Australian Atheists Forum

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
--Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

You seem to think that the four canonical gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, and hence eyewitness accounts (despite the contradictions among them)?

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses

There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.
--Daniel Dennet (1942- )

two dogs wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:49 amYou seem to think that the four canonical gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, and hence eyewitness accounts (despite the contradictions among them)?

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses

I said witnesses or people who who knew witnesses. They were certainly written soon after Jesus ascended into heaven in about AD 32. I’m aware that they may not have been written by Matthew and John the apostles personally. Yes, there are some minor contradictions. Not surprising seeing they were written by 4 different people, albeit there was some sharing. Most of history is written by people who didn’t know the subjects, very often well after the events.

Thousands of Christians were killed for believing in Jesus. Doesn’t mean they were right, but it shows that the evidence was strong enough for them.

But the main question is: does God exist? How do you account for creation without God? All the billions of galaxies? Just a random event?

If we accept God exists and created our amazing world, it is easy to accept God coming to try to help humankind in the person of Jesus Christ. God knows we need help.
Cheers Barry

The earliest complete New Testament is in the 4th Century CE Codex Sinaiticus.

Its version of the Gospel of Mark has none of the post-resurrection stuff.

Gee, do you suppose there might be some narrative creep?

Even at age 12 in a Catholic boarding school I was uncomfortable and wary of the sexual interest the priests showed in the boys. Decades later there was finally a reckoning and a series of trials, resulting in some of the most high-profile priests I knew being jailed for child rape.

Before this, when I was 14 I started looking critically at Catholicism specifically and the question of god generally, and over the years it didn't stand up to scrutiny. It's a system of rules and power. Your declaration about what should and should not be done in terms of, say, sexual behaviour, just comes across as a form of tyranny to me. It's part of a continuum which includes the tyranny of pedophile priests over their victims.

As for the historicity of the New Testament, I compare it to modern-day accounts of supernatural events, such as those claimed by Indian holy man Sai Baba. He has millions of followers and they believe he performed miracles such as walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, and turning water into petrol. Just a hint of originality there. Actually he also supposedly regurgitated gold and other precious objects and made sweets appear out of thin air.

It's all a load of crap, and it's the same load of crap for every claim of godly miracles. Only the deluded followers of each religion bother to argue that, no, MY load of crap is different from all those other loads of crap. They apply a different standard as they assess their own holy text.

Sai Baba himself actively participated in faking his supposed miracles and was caught on video doing so. Maybe the supposed miracles of Jesus were all a fiction invented by the authors of the New Testament. Maybe Jesus himself was complicit in the staging of the miracles. In the Gospel of John at least he seems to use them as an argument for people to support him.

Jesus, according to the stories, was a liar and a fraud in my opinion.

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:42 pm

pipbarber wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:44 pmAnd the inquisition and the millions slaughtered by colonial conversionists, the aids epidemic and the contraception ban, the massacreing of babies, the unmarked graves, the enslavement of women, the guilt trip buried in a billion adolescent brains, the obscene wealth, the pathological obsession with suffering ...i could go on. Not sure at all what 'good' has been done by the RCC that could possibly outweigh a thousand years of violence against people but whatever.

You understand Barry, i don't hold you personally responsible for the bloodshed and torture, and those who defend this vile and illegal institution i generally see as among its victims.

Anyway Barry, back to an earlier question you missed, do you think homosexuality is morally wrong? And seeing as though i mentioned it, is contraception morally wrong?

Hi Pip,
Actually I did write a reply to your question about homosexuality. Somehow it never surfaced. As I said, I’m new to this forum. So I apologise for that.
I answered it separately as it deserves special attention.
I accept all the teachings of the Catholic church. I don’t believe you can call yourself a Catholic unless you do. You may be pleased to know only about 5% maximum of baptised Catholics would accept all the teachings.
The Catholic position is that all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is against the law of God. The vast majority of young Catholics have sex before marriage, often with multiple partners and many live in de facto relationships. And never get married.
It’s a difficult doctrine, but I accept and support it.
So too the church doctrine on contraception. In some ways that is even more complex. And before you ask me, I’m 100% against
abortion. I see it as the deliberate killing of human life. Many women and girls are pressured into having their babies killed and can suffer guilt and regret for the rest of their lives.

I think you unfairly exaggerate the wrongs done by some Catholics. You cannot blame Catholics for AIDS, and guilt in a billion adolescent brains. Adolescents are being encouraged to indulge in sexual activity by our society today and the results are STDs, unplanned pregnancies, multiple abortions, emotional damage. Yes there was an inquisition, it was wrong, but in over 300 years there were 2,000 to 5,000 killed. And it was the Spanish monarchy who were controlling it for political ends,

You talk about “millions slaughtered by colonial conversionists” - I’m sure you cannot justify that comment. Who are all the enslaved women? Women far outnumber men in the church today.
Obscene wealth? Really? The church owns a lot of land, but much of it is used for hospitals, schools, charities. Most of the churches are losing money. Catholics are very bad givers.
The massacreing of babies. In Australia we have massacred about 3 million unborn babies in the last 40 years.
Catholics are not obsessed with suffering. I’ve never met one who is.
I’m sad you have such a distorted view of the Catholic Church.
Cheers Barry

I'm at work all day today but perhaps on the weekend i'll accumulate a death tally for the RCC for you. If any other organisation had committed the crimes of the RCC they would have been disbanded and it's leaders and administrators imprisoned for life and hunted down until every last one of them faced justice - a bit like the Nazis. And yet it continues on...why just yesterday i read that the church in NSW is using the death of pedophile priests as a reason not to compensate its victims. There's no end to the evil.

