Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 10 January 2012 08:00 AM
Well, it’s not as if I haven’t ever agreed with you on other things, GAD. Mostly inimportant things to be sure, but it just goes to show that even almost complete opposites can converge at certain points. I won’t get into the convergence of our points here, though, GAD. Don’t want to frighten the sheep, do we?
Well, actually, sheeple are always frightened that’s why they herd for entitlements.
What’s that got to do with the convergence of our points, GAD? What’s this fascination you have with entitlements and sheep?
Leave those sheep alone!
We have a few sheep on our property but the only thing they are entitled to is good grass. I provide. In return we get wool and (when I can bring myself to have one killed) lamb cutlets. That’s it. In Australia we don’t get into complicated relatiosnhips with sheep. But, hey, whatever floats you boat, man.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 10 January 2012 09:39 AM
Huh? Entitlements?
What’s that got to do with the convergence of our points, GAD?
Nothing to do with convergence, just a data point.
What’s this fascination you have with entitlements and sheep?
Come now aren’t we all fascinated by sheeple.
Leave those sheep alone!
I wish I could but they’d destroy my lawn.
The only thing my sheep are entitled to is good grass. I provide. In return we get wool and lamb cutlets. Fair or not?
What the definition of “good grass”? And what if they ate all your grass and destroyed your lawn but provide little or no wool and lamb cutlets. Fair or not?
You have a point there, GAD. I’m ok with them keeping the lawn low but if they ate all my grass I’d be tres pissed off. And what the fuck would I do with a herd of tripping sheep? Probably have to shoot’em all before they wrecked the fences and got into the lucerne feild and blew up with bloat.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 10 January 2012 10:05 AM
You have a point there, GAD. I’m ok with them keeping the lawn low but if they ate all my grass I’d be tres pissed off. And what the fuck would I do with a herd of tripping sheep? Probably have to shoot’em all before they wrecked the fences and got into the lucerne feild and blew up with bloat.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 10 January 2012 10:05 AM
You have a point there, GAD. I’m ok with them keeping the lawn low but if they ate all my grass I’d be tres pissed off. And what the fuck would I do with a herd of tripping sheep? Probably have to shoot’em all before they wrecked the fences and got into the lucerne feild and blew up with bloat. Ah, cuntry life!
Now you are getting it!
That’s nice, GAD. I love getting it. Seems we have another point of convergence. Watch out, you naughty boy! I’m inclined to knit you a nice sweater from our pure Tasmanian wool to remember me by. But I’ll need your measurement first. So what size are you?
Maario: If God exists, then our thoughts and actions have meaning beyond a couple of peope reading our stupid sentences like Skep writes, or sitting in a dusty room writing lies like Dennis does. No. Our thoughts and actions help us BECOME who we are and who we will be for all eternity. And ONLY IF GOD DOES NOT SHOW HIMSELF FULLY will we think and act honestly, uniquely, and meritoriously.
If God was to show himself fully, we would all fall over each other to kiss his ass. The consequence of this would be everyone having a single purpose, and a purpose that is not a part of this world’s essence, which is merely contingent.
If God was to show himself fully, we would be invisible.
Use common sense here. If you were at a party and everyone was listening to something clever you had to say, and then in walked Justin Bieber with his pants down below his ass, you wouldn’t be able to finish your thought.
How much more would we lose the ability to BE SOMETHING if the GOD WHO IS EVERYTHING enters the room?
Your thinking on this matter shows clearly your very real incapacity for clear thought without subjective baggage and the dictates of an atheistic agenda.
I liked this, Mario. Doesn’t convince me that God exists, but it is an excellent explanation of God’s hiddenness, if he does exist. I have heard this before in different ways, ie. we lose our free will, etc., but your more earthly desciption was great. Do wish you’d stop insulting people, though. You seem to do it automatically. Isn’t it an unnecessary self-indulgence?
Saralynn,
Please come back from the edge of the cliff. You are too smart (I think) to believe any of what BM wrote has a shred of merit. Think about what this means. BM’s perfect god of perfect love created us, set’s the rules in opposition to our doing just whatever we like (at the cost of eternal damnation), empowered us with free will, gave us the “rule book” by bestowing it on a largely illiterate and superstitious band of civilization-less desert nomads, and then went into hiding so we could trip over our feet generation after generation while he hides behind the curtain and (what?) watches this ridiculous global morality play while giggling? Think for a minute on how retarded a tinkering, practical joke-making, a**hole god this would have to be. Is there any element of this infantile theological superstructure that strikes you as devine? It has sticky, child-like fingerprints all over it.
