Comic Genesis Forums

Wayfarer wrote:Our disagreement seems to be over the weight of a claim to Godhood. You argue that such a claim can be considered on the level of an average - or at least still sane - case of arrogance and eccentricity. I would argue that Jesus' claims were not on the same order as any of the examples you mentioned in the other historical figures you brought up, and they would have to go well beyond mere eccentricity and arrogance. Claiming to be God is not just a quirk. Objectively, as a claim, it has to be either true, something one claims but doesn't believe to be true, or something one claims and believes to be true although it is not. If Jesus claimed to be God, the only way to Heaven, and the sin-sacrifice of the world and yet did not believe Himself to be those things, what could He be but a monstrous liar? And if He lied about those things it is difficult to see how He could be trustworthy at all. If He claimed these things and also believed them, and yet they were not true, what does that mean about Him? You said that as a child you believed you were Homo troodontis. Yet you do not still believe this today - you call it an embarrasing fit of vanity. Consider why - you no longer believe it, I presume, because the evidence of reality has proven it to be not only wrong, but very far from what the facts could support (else why would you call it embarrasing?). Consider how much farther from the evidence of life the claim to be God, if false, would be. How could a sane person miss that gap or, seeing it, continue to believe that what they claim is true? Could eccentricity and vanity really explain that? Even if you think so, I don't think that psychology would agree with you.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You're right- I don't think that claiming that one is either a god or touched by God to be above and beyond normal psychosis. Of course, how does one disprove that someone is the son of God? I don't think that one can disprove the existence of God now, and certainly you couldn't do it when Jesus lived. How does one go about finding the disconnect with reality that shows that one isn't the son of God?

Yet you also seem to be saying that we can look at and evaluate the things Jesus taught separately from His claims about Himself, and that we can agree with the former while rejecting the latter. However, I would point out that Jesus was on a number of occaisions asked what gave Him the authority to act and teach as He did. The very question, unless a complete non sequitur, indicates that His teachings and actions were such that they would require the validation of some kind of authority. Jesus' claims about Himself were His validation and source of authority. They were the basis upon which He claimed the right to say the things He did.

Why does he need authority? Any other philosopher has no authority for his teachings other than his own mind; I don't think that Jesus is any different. I care less about his sanity, his reputation, or the possibility of his divinity, and more about the words themselves. "Do unto others as thou wouldst have them do unto you" just makes sense; I don't really care about who said it, as long as I understand what is being said.

I'm an atheist, remember. I don't think there is any ultimate authority. Therefore, there is no authority needed to speak wisdom; all that is required is the equipment that allows air to flow out of one's lungs in a controlled manner. I think that one should consider what is being said, and only think of who is saying it if you want to see some thoughts of a similar nature.

Hmm, the book looks interesting. I doubt that it will convert me, but I may take a look at it in any case.

Kerry Skydancer wrote:

mwalimu wrote:

The JAM wrote:[...] I do recommend the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". I forgot the name of the author, [...]

It was written by Josh McDowell. I haven't read the book, but if what I remember hearing about it is correct, he set out to dig up enough information to disprove Christianity, and ended up converting to it instead.

I have read the silly piece of tripe, and that is in fact what he claims (without any indication that he ever honestly was a nonbeliever - not going to church for a few years doesn't make you an atheist any more than going to church makes you a Christian).

Kerry, respectfully, I would ask what indication he could have presented, other than the account of his own life, that he was an athiest. How does one prove, other than by their own accounting, and perhaps the testimony of those who have known them, what their views on things are? I have very little ability to positively prove to you that I believe or have believed one thing or another - I can only say it is the case and leave you to believe me or not.

You know, I once spent hours arguing theology and philosophy with an Atheist. I was eventually able to find the root of our disagreement. What I did, was I asked him what he would say if I could show him some miracle, such as shooting thunderbolts from my fingertips, or trasmuting lead into gold.

He said that while he might feel a psychological compulsion to believe in God then, that logically my showing him that would not be proof of the supernatural, because ultimately the existence of the supernatural is, as he put it, unintelligible. It simply cannot be, because anything beyond our senses is irrelevant to the human condition, so we should not believe it exists. And conveinently, this makes believe in the supernatural logically impossible. And so even if I make it manifestly relevant (by performing a miracle) I have still not rendered sufficient proof.

