assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

Yes, that is what I wanted evidence for, because you seemed to have stated it as if it were conclusively proven. I would ask you how you can justify it without a single citation? We have very early manuscript so we know what the early church was working with. When and how exactly do you think this retconning took place?

I will ask for evidence that the NT account of Satan contradicts the OT.

Now, to say the gospels are written by unknowns is simply not plausible. First, for this to be possible, you would have to argue that the church universally agreed on their authorship without any dissension. This strains credulity..entire denominations have been formed over far less important points. For there not to be even be a whiff of controversy in the early church over their authorship proves this theory to be bunk. You also have the fact that they were written in the memory of living witnesses, including the disciples. This would be a check on their authenticity.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

Well, if Jesus was a real person it really puts a damper on your theory. The details of His life were widely known about, and there were obviously quite a few witnesses as to who He really was. Do you really think its plausible that so many devout jews in the 1st century would completely estrange themselves from their culture and heritage and willingly martyr themselves over a clever fable? It seems like they also would need some solid evidence to do something like that, and a story about Jesus that many people knew to be false wouldn't hardly qualify.

And there is solid evidence. Have you considered any of the evidence mentioned here?:


But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

You're talking about a very narrow definition of omniscience which is logically contradictory. For instance, under this strict definition of omniscience God would have to know every thought He would ever have and be locked into that thought process for eternity. This would make God no better than a robot. But the nature of God by definition is transcendent of this. If God knew every thought He would ever have, there is no reason He couldn't throw them all away and think something else. Does He necessarily have to anticipate everything He would ever think to still be omniscient? No, because it is to know everything that can be known, and I don't think even God can anticipate all of His thoughts, although we can always count on them being consistant with His nature.

Therefore, although God can surely anticipate the actions of limited beings, His own dynamic reactions to His creation can give His creatures a measure of freedom from this predeterminatism and can themselves have dynamic choices. There is no sense in the bible that God is just "going through the motions". He reacts dynamically according to what His creatures do. He gives choices..for instance, He made the prediction that the 4th generation of Israelites would enter into the land He had prepared for them, but it actually turned out to be the 5th generation due to disobedience. So for these reasons I don't necessarily think God is running a kangaroo court. I think He tests our hearts, and gives us genuine choices with genuine consequences.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:
I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.
The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.
I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.
But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.
You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

@SDGundamX said:Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).
Well thats a bit like saying the lottery has a 50/50 chance isn't it? Its like your forgetting that atheists also have "beliefs" about the resurrection: We believe that it didn't happened and that it was made up.
Take this video of James Randi explaining a little matchbox trick. Sure, some of us might say the trick has been exposed and thoroughly debunked. However, you could still believe there were magic crystals from the lost city of Atlantis involved somehow, and explain that there is "no factual evidence for or against". Of course, you might say: thats easy: i can do the matchbox trick right now, iaw replicate the trick, and thereby find a plausible, natural place of origin for the "magic".
Well I can do the same for the jesus myth: "2000 years ago Susej was nailed to a cross and three days later he rose from the dead." There, I just told a fictional story similar to the jesus one and thus proved it was possible to simply make it up.
Conversely, there is no evidence that a)any of that stuff actually happened OR b) that it even could happen. But again, there's plenty of evidence that shows that it could have been made up.


I don't necessarily disagree with you. It all goes back to credulity--each person decides for themselves how much evidence they require to believe something. I think for the vast majority of people the evidence against the matchbox trick is overwhelming. The same can't be said for the case against most religions--the people who feel the evidence is overwhelming (or put another way, that there isn't enough evidence to justify their belief) are atheists. The problems are deciding what constitutes "evidence" and the fact, as I mentioned above, that people believe in religions for a host of other reasons besides the evidence (personal experience being probably the foremost).

Back to the original point, calling people idiots neither adds anything constructive to the discussion nor is it really even true for most people (either religious or atheist).

@hpqp who said:

Randi calls charlatans all kinds of names, why is no one up in arms against that? Why should religious nuts/beliefs get special treatment?

There are two problems to that line of reasoning. First, Randi is not saying that people who believe in charlatans are idiots (which would be the more accurate analogy than the one you proposed)--he is making the factual (and tautological) claim that people who deceive people are charlatans (ie deceive people). In discussing people who fall for charlatans he often uses the word "credulous" (which basically means too trusting) not "idiocy."

Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).

So it comes back to the question of credulity. What do you believe? People look at the evidence and have widely different thresholds for how much evidence they need before they believe something. For some people, the fact that people they admire and respect believe in the religion is enough to convince them to believe as well. At the end of the day, I think for the vast majority of religious people, whether their religion is factually "true" or not doesn't matter. A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc.

The long-winded point I'm trying to make is that you, personally, choose not to believe until there is hard (empirical) evidence. That's your choice. I respect that, not the least of all because it is the same choice I make. Where I think you and I differ is that I do not demand everyone make the same choice as I do. When "New Atheists" call someone an "idiot" because that person chooses to believe in a religion, the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior.

New Atheists are of course free to point out the logical flaws, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and so forth that every religion contains. You don't have to respect ideas, but if you want to improve society you better damn well make sure you respect people. Showing respect for a person in no way, shape, or form implies that you agree with them. Showing disrespect, as other posters have already noted, is probably best way to ensure that your message never reaches the people who most need to hear it.

I think they missed the more interesting part of the interview, where she deflected on a question of "would you appoint an openly gay judge?". To me, that's a fair, substantive question - and her ridiculous evasive answer makes her position pretty clear. Either she's straight up homophobic, or relying on the votes of homophobes who would not want a gay judge.

