Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Tassman]

You can't equate a story about a blue fairy and the historical events surrounding the man Jesus and the beliefs about him that gave rise to the new testament and the Christian faith The comparisons should be relative to other historical figures that have found their place in history and that have also become a founder of a major religion.

There's no doubt that the Jesus' story gave birth to a major religion, just as the myths surrounding Mohammad did...or the gods of Egypt, or the Norse gods or those of the Classical era. They flourished for thousands of years. Doesn't mean they're true.

[oxmixmudd]

There's no doubt that the Jesus' story gave birth to a major religion, just as the myths surrounding Mohammad did...or the gods of Egypt, or the Norse gods or those of the Classical era. They flourished for thousands of years. Doesn't mean they're true.

Doesn't mean they are false either. And true or false isn't the issue. The issue is that there is a difference between a purely fictional character and one based in history. It is ridiculous to make the comparisons you are trying to make. It comes from your own lack of respect for the beliefs of others and is simply an attempt to trivialize those that do believe in Christ (or Mohammed, or Buddha or anything you don't happen to believe in). It's just an extension of the FSM - which also represents a complete lack of understanding of what Faith is and why most people have some form of it.

Respecting the beliefs of others is generally acknowledged as the moral high ground. To respect them doesn't mean you hold them. I don't have to believe in Mohammed as prophet to treat people of the Islamic faith with respect. Likewise a moderate follower of Mohammed doesn't need to believe in Christ to respect my faith in Him. One of the problems with ISIS and other extreme fundamentalist expressions of faith is that they have no respect for any other beliefs. In fact, they believe that all other beliefs are wrong and - in the case of ISIS - must not be tolerated and must violently be stamped out.

How are you any better? You have shown no capacity to respect the beliefs of others any more than Jorge does, or ISIS.


Jim

[Tassman]

Doesn't mean they are false either.

And true or false isn't the issue.

Exactly! The demonstrable fact is that many great religions have impacted the world over the millennia. Obviously, their truth or falsity is irrelevant.

The issue is that there is a difference between a purely fictional character and one based in history.

Respecting the beliefs of others is generally acknowledged as the moral high ground. To respect them doesn't mean you hold them.

How are you any better? You have shown no capacity to respect the beliefs of others any more than Jorge does, or ISIS.

Again! One respects people, not necessarily their beliefs. Especially given that many people hold to unsubstantiated nonsense.

[oxmixmudd]

Especially given that many people hold to unsubstantiated nonsense.

And thus I rest my case. To say that, that way, shows that in fact you do not respect the people either.

When you hail from such a position, discussion is impossible, just like it is with Jorge. You are right, the other fellow is wrong, and the facts simply don't matter.

Jim

[JimL]

You can't equate a story about a blue fairy and the historical events surrounding the man Jesus and the beliefs about him that gave rise to the new testament and the Christian faith The comparisons should be relative to other historical figures that have found their place in history and that have also become a founder of a major religion.

Jim

If the Blue Fairy story was meant to be understood as an historical event, then there is no reason you couldn't equate that story with the Biblical account of Jesus. What you seem to be saying, and I would agree, is that a Blue Fairy would just be to crazy a thing to believe in, but in fact it would be no more crazy than to believe in a Blue Fairy than it would be to believe in the miraculous claims, walking on water, reviving the dead, casting demons out of people into a herd of swine, feeding thousands with 2 fish, ascending bodily into space etc etc etc., of the N.T.

[JimL]

So JimL, same original hypothetical question as I gave to Tassman:

If God appeared to you and answered any questions you had, and then did any verifiable miracle you asked of him (verifiable by anyone in the world) would you believe in God?

First off the question presupposes that it is God that appeared to me, but putting that aside, I'm sure that if a God exists and truly wanted all of us to be certain of his existence without question, then he/she/it, would have no problem making that known, and he/she/it hasn't done that, so I can be relatively certain that the ancient claims are naught but fairy tales.

[JimL]

So Jim, you would compare the arguably single most influential person in human history, who still commands the largest religious following in the world today, to blue fairies?

No, but I would compare the miraculous claims attributed to him to a claim of blue fairies.