My tentative conclusion is that there is no sufficient proof of God. If you fulfill the scripture in the most literal sense, and can demonstrate an ability to move mountains, people who don't want to believe still won't believe. They will say it's psychokinesis, or that you're an alien, or that you've perpetrated a hoax, or that you used some instrumentation to predict a natural shift in the mountain's position.

I am going to post part of what I intend now. It's getting late, I'm getting tired, and I'm needing to go to bed soon, so I won't be able to do more. I am learning and being encouraged to think through this discussion, and I want that to continue, so I intend to post the rest later when I have the proper time.

Deflare wrote:Perhaps, perhaps not. You're right- I don't think that claiming that one is either a god or touched by God to be above and beyond normal psychosis. Of course, how does one disprove that someone is the son of God? I don't think that one can disprove the existence of God now, and certainly you couldn't do it when Jesus lived. How does one go about finding the disconnect with reality that shows that one isn't the son of God?

Your argument seems to imply that we can have no knowledge of what to expect God-become-human or God's Son to be like. If you're argument is what I think it is, you are saying that we can't possibly know what one who was really the Son of God would be like, so one couldn't expect experience to necessarily reveal that the claim wasn't true.

There are, I think, a couple of things to consider here. The first is what some of the implications of being God's Son and being One with God would have. In claiming to be God's Son, Jesus was claiming to be equal to God (John 5:18 ). He also claimed that He was one with God, which, if true, would mean that He would have the characteristics of God. Thus there would be consequences in reality if His claims were true - He would have to have the traits and character of God, at least to the extent that these were compatible with Him being in human form. Yet, in order for my argument to work, some of these traits would have to be ones that only God in human form could have.

This brings us to the next point, which is the question of what the traits and character of God would be. Jesus' claim was made within the context of Jewish culture and Jewish history, which means that the experiential validation or refuation of His claim would come down to whether or not He uniquely - that is, in a way that no normal human being could - displayed the character and traits of YHWH, the God of the Jews, as He is portrayed in Jewish scripture.

Another point is that Jesus' claim to being the Son of God is very closely tied to the claim that He was the Messiah. The Jewish scriptures had a large number of prophesies about what the Messiah would be like, and so in yet another way we find a source of knowledge about what one would have to expect of Jesus and the realities of His life if His claims were true.

I've come to the end of what I have time for currently, though my point is not established. I think what I would claim to have accomplished to this point would be to show that there are indeed sources to draw from in evaluating the claim of being God/God's Son. In order to consider in what ways they would serve as a measurement, I think one would need to go into examples of specific traits and prophesies. This would, unfortunately, require more digging around than I have time for at the moment.

So, until later...

Steltek wrote:You know, I once spent hours arguing theology and philosophy with an Atheist. I was eventually able to find the root of our disagreement. What I did, was I asked him what he would say if I could show him some miracle, such as shooting thunderbolts from my fingertips, or trasmuting lead into gold.

He said that while he might feel a psychological compulsion to believe in God then, that logically my showing him that would not be proof of the supernatural, because ultimately the existence of the supernatural is, as he put it, unintelligible. It simply cannot be, because anything beyond our senses is irrelevant to the human condition, so we should not believe it exists. And conveinently, this makes believe in the supernatural logically impossible. And so even if I make it manifestly relevant (by performing a miracle) I have still not rendered sufficient proof.

My tentative conclusion is that there is no sufficient proof of God. If you fulfill the scripture in the most literal sense, and can demonstrate an ability to move mountains, people who don't want to believe still won't believe. They will say it's psychokinesis, or that you're an alien, or that you've perpetrated a hoax, or that you used some instrumentation to predict a natural shift in the mountain's position.

Hmm... That's a good question. With the lightening-from-fingers thing, it is possible that it could be some sort of trick using static electricity, and the lead-to-gold trick could be some sort of sleight of hand. Assuming that these are to be taken at face value, however... Well, my thoughts about this would have to be placed in context.

