Pre-Cambrian discusses the Reading Challenge

[Pre-Cambrian]

Good evening all!

I'm here to talk about JP Holding's "reading challenge". It seems to me that if you haven't established first premises yet (namely, that Yahweh exists and is Lord of the Universe) it's rather silly to demand one read books about the hair color of Jesus. It is also important to point out that by far most of his books are written by convinced believers, ex. Tom Wright, I read one of his papers and I am not impressed in the least. He assumes not only that God exists, but that the Four Gospels we have are highly accurate (I'd love to see him defend the Zombie uprising and the earthquake in Matthew, though!) If one starts 90% of the way towards a spurious belief, then of course you will reach a rather dubious conclusion.

Let's start with first premises, shall we? I think it's high time Holding first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a God exists. He must not only do this, he must also demonstrate that this God is in fact Yahweh and not, say, Thor or Zeus. After we've gotten that far I may read one of his recommended books.

I hope Holding can do this in a mature and adult manner worthy of a civilized human being, though I won't be holding my breath on that one. I think his "club" of followers should attempt, however poorly, to do the same.

[Pre-Cambrian]

I, of course, have an alternate theory as to what religion is really about and why we should abandon it in our modern, highly advanced age. I may advance this argument later. It served a purpose once but has long outlived it.We live in a world where it is possible to put a man on the moon, split the atom, communicate instantly across time and space, yet there are still people (even in the advanced countries!) that believe in things like bodily resurrection and faith healing.

I for one think it's high time humanity grew up.

[fm93]

Good evening, Pre-Cambrian! I'm here to ask you to drop your phony pretense of courtesy, since it's blatantly obvious that you're here to troll rather than engage in intelligent, fruitful discourse. So please, don't try introducing yourself by saying "Good evening, all" or "shall we?"

Oh, you want to know what makes me suspect that you're trolling? Ninety percent of everything you said consists of trite and vacuous buzzwords and slogans, you used deliberately misrepresentative and derogatory terms like "zombie," and you don't even understand Holding's reading challenge, since the books are about the social science of the ancient Near East and the early days of Christianity, not Jesus' hair color.

I think it's high time that you grew up and actually developed some real courtesy and honesty, rather than pretending like you care about discussion but actually showing up here just to mouth off and hear yourself speak.

People like you who use false pretenses and criticize ideas that they don't understand and have no intention of understanding have no place in a modern, highly advanced age. Your intellectual level belongs in the Pre-Cambrian era.

[Pre-Cambrian]

Good evening, Pre-Cambrian! I'm here to ask you to drop your phony pretense of courtesy, since it's blatantly obvious that you're here to troll rather than engage in intelligent, fruitful discourse. So please, don't try introducing yourself by saying "Good evening, all" or "shall we?"

Oh, you want to know what makes me suspect that you're trolling? Ninety percent of everything you said consists of trite and vacuous buzzwords and slogans, you used deliberately misrepresentative and derogatory terms like "zombie," and you don't even understand Holding's reading challenge, since the books are about the social science of the ancient Near East and the early days of Christianity, not Jesus' hair color.

I think it's high time that you grew up and actually developed some real courtesy and honesty, rather than pretending like you care about discussion but actually showing up here just to mouth off and hear yourself speak.

People like you who use false pretenses and criticize ideas that they don't understand and have no intention of understanding have no place in a modern, highly advanced age. Your intellectual level belongs in the Pre-Cambrian era.

No, one of his books was by N.T. Wright--who is a THEOLOGIAN, not a HISTORIAN. You may be surprised to learn that history, in the modern sense of the word, is a science. One must critically and skeptically look at primary source documents and de-construct them, question the motives of those writing them, look for contradictions, etc. What Wright does is start out with a pre-conceived belief (the bodily resurrection of Jesus was real), and then try to make all the evidence fit that claim. It may comfort believers into the delusion that their beliefs are correct, and that they will never doubt, but those of us who can look at this with objective lenses on see it as rather facile.

As to "Zombie", notice I did not use that in reference to Jesus, but to the reanimated bodies that supposedly came out of the graves around Jerusalem in Matthew. What other word would you use? Notice you avoided the earthquake, too. Those passages alone are enough to chalk up the "Gospel of Matthew" as bogus propaganda produced by a delusional, hysterical cult.