It must be tricky for you when the RCC change policy. What was once a sin and liable to excommunication suddenly becomes acceptable doctrine, something like evolution, which presumably you now believe, or not, they have a bit both ways on that, i believe. It's almost like they have no fucking clue and are making shit up as they go along! Imagine the egg on faces if they switched their contraception ruling! LOL. Which they very well might, given their decline.

I must admit, i'm very disappointed to read your views on sexual reproduction and orientation. They strike me as bigoted, hurtful and basically violent, which perfectly encapsulates the RCC. You put the church above the welfare of individuals and whole communities and i find that appalling. The decline of your church is truly a significant social good.

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:24 pm Either God exists or God doesn’t. Either theists are 100% right or Atheists are 100% right. It seems a bit unfair, but that’s a fact.(SNIP)

Barry, your tiny binary declaration omits a universe of possibilities.

Even in the very unlikely case a god was to exist, its attributes and attitudes would need to be examined.

It could be totally loving, indifferent, or hostile, for example. It might even more closely resemble one of the many other gods humanity has made for itself than it does the god of catholicism.

You are declaring a catholic sort of god as you perceive it, but it seems to me that you are swallowing whatever the church's spokesmen say, wholesale, and not actually questioning it at all.

I say this as you have used the equivalent of "the church says (blah blah) and that's good enough for me" a few times, such as when the question of same-sex attraction came up.

I think we may need to delve a bit deeper than just reciting back dogma, if we are to have a meaningful dialogue.

Hi Barry

Lots of talk of how fabulous ”God” is.

Do an old igtheist a favour and define the concept of "god".

Not your specific flavour, lets nail down what the family entails first.

What sort of thing is a god? Specifically.

Hey Barry,

I want to say upfront - sorry for the length of my response..

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:36 pmCould you explain how you think physical things can exist without some external action?

I can give a few answers for this..

1) It just does, it always did (maybe originally only as energy which doesn't eliminate the future existence of matter thanks to E=MC2). Now I know you will likely say something to the effect of 'but infinite regress' however then you have already alluded to god being outside that having always existed and he doesn't have an infinite regress issue as he is 'timeless'. This is just special pleading in my opinion.

Energy, quantum states etc may also have always existed and without space there was no time and therefore they can also exist under the same kind of special pleading. They however do exist, we can actually prove the existence of energy and have plenty of evidence for quantum physics (even if out knowledge is far from complete), unlike god who apparently we cannot confirm exists beyond books from ancient times when our knowledge was far less than today.

2) I could also just take the humble/honest position and simply say "I don't know", that doesn't mean we can or should insert a god. It is like the explanation the Norse had for lightening, it was Thor's hammer generating it. Humans have a knack rather than admitting honestly "I don't know" to make something up and throughout our history what we made up was often gods and supernatural beings until our knowledge grew and those gaps shrunk. Hence the old adage, god of the gaps, we tend to shoehorn him in when we have nothing better.

In the end everything doesn’t have to come down to reams of evidence. Some people refused to have COVID vaccinations and wear masks because they didn’t see proof. Some of them died or passed the disease on to others who may have died.

Of course they failed IMHO to follow the best available evidence and some of them (and others due to spread) paid the price for that.

It doesn’t have to be harmful to believe in God, or not. As a Catholic, I don’t believe anyone has to believe in God “to be saved”. Many Christians do, and that’s a shame. It’s very judgmental and misguided.

Yeah cool, I think I said this in another thread, if someone has a belief and it is their belief that they don't push on others I don't care less, it doesn't offend me if it doesn't affect me. I guess my problem is twofold.

1) Many (all?) people make their decisions based on their god beliefs (based on IMHO bad epistemology) and then vote in our democracies based on those beliefs. In America the anti abortion movement is driven by Christian belief and the anti trans and anti gay marriage (or just homophobia) movements are too.. For example many cultures around the world had more than 2 genders and were far more fluid and accepting of human differences until the influence of Christianity (and islam to a lesser extent).

If people didn't try and push their gods 'morality' onto how others live their lives I would be far happier but when it is such a core belief I don't know how possible that is.

2) I think it is a mistake for humans to not be honest and simply say "I don't know", filling in the gap with a supernatural being is not smart in my opinion. It leads to opening the doorway for all sorts of magical thinking, cults, charlatans, etc. I think teaching kids rationality and knowing when to say they don't know is far less dangerous for them and humanity as a whole.

stylofone wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:31 amEven at age 12 in a Catholic boarding school I was uncomfortable and wary of the sexual interest the priests showed in the boys. Decades later there was finally a reckoning and a series of trials, resulting in some of the most high-profile priests I knew being jailed for child rape.

Before this, when I was 14 I started looking critically at Catholicism specifically and the question of god generally, and over the years it didn't stand up to scrutiny. It's a system of rules and power. Your declaration about what should and should not be done in terms of, say, sexual behaviour, just comes across as a form of tyranny to me. It's part of a continuum which includes the tyranny of pedophile priests over their victims.

Hi Sty
I went to a Christian Brothers school from grade 3 to 12. There were boarders in later years. I didn’t see any evidence of abuse. Indeed I was seriously thinking about becoming a brother myself. But there is no doubt there were abusive Christian Brothers. Yes there are doctrines, but I question the power comment. No priest has ever had any power over me. BTW I met a couple of priests who I later discovered were child abusers. But they are a small minority.

Society has rules about sexual behaviour aside from the Church. Eg age of consent, consent, how many spouses. It’s not tyranny to have moral values, if they are not enforced.
Cheers Barry

Barryk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:41 am It’s not tyranny to have moral values, if they are not enforced.
Cheers Barry

Absolute free will is a marvellous excuse for tyranny. People freely choose oppression, we don't enforce it.