I like fantasy settings, and I like to play Dungeons and Dragons; I also like to create stories based on D&D; I'm DMing a game online right now. I long ago devised an idea that magic was a science in and of itself- an auxiliary set of laws of physics, if you will. I also opened up room for atheism in D&D, by saying that it's possible that those who think their power comes from the gods, clerics, may really be tapping into the same forces as wizards using pure strength of will, rather than through knowledge of the proper hand gestures and such.

Given that concept in mind... If you performed one of those miracles, I honestly don't think that it would convert me to belief in God. Indeed, I would probably go with the idea that it's one of the magician's tricks I mentioned. Whatever I decide, however, I must say that it would probably make my impressions of magic and fantasy appear in a whole new light.

Wayfarer: Oh, good- someone else is enjoying a civil exchange of philosophies! Looking forward to the completion of your thought.

Wayfarer wrote:

Kerry Skydancer wrote:

mwalimu wrote: It was written by Josh McDowell. I haven't read the book, but if what I remember hearing about it is correct, he set out to dig up enough information to disprove Christianity, and ended up converting to it instead.

I have read the silly piece of tripe, and that is in fact what he claims (without any indication that he ever honestly was a nonbeliever - not going to church for a few years doesn't make you an atheist any more than going to church makes you a Christian).

Kerry, respectfully, I would ask what indication he could have presented, other than the account of his own life, that he was an athiest. How does one prove, other than by their own accounting, and perhaps the testimony of those who have known them, what their views on things are? I have very little ability to positively prove to you that I believe or have believed one thing or another - I can only say it is the case and leave you to believe me or not.

Okay, that's a fair question. It is certainly -possible- to demonstrate it; say, previous writings from the atheist viewpoint before he converted. There is no requirement that he needs to have done such a thing, of course, and I was not actually trying to say he had to be lying - though I'll admit it looked that way, in retrospect. There is simply no evidence either way.

There is, however, a cottage industy in books like Evidence and the writers always seem to think they get more street cred if they're a converted atheist. I'm suspicious of such claims. As I said, not going to church for a while, especially if the writer grew up in one tradition and ended up in a second, does not mean that they've actually thought about the issues involved in rejecting faith. It just means that (like a lot of folks) they were just not bothered either way about the issue until something raised its head.

Like Steltek's friend, I'm not going to be easily convinced, even by miracles, unless they can be demonstrated to be real, somehow. We know too much about what high tech might be capable of to consider simple sleight of hand or amazing cures to be miraculous any more. There are a few things that would convince me, but they're all major-league miracles like resurrections or rearranging stellar patterns on a moment's notice - and even that would only convince me that there was -some- god out there. My own crisis of conscience was ages ago; I simply do not have a mind capable of 'faith'. The closest I come is to believe that the Universe is real, and not an illusion; and even that would be open to question if I met Neo... 8) I need evidence and logic before I accept something, and the pseudo-rationality of Strobel and McDowell is lacking on multiple levels.

I suppose the dilemma the Christian faces with the Atheist, then, is that the Atheist demands evidence, but in reality would accept none. The Atheist is simply not in a position to believe in the God of the Bible even if He does exist -- from my point of view, that means it's actually a cop-out to say that evidence even enters into the equation.

Jesus Christ could appear out of thin air, turn a bottle of tepid Dasani into a bottle of chilled merlot, thrust it into the average Atheist's hands before screaming "I EXIST" at the top of his lungs and shooting into the sky, and I don't think they'd necessarily believe it. More likely, they'd look around for some pulleys or wires, or check themselves into a mental hospital.

despite the evidence I've seen towards the existance of a god...

despite the evidence I've seen against the existance of a god...


...I still rely on faith. it seems like the closer to "the answers we're looking for" either through religious study or through cold science, neither the existance nor the non-existance of god has been (to me) exclusively proven or disproven. after all we can know and have found out, we must still rely on faith.


sorry, just wanted a few cents in.

Ah, but evidence -does- enter into the equation. The problem is that the Bible, and Christianity as it is presented from the Bible, is negative evidence. There are too many inconsistencies with reality, too many internal disagreements, too many similarities to all the other mythologies of the time, for it to look significantly different (from our perspective) from the stories of Osiris and Isis, or Woden and the Aesir, or Mithras, or Ahuramazda.

