Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[Lucio]

I wouldn't say that belief has fallen to the wayside because of how it only helps others.

Not *quite* what I meant, I'm trying to make the point that it's become more unacceptable for people to follow religion because they are made to feel it's there to benefit others or that it's unrealistic.

However, you do make a good point about how big business is against religion, because they offer some very diametrically opposed opinions. It's hard to say you believe in the capatalistic market's right to make as much profit as possible whilst saying you believe in charity and helping all those you can.

[Rosaline]

If you accept that the Bible is the word of God, you will accept that it cannot be corrupted or anything lost in its translation.

If you accept that the Bible is the word of God according to whichever branch of church preaches the immutability of their bible in use, that is.

One can accept it as both the word of god and as a corruptible and alterable document written by many people. These viewpoints are only mutually exclusive because a sect insists this is so. You're entitled to your belief, but you must understand, other groups may feel differently. The fact that the historical study of the bible is generally strongly funded by the church and a lot of work is done to determine the accuracy of the contents and how they line up says something, really.

[santa claus]

If you accept that the Bible is the word of God according to whichever branch of church preaches the immutability of their bible in use, that is.

One can accept it as both the word of god and as a corruptible and alterable document written by many people. These viewpoints are only mutually exclusive because a sect insists this is so. You're entitled to your belief, but you must understand, other groups may feel differently. The fact that the historical study of the bible is generally strongly funded by the church and a lot of work is done to determine the accuracy of the contents and how they line up says something, really.

But of course. I respect every individual's right to choose their own path. I declare no interest in taking sides or proferring my views as correct. My views are only correct for me. As yours are for you. Though it is good if we can mutually share in our views.

All religious works are studied because mankind (and womankind) are inquisitive. It is natural to be curious and to want to quantify. Eventually however, it is for all to decide whether there is the evidence sought or whether acceptance can come without proof. Or not at all.

[fuddam]

The bible? It is inspired of God, no question. Can it be corrupted? yes. Has it been corrupted, so far as historical evidence shows? No.

there is a very lazy argument that goes something like this (and I am talking about the New Testament, since that is the basis of my faith. This is not to discredit the OT, especially as increasing historical material is proving, time and again, its historical accuracy):

1) the bible was written long ago.
2) it was written by people
3) over time, the message has been corrupted - due to translation, omission, deliberate perversion etc

lazy, lazy, lazy.

The only way to justify this argument is to be a hypocrite. why? Because it requires hypocrisy to treat secular historical documents with one set of standards, and the bible with another, simply because it was written by Christians. They are ALL ideologically informed.

short version: the accuracy of the biblical text of the New Testament is more verifiable than ANY secular document in history. Fact. By a period of more than 700 years. more than anything attributed to Plato, Aristotle, Tacitus, Pliny, Caesar, Herodotus, Suetonius and Thucydides.

We can trace exact quotations of the Biblical texts in the early church fathers' writings from as early as 90AD to 160AD - to prove corruption, you will have to find documentary evidence from BEFORE these early dates. This is a strong argument against corruption since it places biblical text in an extra Biblical source, co-existent with the eyewitnesses to those events. The entire NT can be corroborated except for 11 insignificant verses. And even the 'corruptions' of the King James version (eg mention of the Trinity) is recognised explicitly in all modern versions, placed within demarcations to signify their extra-Biblical source, but not excluded since these 45 alterations do not modify the original meaning of the bible itself, but use other terms to explain what is in scripture already.

If you want to argue this, go do some homework. Don't go appeal to some skeptics website - that's just lazy. Most of the people in hexus seem to be British - go down to your own academic institutions, to the British Museum, to the British Library, and make up your mind for yourself. I know I have.

Is Jesus really the son of God? That is a different question. Did he really exist? Some would like to believe not and I know who will be likely to post on this subject (hem hem) because he continually goes on this rant. Well, he can rant all he wants - he has an agenda. But, as far as corruption of the biblical text, proponents of that logic really don't have a scientifically verifiable leg to stand on.

[Rosaline]

The details I've heard about the KJ translations, especially regarding the origin of 'witches', differ from what you imply. That might be covered in the 45 alterations you mention, though.

At the very least, however, we do know that there might well be some material missing from the NT, and that the NT as we know it is a document agreed upon by the early churches. Other material that fits within it written at the same time has been selectively not included into this official cannon.

