The Stuff of scientism - SCIENCE vs God: The OBJECTION that is getting old...

[alang1216]

It is clear to me, that Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified. It is also clear that at least a few of Jesus' followers truly believed he was resurrected after death. Hard evidence for the resurrection? None. Contradictions in the story of the resurrection? Plenty. I actually do care and I actually do know a bit about the evidence we have of Jesus' life and the birth of Christianity. I wonder if you do?

Just a few believed? That alone tells me that you either do not know the extent of the evidence or don't really care.

Define hard evidence. What contradictions? By the way let's do one alleged contradiction at a time, please, so things don't get lost in the confusion of a list.

Yes, just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word. That is the interpretation of the Gospels that seems the most realistic. Did Paul see the resurrected Jesus? He claims he did.

As for the contradictions, here is a short synopsis:

1. Matthew 28:1-8 says that when the two women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, went to visit the tomb, there was an earthquake and an angel came down from heaven, rolled back the stone and sat on it. He told them Jesus was risen, so they left quickly and apparently without entering the tomb, so that they could tell the disciples.
2. Mark 16:1-8 says that when the three women, Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome, went to visit the tomb, they saw the stone already rolled away. They entered the tomb and saw a young man, who told them Jesus was risen and that they should go and tell the disciples and Peter. They left and told no one of this, for they were afraid. Verse 16:9 is generally believed to be an interpolation that begins a separate tradition.
3. Luke 24:1-12 says that when a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, another Mary and Joanna, went to visit the tomb, they saw the stone already rolled away. They entered the tomb and saw two men in shining garments, who explained that Jesus was risen. When they went to tell the apostles, Peter ran to the sepulchre and looked inside, seeing only the linen cloths laid by themselves.
4. John 20:1-14 says that Mary Magdalene went alone to visit the tomb but as she approached, she saw the stone rolled away. She ran back, apparently without entering the tomb, and told of this to Peter and the disciple who Jesus loved. The two disciples both ran to the tomb and looked inside, but it was the beloved disciple who understood and believed. Mary Magdalene must have returned to the tomb, because she looked inside and saw two angels, then saw Jesus standing outside next to her.

When Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, was the stone in place? I'm sure you could reconcile the stories but, like the birth narrative, you basically write you own Gospel.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Paul being "the disciple who Jesus loved." Right? (in the biblical sense )

 

[BreezeWood]

And I did not write, "Its not either or."

I see that now. surda did. I misremembered. That's all. Thanks. I'll ask him what he means by that.

This is what entered the minds of the Hebrews as they wrote their scriptures. Not abiogenesis, not plasma, not red shift, none of that. Heaven and earth were created with Adam, and again after Noah, and Babylon, and Assyria. And finally and permanently after Rome (or everlastingly after Rome, as the Israelites liked to say). Creation is covenant, even "in the beginning."

Ah! I see what you're getting at now in terms of covenant. That's interesting. I've never quite grasped the totality of the matter in those terms until now. Thank you.

Christians need not rebut science to save face or explain the Scriptures in scientific terms.

I strongly disagree with this. Leaned Christians do not argue against science at all! The true imperatives of theology, philosophy, science and mathematics are one continuous explication of the same reality. The pagan extrapolations from the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism are the stuff of fantasy, myth, fable. . . . They are not the stuff of scientific truth.

As for the more allegorical aspects of scripture, they cannot be entirely explained in scientific terms as they are not the stuff of scientific truths, but that of metaphysical and theological truths. That's all.

Notwithstanding, the Bible incontrovertibly asserts that the physical world began to exist in the finite past per revelation. The theological ramifications of that are manifest. Actual infinities of any kind are absurd. It cannot be otherwise. The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics affirmed all of this centuries before science, as it were, did. Moreover, the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of Christianity, and the evidence for this is both rational and empirical.

.

Moreover, the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of Christianity, and the evidence for this is both rational and empirical.

.


- really, that's not their means they use throughout, miracles included for entrapment- who would have guessed.

 

[Ringtone]

"Scientism"?

We just making up words now?

We just pretending not to understand things now?

scientism - Google Search

 

[Crepitus]

"Scientism"?

We just making up words now?

We just pretending not to understand things now?

scientism - Google Search

Oh, I know what you mean by it, and I don't need to see how many RWNJ religious whack-jobs have used to insult folks, thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

Yes, just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word. That is the interpretation of the Gospels that seems the most realistic. Did Paul see the resurrected Jesus? He claims he did.

You initially said that only a "few of Jesus' followers truly believed he was resurrected after death." That's nonsense. Now you're saying "just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word."

Okay. You're point in terms of the evidence?