Yes, the Bible has unique features. So do all the others. This is not really a selling point.

Yes, Christianity is one that has survived nearly two thousand years. But Hinduism and Buddhism and Judaism have older pedigrees, and Islam is not that much younger. All have had people who died for their beliefs, and hypocrites who used the faith of others to their own advantage. Again, not unique enough to matter.

And the natural world, for all its grandeur and beauty, is full of death and destruction and waste; if it was created by a Deity, He has gone out of His way to make things look like they developed on their own.

I do not anticipate standing before a Judgement Throne when the meat that supports the electrical matrix that is -me- gives out. If I am wrong, I am going to ask just one question. "Why did you hide?" (And don't assure me He isn't hiding. From my perspective, He is.)

Steltek wrote:I suppose the dilemma the Christian faces with the Atheist, then, is that the Atheist demands evidence, but in reality would accept none. The Atheist is simply not in a position to believe in the God of the Bible even if He does exist -- from my point of view, that means it's actually a cop-out to say that evidence even enters into the equation.

Meh, yes, and no. I see no evidence for or against God, and see no reason to assume that He/She/It does exist. I don't really care whether or not other people believe in Him; the only time that I get snarky about evidence is when people start throwing their faith around as equal or superior to scientific evidence- when claiming that evolution simply could not occur without divine intervention, for example.

Jesus Christ could appear out of thin air, turn a bottle of tepid Dasani into a bottle of chilled merlot, thrust it into the average Atheist's hands before screaming "I EXIST" at the top of his lungs and shooting into the sky, and I don't think they'd necessarily believe it. More likely, they'd look around for some pulleys or wires, or check themselves into a mental hospital.

Now you see, that would be damned convincing- at least, after I make sure the merlot is real. If I wake up the next day and it's gone, then yes, I'd probably go for the mental hospital. However, I don't see anything like this happening.

I don't suppose any of you are familiar with Jack Chick- insane anti-everything-but-Christianity cartoonist? Well, I found a comic parodying him that actually has some decent thoughts. Dead to Rights Much of this is rather stupid, until we get down to where Chick is talking to God. Some quotes from God that I like:

"You were put on Earth to learn and grow as a person, not to kiss My ass."

"Silly little man! My "Word" is far too great for some little book!"

"You should have looked for Me in Nature. That can't be faked. Or you could look for Me where there was joy and fellowship; I'm there too."

"As long as it harms no one, including yourself, do what you want." -Wiccan Rede

"Go forth, and be excellent to each other." -Bill and Ted

A quote not from the comic, but still worth considering:

" You have only two rules- try to understand things, and don't go around hurting each other." -Spider Goddess's rules to humanity, according to at least one Native American religion (unfortunately, I can't find the quote at the moment)

Just another example of how my philosophy is based on things that I hear, then subsequently consider, alter as necessary, then plug it in like a Lego piece.

Eh, seen it before. In my view that's more of an anti-Christian screed which lacks even one iota more validity than Chick's own insane rantings than it is a rebuttal. It's like the KKK trying to parody the Black Panthers or MECHA -- it's not insightful, it's just hypocritical and pathetic coming from someone who is clearly as full of hate and venom as the person they're trying to satirize.

Chick, by the way, is generally not taken seriously in Christian circles -- his crazy rants about how the Roman Catholics are a tool of Satan and they manufactured Islam, as well as his comparing reading Harry Potter with ancient rites of human sacrifice place him firmly in the crazy ass category for
the majority of us. (Although his purely evangelical tracts which are just about Jesus are okay. Funnily enough, he kind of uses those benign ones to open up people to ordering his crazy theory comics -- heh, he's running the same kind of conspiracy he always talks about!)

Ah, but evidence -does- enter into the equation. The problem is that the Bible, and Christianity as it is presented from the Bible, is negative evidence. There are too many inconsistencies with reality, too many internal disagreements, too many similarities to all the other mythologies of the time, for it to look significantly different (from our perspective) from the stories of Osiris and Isis, or Woden and the Aesir, or Mithras, or Ahuramazda.