Early manuscripts of the NT in particular do show omissions and alterations. However you are right it seems that work has been done to ratify these.

The only way to justify this argument is to be a hypocrite. why? Because it requires hypocrisy to treat secular historical documents with one set of standards, and the bible with another, simply because it was written by Christians. They are ALL ideologically informed.

I see no reason to be a hypocrite, basic training in historical studies encourages the same approach to be taken for all material, new and old.

Can you mention any good starting points for investigating this further? There are so many books and only so little time to spend on a forum topic (albeit one that interests me). With all research, it is generally easier to start with a nugget pointing to existing research, than to try and find material from scratch.

[iranu]

. It's hard to say you believe in the capatalistic market's right to make as much profit as possible whilst saying you believe in charity and helping all those you can.

Perhaps you'd like to look up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Obviously a filthy rich capitalist pig such as Bill Gates who's recorded rise to fame as the worlds richest man (for a good while) is well documented as is Microsoft's fierce determination to remain market leader through (as some may say) dubious practices. But hey don't let fact get in the way of your non sequitur logical fallacy.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

I'd love for you to speak with my friend's wife who, last time I spoke to he,r was in charge of ensuring that BG acted as ethically as possible.

[Rosaline]

But then, has Bill Gates not effectively been able to achieve the ultimate end-game through the foundation - immortality? And not just immortality, but immortality of a character that appears worthy for this?

A good cause for others does not have to mean not being a good cause for one's self or for business.

The big issue most people have when it comes to considering less kind motives for apparently kind actions by businesses is one of timescales. Governments work typically in the order of 4-8 years, a full term in office. Businesses will be around much longer than this. Only one type of entity in this world can truly plan on a long term, 25 years plus, timescale - big business. Big business in fact needs to, since that is about the length of time it takes for blue sky research to reach mass consumer adoption. It's also the length of a generation, which is important to consider if you are trying to control the masses.


Yes, it all sounds very conspiracy theory-ish, and frankly it is. The evidence seems to be there, however, not for an organised approach to this, but for independent pursuit of such goals. Now is the age were imortality is not just for the gods, those in religious power, those in secular power or those who make some amazing discovery or work of art. It can frankly be simply bought, no permission needed.

Interestingly, the only other group that can attempt plans over such a timescale is scientists conducting research. Due to the semi-open (sadly most journals containing publicly funded research are pay-to-read) nature of scientific research, someone will almost always be able to look back and follow up as needed.

Edit:The point here, beyond any "conspiracy nut" stuff, is that altruism may not always be what it seems. One can't question the motives of religion and not question that of businessmen without being justifiably called a hypocrite. Also, the work of most charitable organisations spun off from business is not directly covered in the media as much as the organisations themselves. That was partially why I disagreed with Lucio's wording, as it left it open for such an attack. It's not about profit versus kindness, it's about who has control.

[yamangman]

For someone who disputes evolution I'm not sure your leg is fit enough to carry these bold claims. You do seem to have an uncanny ability to move the goal posts of this world, and distort and manipulate certain things so they serve your arguments the best.

The bible? It is inspired of God, no question. Can it be corrupted? yes. Has it been corrupted, so far as historical evidence shows? No.

there is a very lazy argument that goes something like this (and I am talking about the New Testament, since that is the basis of my faith. This is not to discredit the OT, especially as increasing historical material is proving, time and again, its historical accuracy):

1) the bible was written long ago.
2) it was written by people
3) over time, the message has been corrupted - due to translation, omission, deliberate perversion etc

lazy, lazy, lazy.

The only way to justify this argument is to be a hypocrite. why? Because it requires hypocrisy to treat secular historical documents with one set of standards, and the bible with another, simply because it was written by Christians. They are ALL ideologically informed.

short version: the accuracy of the biblical text of the New Testament is more verifiable than ANY secular document in history. Fact. By a period of more than 700 years. more than anything attributed to Plato, Aristotle, Tacitus, Pliny, Caesar, Herodotus, Suetonius and Thucydides.