 

[Ringtone]

Oh, I know what you mean by it, and I don't need to see how many RWNJ religious whack-jobs have used to insult folks, thanks.

The pagan wack job said as he insults sans any counterargument.

 

[Ringtone]

They say science requires proof through experimentation and unbiased analysis and review by peers. Belief in God only requires blind faith. Blind faith dictates that your belief requires no proof, just unquestioned devotion. If you are told God flooded and drowned everything on the entire planet for 40 days and nights and the only survivors were a guy named Noah and his family, along with a pair of every animal on earth on a boat, than that's what happened, don't question it.

You're a fool and a liar.

 

[Hollie]

I do appreciate that you acknowledge belief in the supernatural remains in the realm of metaphysics and not the relevant sciences.

I didn't and do not now acknowledge any such stupid thing. Your interpretation of my prose comes to you as filtered through your dunderheaded and unwitting conflation of your metaphysics and what you mean in this instance by "the relevant sciences."

Ah! Looky here, everybody. Another opportunity to enlighten the benighted.

Are you paying attention to this, orangecat? I know this is wasted on Hollie, but. . .

I have a newsflash for you. I don't know about alang yet, but all of the other atheists and most of the agnostics I've encountered on this board do not grasp the actual nature of metaphysics, just like Hollie, and, subsequently, its foundational place to all the sciences, including what she means by "the relevant sciences" . . . as if the former could be done sans a logical and factual rendering of the former. You, orangecat, are the very first atheist I've ever encountered on this board who has a general grasp of the matter . . . though as we both know you pretended not to understand me, when we all know that the term science in common parlance is generally used to denote, primarily but exclusively, the physical and, by the way, biological sciences of empirical methodology. (I like many thinkers actually regard mathematics as the fourth major division of the sciences.) When we use the term science in that context, we do not literally mean that the physical and biological sciences, for example, are the only branches of scientific knowledge proper. It's merely used as a categorical distinction per the major divisions of the various sciences relative to its primarily inductive nature. We have all been using the term science in that very categorical context in this very thread, including you, orangecat.

(As an aside, orangecat, are you going to attach a laughing smiley to Hollie's idiocy as you did on my accurate exposition of the matter? You just pretended that you and I disagree on the matter, didn't you, orangecat? She actually does disagree with you, orangecat. LOL! She actually thinks that the physical and biological sciences are just floating in midair, as it were, sans a metaphysical presupposition of any kind. You're such an obvious phoney, orangecat,)

Back to Hollie's truncated and shallow understanding of things. . .

Of the various branches of philosophy (or is it the leaves of philosophy relative to the major divisions of science and their subcategories) metaphysics and epistemology foundationally inform the physical and biological sciences. Of course, mathematics, however one regards it in the scheme of things, comes to the fore as well, as it does concerning all of the major divisions and their subcategories. The realities of the contingently overlapping nature of the sciences in general per the major divisions thereof flies right over her head.

My interpretation of your prose is filtered through your obfuscation and limited knowledge of the relevant sciences. Definitions are important so we should help you understand the terms you use. Metaphysics can be described as the label given to a branch of philosophy that deals with issues of the nature of existence and what is beyond experience. This should help you understand that metaphysics does not rely on the discipline of the scientific Method. Metaphysics literally means "after the physics", so-named because Aristotle's book on the subject followed his Physics, which dealing with the nature of the ordinary world, which in Classical Greek is physike.

Metaphysics comes in three main flavors: philosophical systems, ideologies and religions. In their theologies. religions attempt to create philosophical structures. You might have noticed that science is not included in metaphysics. This should help you understand that metaphysics is aligned with the development of competing philosophical or religious perspectives, not science investigation. The plethora of manmade gods and the mutually incompatible forms of worship, the various humans and animals available to be offered in sacrifice to worship to those gods should give you a clue as to some elements that differentiate metaphysics from science.

Science does not refute or confirm the metaphysical notion of various supernatural creator gods being the foundation of the natural / rational world. The definitions of scientific theories such as biological evolution do not include metaphysical / supernatural elements like you present.

Metaphysics / magic / supernaturalism are not conclusions of science. Those are opinions of religious belief. It is your serious misunderstanding of science to impose religious myths as a part of science. Why don’t the puyveyors of metaphysics identify what forces we can default to as supernatural. Nothing in mankind’s history has ever been shown to have a supernatural causation. Even the laws of physics, as we know them, are in place to a fraction of a second after the expansion of the universe. Shielding religious opinions under the burqa of metaphysics and to pretend you are in a science discussion is pointless. There is no mechanism for studying supernaturalism performed by your supernatural gods or or anyone else’s gods applicable to the processes we see in the natural world and study by the tools of science.