Actually, the "contradictions" in the Bible, as well as alleged "borrowing" from other mythologies has been debunked to hell and back. I don't much feel like reinventing Glen Miller's idealogical wheel tonight, so I'll just direct all comers to his website, which contains more relevant data on the subject than I ever thought I'd need. Suffice it to say, we know about Gilgamesh and Horus and everything else you think we used to invent God and Jesus, and we have very good reasons -- yes, reasons -- for not buying what you're selling. We also know about the quotes taken out of context that are typically called contradictions, and again, we aren't buying it.

Steltek wrote:Eh, seen it before. In my view that's more of an anti-Christian screed which lacks even one iota more validity than Chick's own insane rantings than it is a rebuttal. It's like the KKK trying to parody the Black Panthers or MECHA -- it's not insightful, it's just hypocritical and pathetic coming from someone who is clearly as full of hate and venom as the person they're trying to satirize.

Eh, got to agree, honestly- I found a lot of it to be rather irritating myself; some of it was just plain stupid, and the sort of 'counter intolerance with intolerance' crap that has given liberals and atheists bad images.

However, I did like the quotes in that one comic, especially the ones about, "I didn't place you on Earth to kiss My ass," and, "Look for me where there is joy and fellowship." Those seem to be just plain healthy ideas, to me.

Chick, by the way, is generally not taken seriously in Christian circles -- his crazy rants about how the Roman Catholics are a tool of Satan and they manufactured Islam, as well as his comparing reading Harry Potter with ancient rites of human sacrifice place him firmly in the crazy ass category for
the majority of us. (Although his purely evangelical tracts which are just about Jesus are okay. Funnily enough, he kind of uses those benign ones to open up people to ordering his crazy theory comics -- heh, he's running the same kind of conspiracy he always talks about!)

Well, that's good to know. Always nice to know that I'm talking with people that see bullshit as bullshit.

However, I did like the quotes in that one comic, especially the ones about, "I didn't place you on Earth to kiss My ass," and, "Look for me where there is joy and fellowship." Those seem to be just plain healthy ideas, to me.

That betrays a common misconception about praising God -- that it's somehow for God's benefit. As for finding God in joy and fellowship, well, that's most of what mainstream Christianity does, come to that. This seems like one of those guys who assume Christians spend their days shooting gay people or whipping each other for thinking about sex, and has probably never known an actual Christian as anything more than a charicature.

Steltek wrote:

Ah, but evidence -does- enter into the equation. The problem is that the Bible, and Christianity as it is presented from the Bible, is negative evidence. There are too many inconsistencies with reality, too many internal disagreements, too many similarities to all the other mythologies of the time, for it to look significantly different (from our perspective) from the stories of Osiris and Isis, or Woden and the Aesir, or Mithras, or Ahuramazda.

Actually, the "contradictions" in the Bible, as well as alleged "borrowing" from other mythologies has been debunked to hell and back. I don't much feel like reinventing Glen Miller's idealogical wheel tonight, so I'll just direct all comers to his website, which contains more relevant data on the subject than I ever thought I'd need. Suffice it to say, we know about Gilgamesh and Horus and everything else you think we used to invent God and Jesus, and we have very good reasons -- yes, reasons -- for not buying what you're selling. We also know about the quotes taken out of context that are typically called contradictions, and again, we aren't buying it.

I've read the whole Bible, and I don't think that most of the contradictions are due to being out of context - and at any rate, your reasons are not ones that I find convincing myself. I would recommend we just agree to disagree on this, though. We're edging close to fighting over it, and I'd just as soon not do that.

How can you prove the existence of God? I'm convinced that it's not possible to prove (or to disprove) the existence of God if using any logically or scientifically rigorous standard of proof. In fact, when you consider that one of the first steps in any such proof is to define objective criteria that would constitute proof, the inability to define such criteria comes close to proving that it cannot be proven one way or the other. For instance, before you can prove that God exists, you have to settle on a definition of "God"; it would be difficult to do that, and all someone would have to do to dismiss your proof would be to claim that their concept of "God" doesn't fit the definition.

