - unlike your good self - just because I do not share someone else's beliefs, I still respect their right to believe, and do not attempt to pour scorn on those beliefs at every opportunity.

Unlike you, I also answer every response to my posts where such a response dictates an answer.

I am genuinely intrigued LeatherTrumpet.

I know you believe in one god but you must have heard that there are a few around and so I would wager that you dont believe in them?

How do you feel about Sikhs and Muslims and what they believe in?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I know you believe in one god but you must have heard that there are a few around and so I would wager that you dont believe in them?

How do you feel about Sikhs and Muslims and what they believe in?

No I'm a monotheist.

“Remember, an easy question can have an easy answer. But a hard question must have a hard answer. And for the hardest questions of all, there may be no answer - except faith.”
― Charles Sheffield, Brother to Dragons

Some people on here assert that people of 'faith' believe without any shred of credible evidence, but that is simply not true - in my case at least. For example;

I believe in the Old Testament God - Yahweh, and if I was a Jew, I would be a 'Jew for Jesus' because I also firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. I believe that he lived, died on the cross and was resurrected.

I was not 'conditioned' into my beliefs by fanatically religious parents, nor by any absorption of religious doctrines at any of the schools I attended, and I was not exposed to any religious cult. Nor did I 'turn to God' in desperation as a result of some crisis in my life or nervous breakdown, as can happen with some people. I chose to believe.

From a young age, I was always curious about what life was all about, where did we come from, what the Cosmos really was, and a hundred other questions. As I got older, I literally, spent years seeking definitive answers to questions which I now know have no definitive answers. But, after delving (as deeply as I was intellectually able) into subjects as diverse as Agnosticism, through Christianity, Buddhism and Existentialism, to Deism, and even Ancient Astronaut theory, and after experimenting with mid-altering drugs like LSD, I 'gave up the ghost' and resorted to pure hedonism for a time.

Then, when I was in my late 20's, I witnessed something which was so unbelievable, so incredible, that I knew at that moment that there were some other laws at work in our universe besides the ones we have been taught to accept as 'natural'. I should add here, that 'no', I was not on drugs and hadn't touched LSD for years. Neither was I drunk or deluded, and also that this incident was witnessed by three other people - a young couple, who frankly 'were not the sharpest chisels in the box', knew what they'd witnessed, but seemed to merely accept it, metaphorically 'shrug' and subsequently seemed to give it no more thought. The third - a typical party loving, skirt chasing male - didn't change much publicly, but did become a regular church-goer - something I have never been drawn to because the 'Church' is man's creation and I don't believe in Man. Anyway, he spent a long time with me thereafter, privately analysing and discussing what we'd seen. Years have gone by, and he is still one of my close friends today.

At the time, I did not change much publicly either, but privately, I started to re-examine philosophy and religion.

I will state here that I do not believe without questioning. I do not question without seeking answers, and I do not blindly accept answers without further researching.

Anyway, I developed a belief in God. I haven't all the answers - if, indeed I have any - because I am mortal and ordinary, and not God, but my faith in God is built on both logic, and intuition. I cannot actually identify which God I believe in but I believe there is a God - some supernatural force, some entity - and I think of God as Yahweh, the Hebrew Old Testament God, largely because I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah.

My belief in Jesus as the Christ is not only based on logic and intuition, but also on an acceptance that the evidence needed to justify such a belief, is both, preponderant and wholly convincing. So can I start with a case for the historical Jesus?

Can there really be any dispute that a man called Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago? Because, in addition to all the overwhelming Biblical testimony, there is a wealth of extraneous secular evidence. There is neither space here nor need to list comprehensively, so briefly:

Flavius Josephus - a Ist Century Romano-Jewish historian widely considered to be one of the greatest and most credible historians of antiquity. Josephus did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God - and therefore denied Christianity, yet in his book 'The Antiquities of the Jews' he confirms that not only did Jesus Christ exist, but also corroborates the New Testament teachings about Christ, including the fact that Christ was Crucified on the cross under the orders of Pontius Pilate:

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

And:

“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

(It's very important here to bear in mind, that Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, that his books were primarily written to recount the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Roman audience, and that Christ was mentioned only incidentally and briefly in small passages which formed a very minuscule part of a huge tome.)