[JimL]

And thus I rest my case. To say that, that way, shows that in fact you do not respect the people either.

When you hail from such a position, discussion is impossible, just like it is with Jorge. You are right, the other fellow is wrong, and the facts simply don't matter.

Jim

I suspect that you would lose your case, since disrespecting your beliefs is not disrespecting you. I don't disrespect you, but I also think that the things you believe are unsubstantiated nonsense.

[Tassman]

First off the question presupposes that it is God that appeared to me, but putting that aside, I'm sure that if a God exists and truly wanted all of us to be certain of his existence without question, then he/she/it, would have no problem making that known, and he/she/it hasn't done that, so I can be relatively certain that the ancient claims are naught but fairy tales.

[oxmixmudd]

First off the question presupposes that it is God that appeared to me, but putting that aside, I'm sure that if a God exists and truly wanted all of us to be certain of his existence without question, then he/she/it, would have no problem making that known, and he/she/it hasn't done that, so I can be relatively certain that the ancient claims are naught but fairy tales.

But you didn't answer the question. The real question in my mind is why you are so averse to recognizing that this absolute certainty that you have that there is no God is in fact a belief and not a fact. The implication of how you answer this question is simple - 'no you would not'. But you evade the question instead of answering it straight up. Why?

And yes, that is the presupposition made in the question. That is was God.

And one of the circumstances addressed in the Bible goes directly to your "I'm sure" response. In fact, in a parable a fellow in Hell asks God to send someone back from the dead to warn the people of what was there. God answers that if they will not believe the prophets, then they will not believe the fellow back from the dead.

Now The disciples tell the story of the Risen Christ. And the evidence they give, the rolled away stone, the Earthquake, the empty tomb etc, their testimonies of what happened - you don't believe.

But here you are saying you won't believe , ostensibly even if you were one of those eyewithnesses! And think about it, let us suppose that all the things recorded in the New Testament actually happened. What would be different today than what we have? And what if they had all happened just last year - still who would believe except those that actually saw the events? And even some of them would think it was all a hoax.

How - JimL - how would God reveal Himself in a way that would remove all doubt - supposing He wanted to? What could He do at ANY moment in time that would stand as something that would convince even the next generation?

You asked the question - how would I even know it was God that appeared? Indeed, how could one know any physical manifestation was actually God and not some sort of hoax or some kind of super alien or just one's own imagination? Are there not in this world today people who deny the Holocaust in spite of the fact it was a physical event, that the camps exist and are preserved so that the world could never forget? Are there not Museums and records and books. Are there not films and pictures. And still people deny it. And that is less that 100 years from the event and with eyewitnesses still alive to tell their story!!! Would it not at the very least require a constant, recuring miraculous presence that could be tested over and over and over again? And with the repeated testing would not some eventually simply say - this is not God, this is just the way the world works.

Miracles don't make people that did not see them directly necessarily believe in them. What is needed is a way for each person to see God for themselves, directly, and in a way that can't be easily forgotten, and in a way that is personal and unique and ongoing. How could a physical manifestation of God do that for more than a handful of people per generation?


Jim

[JimL]

But you didn't answer the question. The real question in my mind is why you are so averse to recognizing that this absolute certainty that you have that there is no God is in fact a belief and not a fact. The implication of how you answer this question is simple - 'no you would not'. But you evade the question instead of answering it straight up. Why?

And yes, that is the presupposition made in the question. That is was God.

And one of the circumstances addressed in the Bible goes directly to your "I'm sure" response. In fact, in a parable a fellow in Hell asks God to send someone back from the dead to warn the people of what was there. God answers that if they will not believe the prophets, then they will not believe the fellow back from the dead.

Now The disciples tell the story of the Risen Christ. And the evidence they give, the rolled away stone, the Earthquake, the empty tomb etc, their testimonies of what happened - you don't believe.

But here you are saying you won't believe , ostensibly even if you were one of those eyewithnesses! And think about it, let us suppose that all the things recorded in the New Testament actually happened. What would be different today than what we have? And what if they had all happened just last year - still who would believe except those that actually saw the events? And even some of them would think it was all a hoax.