The argument that we would have to disappear if god revealed himself to us is just more BM myth-making. It’s the religious equivalent of inventing rules mid-game to derive a specific winner. It’s pure excuse for why god never reveals himself, and it’s totally belied by the bible itself, If you want to believe any of the bullcrap written in that miserable book. It is literally filled with instances where god reveals himself directly to one human or another, who did not instantly and permanently lose her identity or free will I’ll offer you one, perhaps THE, seminal example. According to the bible, god just hung around with Adam and Eve, strolling through the verge. He was in their presence in the garden and instructed them not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Yet, with their free will somehow intact, they ate of the tree anyway and we were off to the races. These two weren’t relegated to licking god’s boots by his merely revealing himself to them. They were not enslaved to his commands. This is the story the bible needed to found the good will argument to explain the very human actions of every biblical personality from start to finish and it obliterates BM’s argument right out of the gate.
The only words worth anything in all of BM’s post are his likening of god to a bareassed Justin Bieber.
1. According to Christianity, God is not silent because he has spoken to us through Jesus and continues to reveal himself.
At best that’s an argument that God has provided us a highly unreliable “message”. If God intended the Bible and alleged “revelation” to be communication, they’re both utter failures. In fact that notion requires that God ignore the nature of its own creation. It’s an indication of either an incompetent god, or one that’s just fucking with us ... or of course it’s simply another example of more of our own buelshite, just as it appears.
What is “unreliable” about “believe in Jesus, my Son”? Pretty simple and straight forward, and has sustained millions for 2,000 years. It hasn’t failed in the least. As it says in “Jesus Christ Superstar,” it’s a “record-breaker.” If you want to look for reasons not to believe it, fine.
SkepticX - 08 January 2012 07:14 PM
Ecurb Noselrub - 08 January 2012 04:17 PM
2. God is not inert because he sent Jesus - he did something
That trivializes the actual criticism—a rather sorry response to the actual issues presented, more of a dodge, actually. It’s trying to “refute” Carrier’s points by trivial technicality.
The appearance of Jesus in history is hardly “trivial.” It’s pretty clear to me that he existed historically, and that he is the most significant human that ever existed in terms of raw influence. He is the principle reason this forum exists - nobody gets by these days without dealing with Jesus, in one way or the other. Again, if you want to find a reason not to believe in him, fine.
SkepticX - 08 January 2012 07:14 PM
Ecurb Noselrub - 08 January 2012 04:17 PM
3. There may not be enough evidence for the author to believe, but those who have had experiences of the presence of God have enough evidence for them
In other words, there’s “evidence” if we change the standards and/or the meaning of the term “evidence” or equivocate and use it in an inappropriate/inapplicable form.
True ... I suppose. Utterly worthless to anyone who’s not just trying to excuse unwarranted “beliefs”, but true.
Evidence is what tends to convince someone of the truth of some matter. If X convinces me but not you, X is still evidence to me. Perhaps you are the one with the faulty standard.
SkepticX - 08 January 2012 07:14 PM
Ecurb Noselrub - 08 January 2012 04:17 PM
4. The cosmos that is predicted by Christianity has yet to fully appear (the Kingdom of God), so it is too early to see if it predicted the wrong one
Again, you’re just sidestepping the actual issues with trivial technicalities. I guess a mistrial would be far more useful to most believers than a proceeding that revealed the truth of the case.
The future appearance of the Kingdom of God in its fullness is hardly trivial. That’s what Jesus predicted. We don’t know yet if it will happen. Some believe, some don’t. That’s about all that can be said. But for believers, the presence of the Holy Spirit as a “down payment” toward the future arrival of the Kingdom is pretty convincing. The experience of the presence of God is enough for many of us.
Interesting and well-written article. My main objection would be his speculations about what the Christian God would or should do if he existed. If God exists, us trying to figure out everything that he should do would be like a dog telling people what they should do. On his four points:
1. According to Christianity, God is not silent because he has spoken to us through Jesus and continues to reveal himself;
This is mere allegation.