Tacitus - a Roman Historian 55-120AD. who - in his book the Annals - when writing of the 6 day fire which all but destroyed Rome (Nero fiddling while Rome burned) , wrote:

" Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus (meaning 'Messiah') from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

(Tacitus detested Christians but none-the-less confirms here the existence of Jesus, and His crucifixion on the cross. Further he corroborates that Pontius Pilate was the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion of Christ.)

Pliny the Younger - 61 AD – ca. 112 AD : Ancient Roman Lawyer, Magistrate and Author who is famous for a huge collection of letters which are an invaluable historical source, Pliny - accepted as honest and moderate - was relentless in pursuing Christians and in correspondence with the emperor Trajan, he asks the Emperor for instructions dealing with Christians and explained that he forced Christians to curse Christ under torture:

“They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal–but ordinary and innocent food.”

Tallus -- 1st century non-Christian historian. (Quoted by Julius Africanus -- 160 – c.240) in his 'Chronicles' explains the reason for it being so dark during the day time on the day of crucifixion of Jesus Christ:

“An eclipse of the sun ’unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon) and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.....”

(As a derider of Christ, Tallus tried to come up with a 'scientific' reason for the sky inexplicably darkening at Christ's crucifixion. Of course his 'scientific' explanation is nonsense, but this not only corroborates that Christ lived and was crucified, it also corroborates the biblical claim of the sky blackening at the hour of Christ's 'death')

Lucian of Samosate -- 115 AD -- was a Greek satirist and travelling lecturer who mocked Christians in his writing, but provided evidence that Jesus really did exist in doing so
:
“He was second only to that one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world.”

Seutonius-- 69/75 -- a Roman historian and author:

"The emperor Claudius reigned 41 to 54 AD. Suetonius reports his dealings with the eastern Roman Empire, that is, with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans. He then reports that the emperor expelled the Jews from Rome, since they “constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Christ”

I do not think that any rational man can dispute that a man called Jesus Christ lived and died on the cross 2000 years ago. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.

The evidence that Jesus was the Messiah is another post.

This is my opinion and I am not trying to indoctrinate or convert anyone else.

[Kyle]

What excuses do you have for Yahweh's disgusting genocidal behaviour that is rampant throughout the Old Testament kirk?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kyle

What excuses do you have for Yahweh's disgusting genocidal behaviour that is rampant throughout the Old Testament kirk?

I haven't any Kyle. You raise a very valid and complex issue. I'm not even certain that I do believe in Yahweh. I only know that I believe in Christ for reasons which I will post later, and by the fact that Christ is called The Son of God and the Biblical God being Yahweh, I submit to the link, if you like.

I'm not even sure, to be honest, that the Old and New Testaments even allude to the same God, because - as you have astutely suggested - Yahweh seems to have transformed himself from a blood thirsty egocentric deity who only cares that his people worship him in the Old Testament, into the all loving, all forgiving, humanitarian God of the New Testament.

If you refer to my post, I actually admitted this much:

"I cannot actually identify which God I believe in but I believe there is a God - some supernatural force, some entity - and I think of God as Yahweh, the Hebrew Old Testament God, largely because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah."

Too many people seem to think that if you believe in God then you cannot believe in science and vice versa, but this is totally wrong. Some of the most eminent scientists who ever lived also believed in God. The list is considerable, but include:

Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes and Faraday, Kelvin, Planck, Mendel, Boyle - and none more eminent than these two:

Isaac Newton -- 1642-1727 --

This genius was devoutly religious. He proposed numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history, did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and thought that theology was very important. In his system of physics, Newton said that God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia, he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Albert Einstein -- 1879-1955 --

Einstein stated the: "impossibility of a non-created universe." and firmly denied atheism. He not only stated his belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." but also; ""I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

His very famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was that; "God does not play dice" This was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. Another famous saying of Einstein's was that; "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Not bad evidence for God coming from the most revered genius and scientist of the Modern Era.