Either possibility is really embarrassing at this point. I'm also disappointed when interviewers aren't better prepared for ridiculous stonewalling - he could have done better at forcing this point.

American politics is such a shambles right now; either they're morons or so desperate to get a piece of the moron vote, that they'll persist in utter nonsense while their country falls apart. This is a prime example, as was the "birther" tragi-comedy. And it's not just Republicans.

Remember the obvious fake Rather-gate Bush memos? It was ridiculous the lengths people went to to avoid writing them off, either (again) because they were credulous morons or they weren't sure whether there would be enough other credulous that it would be worth holding out hope.

USA, please get your crap together - it's messing up the whole world.

Are you telling me those buildings are so well defined because people have crashed into them? From every angle? And down the waterfall, different people have died at every different point down it from impacts? It seems to stretch credulity.

I guess I just don't know the game well enough to see how that would happen.

From what I've gathered, the US's policy has been to only support nascent revolutions when they reach critical mass implicitly (or in this case where there is violent suppression, explicitly).

Diplomatically this is smart. If a country's people don't have the will to follow through with a revolution on their and the US actively plays a part in stirring one and fails, the dictatorship in power will likely become highly isolated. That will lock it away from modernization, insulate it from western investment/democracy and cause the country to stagnate politically and economically. Perhaps not to the extent of North Korea but suffering from the same problems.

Whether anyone would like to admit it or not, I would bet anything that the relations that the US had with Egypt's military was utterly instrumental in throwing Mubarak out of power. The civil institutions that it has being able to support on the taxes of foreign investment and tourism will probably help it from falling back into dictatorship.

Not to mention, the specter of intervention could cripple either a country's attempts at revolution or the entire movement. Obviously, Africa has a history of colonialism. The Middle East has much more recent and current interventions. If there was genuine intervention and US/European involvement beyond simply behind the scenes diplomacy and preventing violence against civilians and rebels, it would give the dictators a huge amount of credulity and a mandate for their strongman rule.

As far as it being a European idea, let's face it, even if European leaders led the charge, US involvement by way of it's military spending being greater than the rest of the world combined is pretty much a requisite for involvement.

@Toshley - Understandable. As SDGundamX said, it is mostly a shouting match, unfortunately. But I'm a little bit obsessive on the subject, and can't seem to help myself from discussing it.

@SDGundamX - That webpage said a lot of things that were very similar to Toshley's video. Though VenomFangX is a repulsive human being for a variety of other reasons, that particular video was quite interesting. Upon first watching, it seems to make sense. Unfortunately some of his arguments depend on further stretching the bounds of credulity, such as with the half-demon people. And neither site mentions Matthew 5:17-19, which appears to indicate that Jesus intended all the Old Testament laws to continue until all prophesies were fulfilled.

Anyway, poking at these trivialities is ultimately useless, since the very foundation of the religion is untenable. No point in chipping at the mortar.

@ForgedReality: There's a guy here that was convinced it was fake, and this is VS where people are a little more credulous than Youtube at large. I'm sure the tube is full of people screaming "Hey, everyone, this guy's a great big PHONY."

If I heard on the news that a meteor was going to kill us all in 90 seconds, I would spend it thusly:

0:01 to 1:25 - Spent Googling it to see if it was true.

1:26 to 1:27 - Spent realizing that it was true when I saw the giant thing headed right for us.

1:27 to 1:30 - Spent thinking that I should have been more credulous of the news, then thinking that just because they got this right doesn't mean I was wrong to feel most major news outlets were a crock of shit. Then I would die angry.

He's going on the PR offensive that's for sure.

Obviously this isn't actually aimed at the Democrats who must surely be aware of this, but it will be interesting to see if his frequent news appearances will refocus the dialogue on genuine issues or whether Fox and the Republicans will find another way to spin this.

I'm disappointed it took him so long to realise that though. After all his responses to criticism during his campaign were instant, yet he seemed happy ignoring the nonsense about death panels and the like. As much as perhaps acknowledging them gives them some kind of credulity, it's pretty clear that ignoring these notions and letting them fester always fails.

>> ^RedSky:
I don't think anyone's ever really taken ZP's reviews with any real credulity ever since he stopped giving positive reviews ... which was like 1 or 2 episodes into the series. He doesn't really make any secret of his subjectivity either, so as long as you treat all his reviews as comedy roasts, he's great weekly entertainment.


My thoughts exactly, it's all tongue in cheek - i would have thought the fact he talks as fast as he can with no breaks for the entire review would have given that away though.

I don't think anyone's ever really taken ZP's reviews with any real credulity ever since he stopped giving positive reviews ... which was like 1 or 2 episodes into the series. He doesn't really make any secret of his subjectivity either, so as long as you treat all his reviews as comedy roasts, he's great weekly entertainment.

Larry King is a credulous idiot who believes any old fraud psychic that comes his way. He has zero credibility in this interview, as does this Prejean thing.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Some rando yammering away for 10 minutes without any attempt to add credulity to his out-of-left-field claims using any evidence, hell, even other testimony, does not deserve time in the Science channel.

And yes, for the record I am biased due to a severe allergy to bullshit.

winston , no there has not been a period since we have been able to measure it , or in ANY historical sample that has carbon ppm as high as it is now . That's in 400,000 years. The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation may lead the way to better governance ,with much fewer fatalities , that the current system . What is amazing is that so many defend the ole system , it's the serfs defending the royals, to prey on your old analogy . The old idea of resource based wealth , which leads to power , is just fucking doomed . It's not an if , it's a when . Hopefully enough people will see this and act before it becomes too late for ANY correction that doesnt involve half the fucking human race dying.
Also what a wonderful way to respond , with no sources, no proof, while demanding scientific credulity, yea,, your a clear logical thinker .