As to my name, I am a biologist by trade. I happen to agree with the fundamentalists on one thing--evolution and Christianity are absolutely, totally incompatible. Evolution by natural selection makes total nonsense of the "fall" of man and the fiction of "sin". Once those two things are destroyed, the entire rug is pulled out from under the Christian worldview and the house of cards collapses into a sordid trash heap of stained glass windows, phony weeping icons and statues, and confidence men.

Religion is nothing more than a means of social control--whether it is done in the tribal, nationalistic and bloodthirsty way (OT Judaism, Islam) or as a kind of Amway-style pyramid recruitment scheme (Christianity).

But I will address all of that in due time. A few of you may even become atheists yourselves. It can happen, you know.

Bottom line: There is no God, so shut up and make the most of the only life you'll ever have.

[One Bad Pig]

Moderated By: OBP

This looks like it'll spawn a lengthy discussion by itself, so it gets its own thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[GioD]

No, one of his books was by N.T. Wright--who is a THEOLOGIAN, not a HISTORIAN.

He's both. When you get a doctorate in theology you can usually sub-specialize, and when you do in NT studies and the like you generally obtain both the skills and credentials to back yourself up on historical discussion. This is the case with Dr. Wright.

You may be surprised to learn that history, in the modern sense of the word, is a science.

Are you, by chance, a Marxist?

One must critically and skeptically look at primary source documents and de-construct them, question the motives of those writing them, look for contradictions, etc.

So in other words you set out to prove the documents wrong rather than objectively analyze them. Your use of the term "deconstruct" is another red flag for Marxist influence BTW.

What Wright does is start out with a pre-conceived belief (the bodily resurrection of Jesus was real), and then try to make all the evidence fit that claim.

Didn't you just say that you aim to do that but with the reverse conclusion in mind? Even if Wright does this, this doesn't automatically discredit him.

It may comfort believers into the delusion that their beliefs are correct, and that they will never doubt, but those of us who can look at this with objective lenses on see it as rather facile.

The same can be said of your methods for disbelievers.

As to "Zombie", notice I did not use that in reference to Jesus, but to the reanimated bodies that supposedly came out of the graves around Jerusalem in Matthew. What other word would you use?

I don't know, but not "zombie". There is no evidence they had reduced cognitive power, which is characteristic of zombies.

Notice you avoided the earthquake, too.

What's there to avoid? I didn't see you make an actual argument.

Those passages alone are enough to chalk up the "Gospel of Matthew" as bogus propaganda produced by a delusional, hysterical cult.

How do these passages show Matt to be "propaganda"? If they are as impossible as you claim they would be the exact opposite of propaganda, since they knew when writing it it wouldn't convince anybody.

I happen to agree with the fundamentalists on one thing--evolution and Christianity are absolutely, totally incompatible.

You're an idiot.

Evolution by natural selection makes total nonsense of the "fall" of man and the fiction of "sin".

It does nothing of the sort, and if you think it does it shows you either have no knowledge of basic theology or no knowledge of the nature of evolution and biological methodology. Or both.

Once those two things are destroyed, the entire rug is pulled out from under the Christian worldview and the house of cards collapses into a sordid trash heap of stained glass windows, phony weeping icons and statues, and confidence men.

How does every Christian cleric and healer qualify as a "con man" if Christianity is false?

But I will address all of that in due time. A few of you may even become atheists yourselves. It can happen, you know.

Oh tell me more, most wise Pre-Cambrian! You are certainly the most intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful person I have ever met on the study of Christianity! My feeble mind is unworthy of your immense intelligence! How could I possibly remain a theist against such a logical gentleman?

Bottom line: There is no God, so shut up and make the most of the only life you'll ever have.

Bottom line: You're a narcissistic idiot.

[kuartus4]

This precambrian fellow is an ignorant troll. Philosophers like Robin Collins have dealt with the issue of natural history and divine redemption. As for evidence for christianity see here:

http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrect...singlefile.pdf

[Pre-Cambrian]

GioD, if you want to discuss why evolution pulls the rug out from under the foundation of your belief, please start a thread. I'll leave your faith in tatters so you'll either have to become a fundy YEC or reach the rational conclusion of atheism, or at the very least a a distant, absentee deist God who isn't personal and doesn't give two rips about us. Functionally, the same thing.

No, I am not a Marxist. I'm a classical liberal (NOT the same thing as a modern one). Everyone in academia since the 19th Century has accepted the fact that history is an objective science, I'm so sorry you didn't learn that in high school where you should have.