I believe in God, but that does not mean I am a some kind of science 'Luddite' because I'm not, I have always been hugely interested in all branches of science, from Astronomy to Zoology through Physics and Chemistry.

I believe in certain principles of Evolution but not all of it because scientific advances and ever increasing new discoveries in the fossil records by archaeologists, are proving flaws in Darwin's Theories. In my opinion there is no conflict between science and Theism only that which some biased parties wish to create by misinformation and exaggeration for their own benefit.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Kyle

What excuses do you have for Yahweh's disgusting genocidal behaviour that is rampant throughout the Old Testament kirk?

Now one of those stories would sure as hell spice up assembly

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

No I'm a monotheist.

“Remember, an easy question can have an easy answer. But a hard question must have a hard answer. And for the hardest questions of all, there may be no answer - except faith.”
― Charles Sheffield, Brother to Dragons

Some people on here assert that people of 'faith' believe without any shred of credible evidence, but that is simply not true - in my case at least. For example;

I believe in the Old Testament God - Yahweh, and if I was a Jew, I would be a 'Jew for Jesus' because I also firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. I believe that he lived, died on the cross and was resurrected.

I was not 'conditioned' into my beliefs by fanatically religious parents, nor by any absorption of religious doctrines at any of the schools I attended, and I was not exposed to any religious cult. Nor did I 'turn to God' in desperation as a result of some crisis in my life or nervous breakdown, as can happen with some people. I chose to believe.

From a young age, I was always curious about what life was all about, where did we come from, what the Cosmos really was, and a hundred other questions. As I got older, I literally, spent years seeking definitive answers to questions which I now know have no definitive answers. But, after delving (as deeply as I was intellectually able) into subjects as diverse as Agnosticism, through Christianity, Buddhism and Existentialism, to Deism, and even Ancient Astronaut theory, and after experimenting with mid-altering drugs like LSD, I 'gave up the ghost' and resorted to pure hedonism for a time.

Then, when I was in my late 20's, I witnessed something which was so unbelievable, so incredible, that I knew at that moment that there were some other laws at work in our universe besides the ones we have been taught to accept as 'natural'. I should add here, that 'no', I was not on drugs and hadn't touched LSD for years. Neither was I drunk or deluded, and also that this incident was witnessed by three other people - a young couple, who frankly 'were not the sharpest chisels in the box', knew what they'd witnessed, but seemed to merely accept it, metaphorically 'shrug' and subsequently seemed to give it no more thought. The third - a typical party loving, skirt chasing male - didn't change much publicly, but did become a regular church-goer - something I have never been drawn to because the 'Church' is man's creation and I don't believe in Man. Anyway, he spent a long time with me thereafter, privately analysing and discussing what we'd seen. Years have gone by, and he is still one of my close friends today.

At the time, I did not change much publicly either, but privately, I started to re-examine philosophy and religion.

I will state here that I do not believe without questioning. I do not question without seeking answers, and I do not blindly accept answers without further researching.

Anyway, I developed a belief in God. I haven't all the answers - if, indeed I have any - because I am mortal and ordinary, and not God, but my faith in God is built on both logic, and intuition. I cannot actually identify which God I believe in but I believe there is a God - some supernatural force, some entity - and I think of God as Yahweh, the Hebrew Old Testament God, largely because I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah.

My belief in Jesus as the Christ is not only based on logic and intuition, but also on an acceptance that the evidence needed to justify such a belief, is both, preponderant and wholly convincing. So can I start with a case for the historical Jesus?

Can there really be any dispute that a man called Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago? Because, in addition to all the overwhelming Biblical testimony, there is a wealth of extraneous secular evidence. There is neither space here nor need to list comprehensively, so briefly:

Flavius Josephus - a Ist Century Romano-Jewish historian widely considered to be one of the greatest and most credible historians of antiquity. Josephus did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God - and therefore denied Christianity, yet in his book 'The Antiquities of the Jews' he confirms that not only did Jesus Christ exist, but also corroborates the New Testament teachings about Christ, including the fact that Christ was Crucified on the cross under the orders of Pontius Pilate:

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

And:

“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

(It's very important here to bear in mind, that Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, that his books were primarily written to recount the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Roman audience, and that Christ was mentioned only incidentally and briefly in small passages which formed a very minuscule part of a huge tome.)