How - JimL - how would God reveal Himself in a way that would remove all doubt - supposing He wanted to? What could He do at ANY moment in time that would stand as something that would convince even the next generation?

You asked the question - how would I even know it was God that appeared? Indeed, how could one know any physical manifestation was actually God and not some sort of hoax or some kind of super alien or just one's own imagination? Are there not in this world today people who deny the Holocaust in spite of the fact it was a physical event, that the camps exist and are preserved so that the world could never forget? Are there not Museums and records and books. Are there not films and pictures. And still people deny it. And that is less that 100 years from the event and with eyewitnesses still alive to tell their story!!! Would it not at the very least require a constant, recuring miraculous presence that could be tested over and over and over again? And with the repeated testing would not some eventually simply say - this is not God, this is just the way the world works.

Miracles don't make people that did not see them directly necessarily believe in them. What is needed is a way for each person to see God for themselves, directly, and in a way that can't be easily forgotten, and in a way that is personal and unique and ongoing. How could a physical manifestation of God do that for more than a handful of people per generation?


Jim

I'm sure an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God would have the knowledge the presence and the power to make his existence known to all his creation. I'm none of those things, so asking me how a god could do that is silly.

[Tassman]

But you didn't answer the question. The real question in my mind is why you are so averse to recognizing that this absolute certainty that you have that there is no God is in fact a belief and not a fact.

You mean as opposed to the "absolute certainty that you have that there IS a God", which is "in fact a belief and not a fact".

The implication of how you answer this question is simple - 'no you would not'. But you evade the question instead of answering it straight up. Why?

The answer is straight up: Why should we?

And yes, that is the presupposition made in the question. That is was God.

Now The disciples tell the story of the Risen Christ. And the evidence they give, the rolled away stone, the Earthquake, the empty tomb etc, their testimonies of what happened - you don't believe.

But here you are saying you won't believe , ostensibly even if you were one of those eyewithnesses!

There were no eyewitnesses, merely gospel narratives written decades later by non-eyewitnesses who had heard stories and anecdotes that were in circulation at the time. And rational people in the modern era do not believe tall tales from non-eyewitness about miraculous events emanating from a credulous era.

And think about it, let us suppose that all the things recorded in the New Testament actually happened. What would be different today than what we have? And what if they had all happened just last year - still who would believe except those that actually saw the events? And even some of them would think it was all a hoax.

How - JimL - how would God reveal Himself in a way that would remove all doubt - supposing He wanted to? What could He do at ANY moment in time that would stand as something that would convince even the next generation?

YOU claiming that gods exist (or one god in particular in your case) hence the burden of proof rests with you.

Your verbose proselytising in lieu of evidence is not good enough, although I suspect that it's all you've got.

I'm sure an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God would have the knowledge the presence and the power to make his existence known to all his creation. I'm none of those things, so asking me how a god could do that is silly.

But they want to be able to blame you for not believing Jim. It makes them feel better.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm sure an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God would have the knowledge the presence and the power to make his existence known to all his creation. I'm none of those things, so asking me how a god could do that is silly.

He has done that. What has been done (coupled with what is done per person directly) is sufficient for those who will believe, and there is nothing more that could be done that would be sufficient for those that will not.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You mean as opposed to the "absolute certainty that you have that there IS a God", which is "in fact a belief and not a fact".

Not 'as opposed to' but rather 'is the same as'. And that I suspect is the problem. You, JimL don't what to have to acknowledge that believing there is no God involves the same sort of mental exercise as believing there is a God. What would be different would be "I don't know if there is one, but I see no evidence that would make me believe there is". That would be the honest assessment that did not involve any element of belief. I try to keep my side of it honest to. I believe there is a God, but I also understand my reasons for belief are not any sort of objective proof. I understand why a person that does not have any direct personal evidence for God would doubt His existence.

The answer is straight up: Why should we?

Ultimately because without God you will not find eternal life. Or at least, that is why you should try to figure it out. But you actually mean something a bit different. You mean what evidence exists that would make you believe against your will. The answer is none. But what if you wanted to know if there is a God, if you desired to know God?Then there is evidence that would ultimately prove sufficient. According to Christian theology, God is mostly not about making you believe against your will but rather providing a way for those that desire to know Him.