We can trace exact quotations of the Biblical texts in the early church fathers' writings from as early as 90AD to 160AD - to prove corruption, you will have to find documentary evidence from BEFORE these early dates. This is a strong argument against corruption since it places biblical text in an extra Biblical source, co-existent with the eyewitnesses to those events. The entire NT can be corroborated except for 11 insignificant verses. And even the 'corruptions' of the King James version (eg mention of the Trinity) is recognised explicitly in all modern versions, placed within demarcations to signify their extra-Biblical source, but not excluded since these 45 alterations do not modify the original meaning of the bible itself, but use other terms to explain what is in scripture already.

If you want to argue this, go do some homework. Don't go appeal to some skeptics website - that's just lazy. Most of the people in hexus seem to be British - go down to your own academic institutions, to the British Museum, to the British Library, and make up your mind for yourself. I know I have.

Is Jesus really the son of God? That is a different question. Did he really exist? Some would like to believe not and I know who will be likely to post on this subject (hem hem) because he continually goes on this rant. Well, he can rant all he wants - he has an agenda. But, as far as corruption of the biblical text, proponents of that logic really don't have a scientifically verifiable leg to stand on.

[TeePee]

You're right fuddam, the bible is filled with miss-translations and contradictions, but it's not just in the old testament. Remember the classic miss-translation of 'young woman' to 'virgin'. Ask the catholics how that turned out!

Just because the bible accounts some historical events doesn't mean it's all true. 'Gone with the Wind' is accurate about the date of the civil war, but that doesn't mean Scarlet O'Hara existed. There's a difference between your list of histories, and a book of fiction written within a certain timeframe.

When it comes to Jesus, just like Scarlet but unlike the civil war, there is no evidence of his actual existence. The Church has been looking for it for thousands of years and has found exactly nothing! All of those histories of the time period you list contain no genuine reference to someone who should have been a significant figure.

[Stewart]

Bickering over the rise in atheistic fundamentalism is so 2007.

[fuddam]

Bickering over the rise in atheistic fundamentalism is so 2007.

lol

true, true

[fuddam]

For someone who disputes evolution I'm not sure your leg is fit enough to carry these bold claims. You do seem to have an uncanny ability to move the goal posts of this world, and distort and manipulate certain things so they serve your arguments the best.

true, I dispute evolution as a phenomenon of chance:

1) I venture evolution without God's assistance is ludicrously beyond plausibility. the logic of evolution is *nice* but the numbers do not compute. FWIW have a looksee into Darwin's finches.

2) I believe humans are separate and distinct from any other species, ie did not evolve from apes. They COULD have evolved from apes with His help but He says they did not, so not a biggie. Call me gullible.

[fuddam]

The details I've heard about the KJ translations, especially regarding the origin of 'witches', differ from what you imply. That might be covered in the 45 alterations you mention, though.

At the very least, however, we do know that there might well be some material missing from the NT, and that the NT as we know it is a document agreed upon by the early churches. Other material that fits within it written at the same time has been selectively not included into this official cannon.

yep, for contradicting the material within the Bible - usually from gnostic sources, or good ole Judas

I see no reason to be a hypocrite, basic training in historical studies encourages the same approach to be taken for all material, new and old.

my strong response to this is based on previous threads. Point is that historical evidence must be treated alike - one can't suddenly treat document A with suspicion because one doesn't agree with its ideology, but document B gets fair play because it is PC. After all, one is treating evidence, not conjecture.

Can you mention any good starting points for investigating this further? There are so many books and only so little time to spend on a forum topic (albeit one that interests me). With all research, it is generally easier to start with a nugget pointing to existing research, than to try and find material from scratch.

yep

86,489 early church father quotes: Leo Jaganay in the british library (Jaganay, ITCNT, 48)

before the 4th Century we have 32,000 quotes from the NT, i.e. prior to the Nicea Council. when we add Eusebius' work, it brings the number to 36,289 (Norman Geisler, GIB: 353, 345)

if we compile these and put them in chronological order, we can reconstruct the entire NT except for the 11 verses (Geisler, 1999:532)

tracing the exact quotations of the bible in the early church father's writings from as early as 90AD to 160AD (Bruce, 1996:18)

for resources referencing internal evidence - Albright, RDBL, 136 - "already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about 80AD"

Greek manuscripts of the NT: accepted at 5,686 though Strobel puts it at 5,664 (Strobel 1998: 62-63)
Also 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and another 9,284 other early versions translated into thirteen languages - gives total of almost 25,000 manuscripts. They are not dated early, however - only 230 manuscripts predate the 6th C (McDowell 1972: 39-49, 1998:38)
Also 2,135 lectionaries catalogued from 6th C onwards (McDowell 1972:52).

when one corroborates this material with the early church father quototations, any forgeries / misquotes / corruptions must have crept in BEFORE they started quoting. All material is consistent afterwards.