Tacitus - a Roman Historian 55-120AD. who - in his book the Annals - when writing of the 6 day fire which all but destroyed Rome (Nero fiddling while Rome burned) , wrote:

" Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus (meaning 'Messiah') from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

(Tacitus detested Christians but none-the-less confirms here the existence of Jesus, and His crucifixion on the cross. Further he corroborates that Pontius Pilate was the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion of Christ.)

Pliny the Younger - 61 AD – ca. 112 AD : Ancient Roman Lawyer, Magistrate and Author who is famous for a huge collection of letters which are an invaluable historical source, Pliny - accepted as honest and moderate - was relentless in pursuing Christians and in correspondence with the emperor Trajan, he asks the Emperor for instructions dealing with Christians and explained that he forced Christians to curse Christ under torture:

“They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal–but ordinary and innocent food.”

Tallus -- 1st century non-Christian historian. (Quoted by Julius Africanus -- 160 – c.240) in his 'Chronicles' explains the reason for it being so dark during the day time on the day of crucifixion of Jesus Christ:

“An eclipse of the sun ’unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon) and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.....”

(As a derider of Christ, Tallus tried to come up with a 'scientific' reason for the sky inexplicably darkening at Christ's crucifixion. Of course his 'scientific' explanation is nonsense, but this not only corroborates that Christ lived and was crucified, it also corroborates the biblical claim of the sky blackening at the hour of Christ's 'death')

Lucian of Samosate -- 115 AD -- was a Greek satirist and travelling lecturer who mocked Christians in his writing, but provided evidence that Jesus really did exist in doing so
:
“He was second only to that one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world.”

Seutonius-- 69/75 -- a Roman historian and author:

"The emperor Claudius reigned 41 to 54 AD. Suetonius reports his dealings with the eastern Roman Empire, that is, with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans. He then reports that the emperor expelled the Jews from Rome, since they “constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Christ”

I do not think that any rational man can dispute that a man called Jesus Christ lived and died on the cross 2000 years ago. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.

The evidence that Jesus was the Messiah is another post.

This is my opinion and I am not trying to indoctrinate or convert anyone else.

Love the quote from Charles Sheffield - President of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sheffield

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Love the quote from Charles Sheffield - President of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sheffield

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????

: shrug:

What relevance has that? It is a quote which is superbly apt for the subject matter.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

No I'm a monotheist.

“Remember, an easy question can have an easy answer. But a hard question must have a hard answer. And for the hardest questions of all, there may be no answer - except faith.”
― Charles Sheffield, Brother to Dragons

Some people on here assert that people of 'faith' believe without any shred of credible evidence, but that is simply not true - in my case at least. For example;

I believe in the Old Testament God - Yahweh, and if I was a Jew, I would be a 'Jew for Jesus' because I also firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. I believe that he lived, died on the cross and was resurrected.

I was not 'conditioned' into my beliefs by fanatically religious parents, nor by any absorption of religious doctrines at any of the schools I attended, and I was not exposed to any religious cult. Nor did I 'turn to God' in desperation as a result of some crisis in my life or nervous breakdown, as can happen with some people. I chose to believe.

From a young age, I was always curious about what life was all about, where did we come from, what the Cosmos really was, and a hundred other questions. As I got older, I literally, spent years seeking definitive answers to questions which I now know have no definitive answers. But, after delving (as deeply as I was intellectually able) into subjects as diverse as Agnosticism, through Christianity, Buddhism and Existentialism, to Deism, and even Ancient Astronaut theory, and after experimenting with mid-altering drugs like LSD, I 'gave up the ghost' and resorted to pure hedonism for a time.