 

[Hollie]

Oh, I know what you mean by it, and I don't need to see how many RWNJ religious whack-jobs have used to insult folks, thanks.

The pagan wack job said as he insults sans any counterargument.

Not unlike your posting of cartoons when you're unable to offer a coherent argument.

 

[surada]

Surada?? I 'm a girl. I meant the Bible is not either historically and scientifically accurate or nothing. I think the stories are important morality tales.

Okay. I didn't look your profile up. Still not sure what you're saying in the sentence regarding the Bible. Would you reword that for me? Thanks.

For starters Jerusalem was a tiny place.. under ten acres with a population of less than a thousand so Joshua didn't have any grand armies.

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City

Ancient Jerusalem made such an enormous impact on Western civilization that it’s hard to fathom how small its population really was.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe in God, not because of science but because I find no convincing evidence that I should. Science is the study of the natural world while religion/God is the study of the supernatural world. Both may be true but only science provides me with the evidence I require to accept it as truth.

They say science requires proof through experimentation and unbiased analysis and review by peers. Belief in God only requires blind faith. Blind faith dictates that your belief requires no proof, just unquestioned devotion. If you are told God flooded and drowned everything on the entire planet for 40 days and nights and the only survivors were a guy named Noah and his family, along with a pair of every animal on earth on a boat, than that's what happened, don't question it.

Blind faith would require me to believe the world rides on the back of turtle.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word. That is the interpretation of the Gospels that seems the most realistic. Did Paul see the resurrected Jesus? He claims he did.

You initially said that only a "few of Jesus' followers truly believed he was resurrected after death." That's nonsense. Now you're saying "just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word."

Okay. You're point in terms of the evidence?

You ask me for evidence but offered none of your own? OK. Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman's "tentative suggestion" is that only a few followers had visions, including Peter, Paul and Mary. They told others about those visions, convincing most of their close associates that Jesus was raised from the dead, but not all of them. Eventually, these stories were retold and embellished, leading to the story that all disciples had seen the risen Jesus.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Hollie]

Yes, just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word. That is the interpretation of the Gospels that seems the most realistic. Did Paul see the resurrected Jesus? He claims he did.

You initially said that only a "few of Jesus' followers truly believed he was resurrected after death." That's nonsense. Now you're saying "just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word."

Okay. You're point in terms of the evidence?

Fables of angels sitting on stones is not evidence for anything but tales and fables. Did the angels have wings? Were they playing harps?

The Bibles provide “evidence” that “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Our current understanding of planetary motion is flawed, right?

OK, so what is your point in terms of Biblical evidence?

 

[Ringtone]

For starters Jerusalem was a tiny place.. under ten acres with a population of less than a thousand so Joshua didn't have any grand armies.

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City

Ancient Jerusalem made such an enormous impact on Western civilization that it’s hard to fathom how small its population really was.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

What does the varying geographic size and population of Jerusalem during the pertinent centuries have to do with the size of Joshua's army, or, for that matter, the size of Israel's army after Joshua, which would have been drawn from all the men of fighting age of Israel? Further, Joshua's army predates the founding of Jerusalem, indeed, his initial army of about 600,000 with about 40,000 leading the invasion of Canaan, predates the conquest that established the territorial holdings of Israel.

By the way, the article you cited not only has nothing at all to do with your errant extrapolation, but is predicated on the line of scholarship that spurns the historical timeline of the minority view, namely, that of the disbelieving historical naturalists in whom you apparently put your trust.

 

[Ringtone]

You ask me for evidence but offered none of your own? OK. Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman's "tentative suggestion" is that only a few followers had visions, including Peter, Paul and Mary. They told others about those visions, convincing most of their close associates that Jesus was raised from the dead, but not all of them. Eventually, these stories were retold and embellished, leading to the story that all disciples had seen the risen Jesus.

I'm not moving on with you to the alleged contradictions, let alone to this new line of argumentation, until we get certain things straight between us regarding the number of people who witnessed the risen Christ. You're in error, regarding the number, the chronological order of these so-called visions and in your unwittingly inconsistent standard of justification.

Once again, you initially said that only a "few of Jesus' followers truly believed he was resurrected after death."

That's patently false and nonsensical.

Now you're saying "just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word."

That's factually false as well.

You're not thinking clearly. By "a few," you obviously don't mean God and the holy angels, who, by the way, according the Bible, number in at least the tens of millions. The biblical narrative does not say that earthly creatures witnessed the resurrection.

What did human eyewitnesses actually see and how many were there within the 40 days before Christ's ascension?