I can provide more info but am in a rush - sorry.

[Rosaline]

true, I dispute evolution as a phenomenon of chance:

1) I venture evolution without God's assistance is ludicrously beyond plausibility. the logic of evolution is *nice* but the numbers do not compute. FWIW have a looksee into Darwin's finches.

2) I believe humans are separate and distinct from any other species, ie did not evolve from apes. They COULD have evolved from apes with His help but He says they did not, so not a biggie. Call me gullible.

Refering to Dawin's Finches doesn't help your case. Over a period of 20 years, their average beak size has been decreasing. This change only begun after the introduction of another species with larger beaks. Specialisation has also been observed for the Hawthorn fly, and there are a number of other examples emerging. The arguments against the moth changes as evidence are also being dealt with and eliminated.

The problem people have with evolution is one one timescale. People rule out notable changes to large things as being impossible as they cannot comprehend the timescale over which these changes occured.

I think people probably get evolution, but the big thing people have issue with is the genesis of life. However, the urey-miller experiment showed that just two weeks and a few dozen litres of system volume happily produces organic molecules. Life had a billion years to emerge. When looked at that way, it's almost impossible to see how it couldn't emerge.

It seems you favour the 'helping hand' idea, an intelligent designer helped subtly direct the random changes, the chemical reactions. Personally, I like this idea, it's more comforting that life just being chemical reactions. But if this is the case, it is subtle to the point of being unprovable, and happens in such a way so as to be undetectable (and happens consistantly). The timescales and numbers involved allow for random chance to produce everything.

Thanks for the details on the history of the bible! Theology student?

[iranu]

true, I dispute evolution as a phenomenon of chance:

1) I venture evolution without God's assistance is ludicrously beyond plausibility. the logic of evolution is *nice* but the numbers do not compute. FWIW have a looksee into Darwin's finches.

2) I believe humans are separate and distinct from any other species, ie did not evolve from apes. They COULD have evolved from apes with His help but He says they did not, so not a biggie. Call me gullible.

I would bet that you don't understand what evolution is or the mechanisms that it uses. The funny thing about evolution is that it's probably the most water tight theory we have ever had. Everytime new evidence arises we find that it fits the theory.

You are using the argument from personal incredulity along with argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You say the numbers do not add up, but what are these numbers? If you start at me with probability be warned I am well prepared with a number of good sources. If you state it's ludicrously beyond plausibility then your probability is zero yet molecular-biologists understand the mechanisms, study them and see them applied in a small time period. eg Peppered Moth, bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

And please do not confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution when using that probability as I suspect you are doing.

Sigh, please use proper terminology and say that the apes, monkeys and us came from a common ancestor. Secondly "I believe humans are separate and distinct from any other species" is quite true simply because we ARE a separate species and by definition distinct! You fail to understand the basics, weigh all the evidence(9and not just one part -finches) and instead use dogma and say, "well if so and so said it was true it must be!".

I will give you credit, you haven't spouted any of the more ludicrous things creationists come up with but you'll understand why we scoff and laugh when we have people of this calibre to deal with.

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) (Part 1 of 11) They are worth watching by anybody.

One page I do have bookmarked is this Evolution | Rational Responders although this is better because it describes common decent. Reading the Common Descent- Endogenous Retrovirals and Mitochondrial DNA, | Rational Responders

If you want to challenge evolution and take it up with a molecular biologist then feel free to register and post there. Evolution is simple on the surface, and actually very easy to explain as a basic concept, but when you look into it it's as complex but well understood as any other science. “Appears Designed Is A Contradiction in Terms”: The Fundamentals of Biological Evolution | Rational Responders

I can understand why some people think atheists are fundamentalists. We pull the same contorted faces, go red in the face and alot of us implode because it seems impossible to impart any knowledge to creationists or get them to understand even the basics. Once we've gone over it a million times we tend to have had enough. Be pleased that Dawkins et al are quite calm even when exasperated.

[MadduckUK]

oh this thing is still going? happy new year!