Then, when I was in my late 20's, I witnessed something which was so unbelievable, so incredible, that I knew at that moment that there were some other laws at work in our universe besides the ones we have been taught to accept as 'natural'. I should add here, that 'no', I was not on drugs and hadn't touched LSD for years. Neither was I drunk or deluded, and also that this incident was witnessed by three other people - a young couple, who frankly 'were not the sharpest chisels in the box', knew what they'd witnessed, but seemed to merely accept it, metaphorically 'shrug' and subsequently seemed to give it no more thought. The third - a typical party loving, skirt chasing male - didn't change much publicly, but did become a regular church-goer - something I have never been drawn to because the 'Church' is man's creation and I don't believe in Man. Anyway, he spent a long time with me thereafter, privately analysing and discussing what we'd seen. Years have gone by, and he is still one of my close friends today.

At the time, I did not change much publicly either, but privately, I started to re-examine philosophy and religion.

I will state here that I do not believe without questioning. I do not question without seeking answers, and I do not blindly accept answers without further researching.

Anyway, I developed a belief in God. I haven't all the answers - if, indeed I have any - because I am mortal and ordinary, and not God, but my faith in God is built on both logic, and intuition. I cannot actually identify which God I believe in but I believe there is a God - some supernatural force, some entity - and I think of God as Yahweh, the Hebrew Old Testament God, largely because I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah.

My belief in Jesus as the Christ is not only based on logic and intuition, but also on an acceptance that the evidence needed to justify such a belief, is both, preponderant and wholly convincing. So can I start with a case for the historical Jesus?

Can there really be any dispute that a man called Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago? Because, in addition to all the overwhelming Biblical testimony, there is a wealth of extraneous secular evidence. There is neither space here nor need to list comprehensively, so briefly:

Flavius Josephus - a Ist Century Romano-Jewish historian widely considered to be one of the greatest and most credible historians of antiquity. Josephus did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God - and therefore denied Christianity, yet in his book 'The Antiquities of the Jews' he confirms that not only did Jesus Christ exist, but also corroborates the New Testament teachings about Christ, including the fact that Christ was Crucified on the cross under the orders of Pontius Pilate:

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

And:

“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

(It's very important here to bear in mind, that Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, that his books were primarily written to recount the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Roman audience, and that Christ was mentioned only incidentally and briefly in small passages which formed a very minuscule part of a huge tome.)

Tacitus - a Roman Historian 55-120AD. who - in his book the Annals - when writing of the 6 day fire which all but destroyed Rome (Nero fiddling while Rome burned) , wrote:

" Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus (meaning 'Messiah') from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

(Tacitus detested Christians but none-the-less confirms here the existence of Jesus, and His crucifixion on the cross. Further he corroborates that Pontius Pilate was the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion of Christ.)

Pliny the Younger - 61 AD – ca. 112 AD : Ancient Roman Lawyer, Magistrate and Author who is famous for a huge collection of letters which are an invaluable historical source, Pliny - accepted as honest and moderate - was relentless in pursuing Christians and in correspondence with the emperor Trajan, he asks the Emperor for instructions dealing with Christians and explained that he forced Christians to curse Christ under torture:

“They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal–but ordinary and innocent food.”

Tallus -- 1st century non-Christian historian. (Quoted by Julius Africanus -- 160 – c.240) in his 'Chronicles' explains the reason for it being so dark during the day time on the day of crucifixion of Jesus Christ:

“An eclipse of the sun ’unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon) and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.....”

(As a derider of Christ, Tallus tried to come up with a 'scientific' reason for the sky inexplicably darkening at Christ's crucifixion. Of course his 'scientific' explanation is nonsense, but this not only corroborates that Christ lived and was crucified, it also corroborates the biblical claim of the sky blackening at the hour of Christ's 'death')

Lucian of Samosate -- 115 AD -- was a Greek satirist and travelling lecturer who mocked Christians in his writing, but provided evidence that Jesus really did exist in doing so
:
“He was second only to that one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world.”

Seutonius-- 69/75 -- a Roman historian and author:

"The emperor Claudius reigned 41 to 54 AD. Suetonius reports his dealings with the eastern Roman Empire, that is, with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans. He then reports that the emperor expelled the Jews from Rome, since they “constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Christ”

I do not think that any rational man can dispute that a man called Jesus Christ lived and died on the cross 2000 years ago. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.

The evidence that Jesus was the Messiah is another post.

