Preaching Atheism

[Global Skeptic]

As I've said, the Bible isn't just a book. Its several books, twenty seven in the NT to be exact. The gospel accounts are all by different writers, and all of the writers except John died for the testimony of what they saw. Thus they were either all psycho, which is unlikely based on the number of people who died for the same thing, or they were blatant liars who died SO that we would believe them, or they simply told the truth about what they really saw.

You are overlooking something. Now since you can reason and use logic here it is in logical notation.
Premise 1: X is Y.
Premise 2: Person A knows X is Y.
Premise 3: Person B knows X is not Y.
Therefore: ...
Now since you understand truth, reason, logic and reality please explain what follows after the therefore?

 

[Traitorfish]

"Therefore: person B is wrong"? I don't know if that's what you were after, but it's the only way you can square it with Premise 1.

You're mebbe wanting to rethink that one.

 

[Borachio]

Premise 1 could be wrong. In which case any conclusion from it would be logically valid.

either

 

[El_Machinae]

The gospels are best explained as being written by people that believed what they wrote. There's no evidence that they had first-hand experience, and could just be reporting what they heard. If they had experienced some type of spiritual revelation, then they'd be disproportionately prone to believing strange things.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not exactly as if the Christians represent the only messianic movement in history. They didn't even represent the only messianic movement in first century Israel.

 

[timtofly]

Premise 1 could be wrong. In which case any conclusion from it would be logically valid.

either

Would that mean that there was no premise to begin with, and thus nothing would be logical thereafter?

 

[Berzerker]

just came across this quote about Jesus and the Bible from Hitchens

The god of Moses would call for other tribes, including his favorite one, to suffer massacre and plague and even extirpation, but when the grave closed over his victims he was essentially finished with them unless he remembered to curse their succeeding progeny. Not until the advent of the Prince of Peace do we hear of the ghastly idea of further punishing and torturing the dead.

ouch

 

[timtofly]

just came across this quote about Jesus and the Bible from Hitchens



ouch

That is not entirely true, many held to the underworld, and life after death. Jesus did not promise eternal punishment, but offered a better afterlife. If there is a reality called Jesus Christ, then there was already eternal, unstopable pain before Jesus time. Jesus did not instigate further pain, it was already in action. Besides after the 10 tribes were dispersed to the four corners of the world, even the Jews were waiting on a descendent of David to reunite the world in peace. Just because Jesus did not bring this about does not mean Jesus was the reason for the discomfort. People then and people now refuse to accept that God punishes. Others think that it is impossible for God to judge us. Humans live life like there is no God. There is a high probablity that mankind can not improve himself. Who wants to give up their free will to do as they please?

 

[Berzerker]

they werent jewish notions and Hitchens didn't mention eternal punishment, just more of it

he's right

ouch

People then and people now refuse to accept that God punishes

and Hitchen's point is that "the Good News" is we got more waiting for us

Others think that it is impossible for God to judge us.

while believers think we cant judge their God, they're wrong

Who wants to give up their free will to do as they please?

not me, freedom > slavery

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm pretty fond of Hitchen's voice and syntax. What a thief cancer is.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I hear that.

 

[Borachio]

Would that mean that there was no premise to begin with, and thus nothing would be logical thereafter?

No. This means that if you start with a false premise any conclusion is logically valid.

I was thinking of propositions like:

P: The moon is made of green cheese.
Q: The Queen of England is a rubber duck.

P implies Q is valid.

Though not much sense.

It just means you can deduce anything if your initial proposition is false.

P implies Q is valid if P is false and Q is true as well, naturally.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Haven't read the full thread but I felt this was relevant and entertaining to most people who would post in this thread.

Plus, Cara Santamaria is sexy.


Link to video.