No, according to Christianity, God has spoken to us through Jesus. That statement is a fact. Mr. Carrier is the one who made the allegation, that God is silent. He failed to prove that. Carrier says that God is silent, but he fails to prove that God did not speak through Jesus. Since he made the allegation, the burden of proof is on him.
Jefe - 09 January 2012 09:26 AM
Ecurb Noselrub - 08 January 2012 04:17 PM
2. God is not inert because he sent Jesus - he did something;
Allegedly.
Same could be said for Mr. Carrier - God is inert, allegedly.
Jefe - 09 January 2012 09:26 AM
Ecurb Noselrub - 08 January 2012 04:17 PM
3. There may not be enough evidence for the author to believe, but those who have had experiences of the presence of God have enough evidence for them;
Confirmation bias.
If you choose to think this, how do you know you are not confirming your own bias? If you don’t want to believe, you can find plenty of reasons.
Jefe - 09 January 2012 09:26 AM
Ecurb Noselrub - 08 January 2012 04:17 PM
4. The cosmos that is predicted by Christianity has yet to fully appear (the Kingdom of God), so it is too early to see if it predicted the wrong one..
The same can be said of any myth structure.
The same can be said of any scientific hypothesis that has not yet been proven, such as how the universe will end or whether or not there are other dimensions. We are all waiting to see what happens.
What is “unreliable” about “believe in Jesus, my Son”? Pretty simple and straight forward, and has sustained millions for 2,000 years. It hasn’t failed in the least.
What is “unreliable” about “believe in Jesus, my Son”? Pretty simple and straight forward, and has sustained millions for 2,000 years. It hasn’t failed in the least.
Bruce, you really want to propose that?
Yup. On that one issue. Think of it as a football game. The other team may have more first downs, more yardage, fewer turnovers, and fewer penalties, but still lose. The only stat that matters is the score. The only stat that matters is whether people believe, and 2 billion do. It hasn’t failed. It has market share.
What is “unreliable” about “believe in Jesus, my Son”? Pretty simple and straight forward, and has sustained millions for 2,000 years. It hasn’t failed in the least.
Bruce, you really want to propose that?
Yup. On that one issue. Think of it as a football game. The other team may have more first downs, more yardage, fewer turnovers, and fewer penalties, but still lose. The only stat that matters is the score. The only stat that matters is whether people believe, and 2 billion do. It hasn’t failed. It has market share.
Good luck with that. As posted many times, although you and I disagree re theistic beliefs, we are probably more alike than not otherwise. Taken as an abstraction of the multitude of human beliefs, religion has played a major role in the resulting human societies. Not always bad, but by no means always good either, however those two terms are defined. Two billion do? Maybe. Several billion more do not or subscribe to some other version, some of which would advocate both you and I being killed. Lousy bet, Bruce.
You’re better off remaining with personal revelation absent any attempt to argue statistics.
What is “unreliable” about “believe in Jesus, my Son”? ...
You’re moving toward BM territory now—clearly seeing what you want to see and failing to see anything else. You’re losing the minimum required connection to what’s actually being communicated to actually communicate at this point.
Skep, if the living God exists, and if this living God revealed Himself to me in a tangible way without room for doubt (as others throughout history have also claimed) then what must I see now to “see anything else”?
Should I entertain different “opinions” about God, and maybe choose to walk like an Egyptian?
Should I write doubt-filled sentences like Bruce, saying we don’t really know this or know that, and it’s all “faith”?
Should I live as a skeptic and engage in debates with “relativism” as the most used tool in my belt?
What is this “anything else” you suggest is better and more honest than the “experience” I claim to possess?
In other words, should I be “you” rather than “me”?
What do you really know about “Brother Mario territory”?
Your self-delusional opinionated skepticism with its motivating force of relativism is myriad in its ignorance and lies.
(Oh, and, Dennis, your little one-line attacks on me are making you look even more ridiculous than your thousands of psychological-babbling posts have already made you. Better quit while you’re less behind.)
‘Should I live as a skeptic and engage in debates with “relativism” as the most used tool in my belt?’
Yes and yes. Skepticism is better than faith, and relativism is better than absolutism. Because you don’t know what you think you know. And when you don’t ‘know’ it is wise to be skeptical.