This is my opinion and I am not trying to indoctrinate or convert anyone else.

"I cannot actually identify which God I believe in "

"No I'm a monotheist. "

Monotheist: The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"I cannot actually identify which God I believe in "

"No I'm a monotheist. "

Monotheist: The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????:shru g:

Do you actually read any of these posts from honest and sincere forum members? Or are you so bigoted and bored that you snipe for no other reason than that you can?

I really wouldn't mind but your tiny little peashooter keeps missing the target - as when you posted a link to me which referred specifically to a 14th century 'Flat Earth Myth' when I was writing about a period between 323 BC to 146 BC to 6 BC!!!!

Like when you posted what you regard as an 'absolute' in response to Kaz:

"There is nothing else unless you know better than the greatest scientific minds that have ever lived?" --

-- Yet, quite clearly, if you refer to my post to Kyle, you will see that you're talking crap, because "some of the greatest minds which ever lived" also believed in God and an afterlife - including; Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes and Faraday, Kelvin, Planck, Mendel, Boyle , and Issac Newton and Albert Einstein - among others.

My posts are lucid - unlike yours - but if you have trouble understanding what I write, then I will try again:

I believe in one God - and that God being whoever is the father of Jesus Christ. I cannot identify him because, although the Old Testament and New Testament have been combined to form the Christian Bible, I have reservations about the link.

However, because Christ is the fountain-head of Christianity and because I believe in Christ as the Son of God, then it follows that I believe in a CHRISTIAN God whatever his real name may be.

It therefore follows that because I believe in a Christian God, and because I am a monotheist, then I cannot believe in Allah, Breged, Biame, The Rainbow Serpent, Brahma, Rama, Krishna, nor Shiva, Ahura Mazda, Queztalcoatl, or Zeus.

All cleared up now? Good.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

No I'm a monotheist.

“Remember, an easy question can have an easy answer. But a hard question must have a hard answer. And for the hardest questions of all, there may be no answer - except faith.”
― Charles Sheffield, Brother to Dragons

Some people on here assert that people of 'faith' believe without any shred of credible evidence, but that is simply not true - in my case at least. For example;

I believe in the Old Testament God - Yahweh, and if I was a Jew, I would be a 'Jew for Jesus' because I also firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. I believe that he lived, died on the cross and was resurrected.

I was not 'conditioned' into my beliefs by fanatically religious parents, nor by any absorption of religious doctrines at any of the schools I attended, and I was not exposed to any religious cult. Nor did I 'turn to God' in desperation as a result of some crisis in my life or nervous breakdown, as can happen with some people. I chose to believe.

From a young age, I was always curious about what life was all about, where did we come from, what the Cosmos really was, and a hundred other questions. As I got older, I literally, spent years seeking definitive answers to questions which I now know have no definitive answers. But, after delving (as deeply as I was intellectually able) into subjects as diverse as Agnosticism, through Christianity, Buddhism and Existentialism, to Deism, and even Ancient Astronaut theory, and after experimenting with mid-altering drugs like LSD, I 'gave up the ghost' and resorted to pure hedonism for a time.

Then, when I was in my late 20's, I witnessed something which was so unbelievable, so incredible, that I knew at that moment that there were some other laws at work in our universe besides the ones we have been taught to accept as 'natural'. I should add here, that 'no', I was not on drugs and hadn't touched LSD for years. Neither was I drunk or deluded, and also that this incident was witnessed by three other people - a young couple, who frankly 'were not the sharpest chisels in the box', knew what they'd witnessed, but seemed to merely accept it, metaphorically 'shrug' and subsequently seemed to give it no more thought. The third - a typical party loving, skirt chasing male - didn't change much publicly, but did become a regular church-goer - something I have never been drawn to because the 'Church' is man's creation and I don't believe in Man. Anyway, he spent a long time with me thereafter, privately analysing and discussing what we'd seen. Years have gone by, and he is still one of my close friends today.

At the time, I did not change much publicly either, but privately, I started to re-examine philosophy and religion.

I will state here that I do not believe without questioning. I do not question without seeking answers, and I do not blindly accept answers without further researching.