 

[Hollie]

You ask me for evidence but offered none of your own? OK. Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman's "tentative suggestion" is that only a few followers had visions, including Peter, Paul and Mary. They told others about those visions, convincing most of their close associates that Jesus was raised from the dead, but not all of them. Eventually, these stories were retold and embellished, leading to the story that all disciples had seen the risen Jesus.

I'm not moving on with you to the alleged contradictions, let alone to this new line of argumentation, until we get certain things straight between us regarding the number of people who witnessed the risen Christ. You're in error, regarding the number, the chronological order of these so-called visions and in your unwittingly inconsistent standard of justification.

Once again, you initially said that only a "few of Jesus' followers truly believed he was resurrected after death."

That's patently false and nonsensical.

Now you're saying "just a few witnessed the 'resurrection' and they spread the word."

That's factually false as well.

You're not thinking clearly. By "a few," you obviously don't mean God and the holy angels, who, by the way, according the Bible, number in at least the tens of millions. The biblical narrative does not say that earthly creatures witnessed the resurrection.

What did human eyewitnesses actually see and how many were there within the 40 days before Christ's ascension?

Ten of millions of angels, huh. How many can sit on a rock the head of a pin?

 

[Ringtone]

Ten of millions of angels, huh. How many can sit on a rock the head of a pin?

Oh, the irony.

Once again, Hollie, I note that you prattle on about "needless points" as the actual point of the centuries-old metaphore flies right over your head. Zoom By the way, speaking of pointless or useless meanderings, have you not yet gotten my point regarding your mindless belief in the possibility of an actual infinite as you stupidly fail to grasp the fact that both atheists and polytheistic pagans believe, essentially, the same thing about the substance of being and the origins of the cosmos? You were unwittingly mocking yourself earlier, unwittingly attributing an infinite regress of causation to the very ramifications of logic from classical theism that falsify the possibility of such a thing.

And that idiot orangecat gave you a thumbs up. The drooling 'tardedness of it all flew right over his head too. LOL!

Hollie, when you get

from me. I'm essentially saying that you're dancing on the head of a needle, making pointless baby talk. Zoom

 

[LittleNipper]

So basically FAITH isn't enough. Doubling down on FAITH isn't enough either. No. To get through them Pearly Gates you're going to have to keep swallowing nonsense until you're fairly bursting your entire life while tonguing things like "HE in fact honestly has presented to us in HIS word what HE feels we can handle and hasn't lied to us".. then.. only then will you be judged worthy to get through..

Nah, I'll pass. In fact, I wish He would just punch me straight down to Hell this instant!.. Nope, nothin' again, darn it!..

You call it nonsense. You who believes the entire UNIVERSE came into being by itself, that man came about by pure accident, that life spontaneously erupted on its own, that the meaning of life is just in one's imagination...

I believe that you must accept that JESUS is the MESSIAH and died for your sins. That through faith in HIM alone you are saved. However, all that is found in the Bible. Yes, there are facts that one can examine. Other ancient documents, places on a map, artifacts that archaeologists have found; however, even with all that, if you will not accept CHRIST/MESSIAH you are lost and nothing else will make for a hill of beans.

You paint a picture of a bleak and hopeless existence.

"if you will not accept CHRIST/MESSIAH you are lost and nothing else will make for a hill of beans.''

Really? I'm lost and nothing I do or accomplish will make for a hill of beans unless I submit to Christianity? Beside being coercive, it is unreasonable. It suggests that doing unselfish acts for others means nothing. It suggests that living with honor and integrity means nothing, Such a worldview requires you to abdicate reason in the face of fear. Any gods who reward fear and submission over reason is not worthy of worship.

Ok, your testimony is that not accepting your gods means that our lives will not amount to a hill of beans. lets examine that philosophy and understand where it comes from. There is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation". The worth of Jesus' philosophy is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn very cleverly, which is actually why I find the Bible to be an interesting book. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

The idea that "we die and all rot in the ground" somehow translates into "we shouldn't strive for excellence and happiness in life" is somewhat puzzling to me. I don't see the need to postulate an eternal afterlife or any gods in order to give life meaning. Life, in and of itself, **is** meaning. What if Atheism is a life-view that requires one to accept reality as it is, for what it is, and take responsibility for enjoying life and helping to make life better.

Why not? Because if we live in a world that we purposely make miserable, we each share in that misery. If we have children, and we love them, we want a better world so maybe they have less of a burden of pain to experience, and more pleasure and happiness.

I paint the reality of what will happen to lost and indifferent people when they expire. You must repent of your transgressions and come to a realization that JESUS paid your entire sin debt. There is a choice. Either one seeks forgiveness from GOD or one rejects GOD. GOD doesn't force anyone; however, the truth is that there will be consequences for the choice we select.