[Pre-Cambrian]

This precambrian fellow is an ignorant troll. Philosophers like Robin Collins have dealt with the issue of natural history and divine redemption. As for evidence for christianity see here:

http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrect...singlefile.pdf

Robert Collins seems to be one of the proponents of the fraudulent pseudo-science known as "Intelligent Design". That's all I need to know. I don't respond to liars and propagandists.

Face it: Christianity, in the modern countries of the world in any event, is on the way out. Yes, even in the United States, at long last. It took us a while but we're getting to where Europe was about 20 years ago. Soon churches will be turned into much more useful things like condominiums and bars, and our young will be freed from the chains of superstition.

Anyway, I'm here to debate Holding.

[GioD]

GioD, if you want to discuss why evolution pulls the rug out from under the foundation of your belief, please start a thread. I'll leave your faith in tatters so you'll either have to become a fundy YEC or reach the rational conclusion of atheism, or at the very least a a distant, absentee deist God who isn't personal and doesn't give two rips about us. Functionally, the same thing.

Like I said: Narcissistic idiot.

But I don't normally debate this type of stuff but if your arguments are so powerful I guess I have to see them. Make a thread in Apologetics or Natural Sci. (put "for GioD" in parenthesis on the side) and I'll try to look at it.

I'm a classical liberal (NOT the same thing as a modern one).

So am I.

Everyone in academia since the 19th Century has accepted the fact that history is an objective science, I'm so sorry you didn't learn that in high school where you should have.

I agree history is objective, I disagree that:

A) It can be classified as a "science" in the modern sense, and
B) The goal of history is "deconstructing" primary sources

[GioD]

Robert Collins seems to be one of the proponents of the fraudulent pseudo-science known as "Intelligent Design". That's all I need to know. I don't respond to liars and propagandists.

Because being honestly wrong about science clearly makes you a dishonest historian who is so non-credible that skeptics don't even need to answer his points.

Like I said: Narcissistic idiot.

^And yes, I will keep using that line until you stop being a narcissistic idiot.

[rogue06]

GioD, if you want to discuss why evolution pulls the rug out from under the foundation of your belief, please start a thread.

You were the one who brought it up. And you may notice by the statement under my name I have no trouble accepting evolution but I find it laughable when someone claims that evolution is "absolutely, totally incompatible" with Christianity including the Fall and personally think this shows a woeful lack of understanding on your part wrt to these topics.

In any case, welcome to Tweb

[kuartus4]

No, Robin Collins is actually a critic of Dembski's ID theory and does not think ID qualifies as science.
Troll. As for evidence for God, read a book.
I recommend The last superstition: A refutation of the new atheism by Edward Feser.

[fm93]

I am a biologist by trade.

I call BS. If you're a professional scientist, then why are you incapable of following one of the basic principles of scientific work--PROVIDE EVIDENCE for your claims?

What Wright does is start out with a pre-conceived belief (the bodily resurrection of Jesus was real), and then try to make all the evidence fit that claim.

Provide evidence that Wright is actually doing this, and that he's not following the evidence where it leads. You may not have realized this, but reality doesn't conform to your mere say-so. That's another major principle of science.

It may comfort believers into the delusion that their beliefs are correct, and that they will never doubt, but those of us who can look at this with objective lenses on see it as rather facile.

It sure isn't you who's wearing objective lenses, since you're starting from a pre-conceived belief that religion is some inherently evil, nasty thing, and you're trying to make the "evidence" fit that claim. My evidence for believing that you're doing this is the fact that you steadfastly refuse to present evidence for your claims, yet you continue to state hackneyed, vacuous statements as if they're dogma. Know who else does that? Religious fundamentalists.

As to "Zombie", notice I did not use that in reference to Jesus, but to the reanimated bodies that supposedly came out of the graves around Jerusalem in Matthew.

Doesn't matter. You still used a deliberately misrepresentative and derogatory word.

What other word would you use?

Resurrected saints, maybe. If "zombie" is the only word that you think can be used, you're definitely not intelligent enough to function in a modern, highly advanced society.

Notice you avoided the earthquake, too.

You're skeptical that an earthquake happened?

Those passages alone are enough to chalk up the "Gospel of Matthew" as bogus propaganda produced by a delusional, hysterical cult.

You're starting with the pre-conceived belief that miracles can't happen, then trying to discount any potential evidence that they do by appealing to the fact that they don't agree with your pre-conceived belief. That's pretty irresponsible science on your part. It's also pretty irresponsible to handwave everything away as being the product of delusional, hysterical people. The Gospels are written in a format very similar to that of ancient biography, and last time I checked, delusional and hysterical people generally don't and can't write lengthy works in an orderly format.