Anyway, I developed a belief in God. I haven't all the answers - if, indeed I have any - because I am mortal and ordinary, and not God, but my faith in God is built on both logic, and intuition. I cannot actually identify which God I believe in but I believe there is a God - some supernatural force, some entity - and I think of God as Yahweh, the Hebrew Old Testament God, largely because I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah.

My belief in Jesus as the Christ is not only based on logic and intuition, but also on an acceptance that the evidence needed to justify such a belief, is both, preponderant and wholly convincing. So can I start with a case for the historical Jesus?

Can there really be any dispute that a man called Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago? Because, in addition to all the overwhelming Biblical testimony, there is a wealth of extraneous secular evidence. There is neither space here nor need to list comprehensively, so briefly:

Flavius Josephus - a Ist Century Romano-Jewish historian widely considered to be one of the greatest and most credible historians of antiquity. Josephus did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God - and therefore denied Christianity, yet in his book 'The Antiquities of the Jews' he confirms that not only did Jesus Christ exist, but also corroborates the New Testament teachings about Christ, including the fact that Christ was Crucified on the cross under the orders of Pontius Pilate:

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

And:

“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

(It's very important here to bear in mind, that Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, that his books were primarily written to recount the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Roman audience, and that Christ was mentioned only incidentally and briefly in small passages which formed a very minuscule part of a huge tome.)

Tacitus - a Roman Historian 55-120AD. who - in his book the Annals - when writing of the 6 day fire which all but destroyed Rome (Nero fiddling while Rome burned) , wrote:

" Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus (meaning 'Messiah') from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

(Tacitus detested Christians but none-the-less confirms here the existence of Jesus, and His crucifixion on the cross. Further he corroborates that Pontius Pilate was the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion of Christ.)

Pliny the Younger - 61 AD – ca. 112 AD : Ancient Roman Lawyer, Magistrate and Author who is famous for a huge collection of letters which are an invaluable historical source, Pliny - accepted as honest and moderate - was relentless in pursuing Christians and in correspondence with the emperor Trajan, he asks the Emperor for instructions dealing with Christians and explained that he forced Christians to curse Christ under torture:

“They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal–but ordinary and innocent food.”

Tallus -- 1st century non-Christian historian. (Quoted by Julius Africanus -- 160 – c.240) in his 'Chronicles' explains the reason for it being so dark during the day time on the day of crucifixion of Jesus Christ:

“An eclipse of the sun ’unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon) and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.....”

(As a derider of Christ, Tallus tried to come up with a 'scientific' reason for the sky inexplicably darkening at Christ's crucifixion. Of course his 'scientific' explanation is nonsense, but this not only corroborates that Christ lived and was crucified, it also corroborates the biblical claim of the sky blackening at the hour of Christ's 'death')

Lucian of Samosate -- 115 AD -- was a Greek satirist and travelling lecturer who mocked Christians in his writing, but provided evidence that Jesus really did exist in doing so
:
“He was second only to that one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world.”

Seutonius-- 69/75 -- a Roman historian and author:

"The emperor Claudius reigned 41 to 54 AD. Suetonius reports his dealings with the eastern Roman Empire, that is, with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans. He then reports that the emperor expelled the Jews from Rome, since they “constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Christ”

I do not think that any rational man can dispute that a man called Jesus Christ lived and died on the cross 2000 years ago. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.

The evidence that Jesus was the Messiah is another post.

This is my opinion and I am not trying to indoctrinate or convert anyone else.

Hi ya Kirk, it is lovely to look at different things, I fully appreciate yours. I believed totally in Jesus as a child but my views have altered as to his position in the scheme of things.

It is said that Jesus and his mother Mary attended different schools of learning, the ones which taught the mind to tune into the energies around us. For this reason and because I cannot totally accept a "God" but accept a total energy which has been fractioned by the will of man, I do not feel that the Nazerene was the only son of god. For me he was a great teacher and man could have and should have learnt by his teachings. There are many which are naturally known and which we should listen to for our own sakes for if we touch a hot surface does it not burn?