The part you don't get is that I don't make 'such a presupposition'. As I said before, I have always been aware of a presence that I believe to be God. This is in fact the experience of many alive today. And I have talked to many atheist friends about this, and they tell me they have no such analogue in their lives, no such sense of a presence that would make them think there might be a God. I have no reason to doubt them. So I find it curious, even frustrating. I could imagine that without that I might not have come to believe in God either.

Nevertheless, I believe there is a God and I believe He has revealed Himself to the world through the Christian Scripture and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There were no eyewitnesses, merely gospel narratives written decades later by non-eyewitnesses who had heard stories and anecdotes that were in circulation at the time. And rational people in the modern era do not believe tall tales from non-eyewitness about miraculous events emanating from a credulous era.

That is your belief. But there exists no actual facts that can support that belief (That there are no eyewitnesses). It is merely a cynical take on the Christian narrative. To the contrary of your claim, the Gospel narratives find their roots in the recounting of the eyewitness in some cases(e.g. Luke) and in others where written by the eyewitness (disciples) themselves (e.g. John) . Paul in his letters, though not an eyewitness, speaks of the fact there were still those that were eyewitnesses alive as he wrote his letters. Peter, John both also have additional writings that survived to become part of the new testament. And all the disciples, save John, died violent deaths because they continued to tell of their experiences, because of their eyewitness recounting of the story of Christ, His life, His death, and His resurrection. You choice to dismiss those eyewitness accounts is not evidence they are not eyewitness accounts, they are just your opinion.

YOU claiming that gods exist (or one god in particular in your case) hence the burden of proof rests with you.

No - I'm trying to get you and JimL to get a bit outside your own limited thinking and ask yourself some questions that need asking. In fact, the burden doesn't rest on me. You don't have to believe in God. Nothing about my belief hinges on you believing. If you believe is up to you. For me you are like the fellow that is smoking cigarettes and believes it will never hurt him. The effect of you 'anti-belief' on me is secondary at best. You are the one that will be hurt the most by that. Now before you go off on a rabbit trail, I'm not equating the scientific evidence for the detrimental effects of smoking with the evidence for God. The analogy only serves to explain that from my perspective I have no critical need to make you believe. The consequences of that choice rest mostly on you one way or the other.

Your verbose proselytising in lieu of evidence is not good enough, although I suspect that it's all you've got.

I have the same evidence you do - excepting my own experience with God. The Gospels, the scripture, the testimony of other believers. This is what everybody has. We do know that the Messianic Prophecies where written before Christ lived per the C14 dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We have a thorough understanding that the Gospels narratives were written very early in the process due to the fact we have fragments from within the 1st century AD. They certainly reflect the fact the oral stories where circulating much earlier due to the facts surrounding such document preservation and origin. There are the writings of Josephus. There are the extra-biblical writings which also hail from the 1st century which reference the Gospels and the letters. I don't expect these and others to be sufficient for you, but it is not true that my proselytizing is 'all I've got'.

But they want to be able to blame you for not believing Jim. It makes them feel better.

I don't 'blame' JimL for not believing. That is Jorge's line. I understand fully. I empathize with it. I wish I could impart my own experiences to him and to you, at least then you would have the same starting point that I do for Faith. But I don't know if any of that would be sufficient for you. I hope one day you will encounter the living God directly in a positive way. And I understand that until that happens, unless that happens, it is unlikely you will believe. And that is frustrating to me in that I believe you would be better off if you did believe. But I most certainly do not blame you or JimL for not believing. That is something you have projected onto me perhaps because you have interacted with other Christian that did blame you for not believing. But that is not where I hail from.

Jim

[JimL]

He has done that. What has been done (coupled with what is done per person directly) is sufficient for those who will believe, and there is nothing more that could be done that would be sufficient for those that will not.

Jim

How do you know that, are you god? You profess to have had experiences that nonbelievers like myself have not had, experiences in which you've encountered god directly in a positive way. I guess its just that some people, like yourself, are special!