Those who believe in God already have all the proof they need. For those who don't believe in God, no proof will ever be sufficient.

mwalimu wrote:How can you prove the existence of God? I'm convinced that it's not possible to prove (or to disprove) the existence of God if using any logically or scientifically rigorous standard of proof. In fact, when you consider that one of the first steps in any such proof is to define objective criteria that would constitute proof, the inability to define such criteria comes close to proving that it cannot be proven one way or the other. For instance, before you can prove that God exists, you have to settle on a definition of "God"; it would be difficult to do that, and all someone would have to do to dismiss your proof would be to claim that their concept of "God" doesn't fit the definition.

Those who believe in God already have all the proof they need. For those who don't believe in God, no proof will ever be sufficient.

Now this is a misconception. Mathematics deals in proof. Science doesn't. Science does, however, require evidence in order to put together and test coherent theories of how things work. What religion fails to produce is evidence that points to any one particular religion as being more valid than the others, or even evidence that religious beliefs of any sort are a necessary hypothesis. This does not prevent scientists from having faith, and many do. Science is independent of such things, neither confirming nor denying faith except in specific instances where religion makes testable comments about the material world. (Ancient creation myths uniformly fail to match the evidence, forex).

In the US, this usually occurs when people profess a literal belief in the book of Genesis - science does indeed disprove that, and some denominations go into deep denial of the evidence because of this. But many faithful, and most denominations, consider the creation myths to be allegories and do not let this bother their faith in the slightest.

I am not an unbeliever because of science. I was raised by parents who were and remain religious believers, and my father was a college professor in physics; at one point he even gave an interview to the local paper discussing his reconciliation of science and faith, so I know that some people can do this. I ... just can't.

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Well, Delfare, Kerry, I must admire your convictions. I know plenty of "Christians" who would be amazing Christians if they would have as much conviction in their beliefs as you have in yours. As a parting thought for this topic, I'd just like to say that there is more potential for God's power to be shown in your lives than in the life of a person who calls him/herself a Christian and does not act like one:

Yeshua HaMashiach wrote:"I know your works, and how they are neither hot nor cold. How I wish that you were either hot or cold! But because you're lukewarm, I'll vomit you from my mouth..."

I hope you can get you hands on that book.

mwalimu wrote:Those who believe in God already have all the proof they need. For those who don't believe in God, no proof will ever be sufficient.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I once read a book by Robert Sawyer in which aliens came to Earth, with the assumption that God existed because Earth was the 3rd planet to have 5 mass extinctions, all of which occured around the same time on all 3 planet. In addition, the more advanced technology of the aliens had shown that the basic of the forces of the universe were highly unlikely, and that the universe must be a closed system (due to to discovery by the aliens of a fifth fundamental force). Their human contact, an atheist paleontologist, was skeptical, but then observed an enormous black blob appearing out of nowhere to block Betelguese (which had just gone supernova) from scouring all life from the three planets with known sentient life. One expedition to the blob later, the DNA of the three races was combined into a super-creature based on all three species.

While this could be rationalized with the idea of a super-super-advanced alien race, they'd have to be pretty much God-like anyway, so the point is moot. If something this dramatic occured, then I might convert. Short of that, though, probably not.

Okay, ages and ages ago I said I

Hey, I'm not above a good ol' fashioned thread ressurection.

Obviously, someone that's delusional would easily be able to envision new evidence for their divinity that doesn't really exist. Assuming that Jesus was at least somewhat rational, however, one could, again, say that he may have been able to justify his claims of divinity to himself.

Jesus was very charismatic. His following was very loyal, and apparently followed him like sheep follow a shepherd. I'm hesitant to comment on his miracles, but what 'miracles' may have been performed by Jesus (it's always possible that other legends of the time and area were attached to him) may have been accomplished with great sleight of hand- that is, assuming no miracles occurred, he would have been one heck of a skilled magician. This just made his following grow, and grow more dedicated. A person with this much success and admiration could easily convince themself that they're God- just look at the various cult leaders that have popped up through history. His persuasiveness and skill with magic tricks would be more than enough to convince him that he is more than human.