I feel for one person to supposedly take on the sins of the world is rather a selfish attitude and it lets man off to a certain extent, we should each be responsible for our own so called misdemeanours. I also find it hard that man can only get to "God" through Jesus.

There is such a lot to question in my eyes but my mind is ever open, I never ever close any doors. The fact that we can discuss and learn from each other is a fantastic way forward.

Possibly at the end of day we will find that we are all talking about the same thing but expressing it in a different way

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

Kyle, you have completely misread, or misunderstood what I posted - or both. I actually said that:

"Atheist's cannot prove that God does not exist" -- not, as you misquote, that "the non religious" has to "prove God exists".

Further; your statement;

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

is totally misleading and simply not true, because, 'Burden of Proof' by definition:

'It is a fundamental principle of English law that a litigant bears the burden (or “onus”) of proof in respect of the propositions it asserts to prove its claim. The burden of proof does not lie with the person who denies the allegation'.

Therefore, 'Burden of Proof' actually falls squarely upon the shoulders of the claimant - whether he be a 'believer' claiming that God exists, or an Atheist claiming that God does not exist.

You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof. You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof. You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

"You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof."

I am using the same legal parlance that Kyle used in my response to his post - which was a response to my earlier post. Kyle wrote: "The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

"You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence."

I really don't understand why you have quoted me and posted TS - because you're merely agreeing with me.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

"You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof."

I am using the same legal parlance that Kyle used in my response to his post - which was a response to my earlier post. Kyle wrote: "The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

"You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence."

I really don't understand why you have quoted me and posted TS - because you're merely agreeing with me.

No, you're saying that the burden of proof always lies with the person making an assertation; that for someone saying "god does not exist" the burden of proof is on them to prove that. Which in philosophical / logical terms, is incorrect. You can't disprove existence and therefore the burden lies on the person claiming existence, always. Non-existence does not require proof, as by definition, non-existence requires an absence of proof.

It's a pointless argument though that only really serves as a distraction, people should stick to "near absolute" terms rather than absolute, if they want to be completely accurate. For example, I would say that I personally don't believe in a christian God or the god / gods of any other organised religion. It seems very, very unlikely that with infinite possibility, one of those humanistic Gods exists. I'd be confident in saying that the possibility is maybe something like a trillionth of 1%, but infinite being infinite, anything is possible. But I'd require proof of existence to consider it in any way likely or even outside the realms of fantasy.

This is completely different to the burden of proof in the legal system, where one would be seeking to prove or disprove truths and either stance has the possibility of proof, e.g. alibi ("Bobby stole my car" / "No I didn't, couldn't have, because I was at Jimmy's house!")

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, you're saying that the burden of proof always lies with the person making an assertation; that for someone saying "god does not exist" the burden of proof is on them to prove that. Which in philosophical / logical terms, is incorrect. You can't disprove existence and therefore the burden lies on the person claiming existence, always. Non-existence does not require proof, as by definition, non-existence requires an absence of proof.

It's a pointless argument though that only really serves as a distraction, people should stick to "near absolute" terms rather than absolute, if they want to be completely accurate. For example, I would say that I personally don't believe in a christian God or the god / gods of any other organised religion. It seems very, very unlikely that with infinite possibility, one of those humanistic Gods exists. I'd be confident in saying that the possibility is maybe something like a trillionth of 1%, but infinite being infinite, anything is possible. But I'd require proof of existence to consider it in any way likely or even outside the realms of fantasy.

This is completely different to the burden of proof in the legal system, where one would be seeking to prove or disprove truths and either stance has the possibility of proof, e.g. alibi ("Bobby stole my car" / "No I didn't, couldn't have, because I was at Jimmy's house!")

Great post TS but I think we are at 'cross purposes' on the 'Burden of Proof' point -- Kyle used the legal phrase and I continued with the phrase in a Legal Context; as if the debate was a court case. Thus my contention that "The Burden of Proof falls squarely on whoever is making the claim etc."

Anyway, I respect your viewpoint and the fact that you took the time to explain why you have that viewpoint, which is something I try to do.
I also like the fact that you admit that you are not dealing in 'absolutes' and therefore allow the possibility (no matter how infinitesimal) that you could be wrong.