I happen to agree with the fundamentalists on one thing--evolution and Christianity are absolutely, totally incompatible.

You're also like the fundamentalists in another way--neither of you believe what Charles Darwin said. He wrote in a letter that "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist." Not even one of the greatest names in the theory of evolution believed that the two were incompatible.

Evolution by natural selection makes total nonsense of the "fall" of man and the fiction of "sin".

I don't know if I should bother explaining this to someone like you who's uninterested in learning, but what the heck...

People who believe total nonsense like "Evolution is incompatible with Christianity" reason that if God, who supposedly cannot err, delivered an errant message, then the conception of God as one who cannot err is falsified. This, however, pre-supposes that the message that God delivered was actually errant. The question to be asked in regard to the Genesis account is this: what was the main purpose of the message that God delivered? If the main purpose was to state exactly what happened in biological and cosmological history, then the message is clearly incorrect, and God would be an errant being.

But what's the likelihood that that was the main purpose of the story? What good would it have been for people living in the second millenium BC to know exactly how old the Earth is, or what exactly happened in biological history? Clearly, such knowledge would've been useless to them in terms of practicality. They instead would've wanted to know what God is like, how they could serve and please him, how powerful he is, etc. They didn't care about how life came to be so much as why life came to be, where life is headed, and what to do with life. THIS is the standard by which the Genesis story should be evaluated.

As an analogy, consider George Orwell's novel Animal Farm. If the novel's purpose was to show what animals are capable of, then the message is clearly wrong, since last time I checked, animals can't talk. But we know that the novel isn't at all concerned with the capabilities of animals--instead, its purpose was actually to allegorically show what happened in the Russian Revolution. In that regard, the novel is accurate. Likewise, the message that Genesis aims to convey isn't even concerned with trying to scientifically explain the origin of life. So to attack it on those grounds is irrelevant and nonsensical.

Once those two things are destroyed, the entire rug is pulled out from under the Christian worldview

Blatantly false, as I've explained.

and the house of cards collapses into a sordid trash heap of stained glass windows, phony weeping icons and statues, and confidence men.

That you have such a deliberately misrepresentative and narrow-minded view of what Christianity is speaks volumes about your open-mindedness and intellectual fairness. Someone like you, who lacks those qualities of open-mindedness and intellectual fairness, has no place in an intellectual society in which open and fair discourse ought to freely flow.

Religion is nothing more than a means of social control--whether it is done in the tribal, nationalistic and bloodthirsty way (OT Judaism, Islam) or as a kind of Amway-style pyramid recruitment scheme (Christianity).

And yet again, the self-professed scientist by trade provides no evidence for his claims.

But I will address all of that in due time. A few of you may even become atheists yourselves. It can happen, you know.

Highly doubtful, given the intellectual strength or lack thereof that you've showed so far.

Bottom line: There is no God

Still no evidence for your claims, I see.

so shut up

Science operates by being open to different views and carefully examining each one, not by telling proponents of other views to shut up. If there's anything I've learned from you, it's that you really despise science.

make the most of the only life you'll ever have.

I can't help but wonder why someone like yourself, who supposedly believes this, tries to waste his own time and mine by trolling and making stupid, inane, vacuous comments on an Internet forum.

[TolkienFan]

Good evening all!

I'm here to talk about JP Holding's "reading challenge". It seems to me that if you haven't established first premises yet (namely, that Yahweh exists and is Lord of the Universe) it's rather silly to demand one read books about the hair color of Jesus. It is also important to point out that by far most of his books are written by convinced believers, ex. Tom Wright, I read one of his papers and I am not impressed in the least. He assumes not only that God exists, but that the Four Gospels we have are highly accurate (I'd love to see him defend the Zombie uprising and the earthquake in Matthew, though!) If one starts 90% of the way towards a spurious belief, then of course you will reach a rather dubious conclusion.

Let's start with first premises, shall we? I think it's high time Holding first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a God exists. He must not only do this, he must also demonstrate that this God is in fact Yahweh and not, say, Thor or Zeus. After we've gotten that far I may read one of his recommended books.

I hope Holding can do this in a mature and adult manner worthy of a civilized human being, though I won't be holding my breath on that one. I think his "club" of followers should attempt, however poorly, to do the same.

So you saw the sign did you?

Tektonics.org: Where Trolls Eat for Free