LordReed:


And I explained to you that the law is the outcome of people cooperating so that even if the universe doesn't care we the people in the universe do. To say that atheistic philosophy does not recognise criminal acts is wrong. Atheistic philosophy recognises that the universe does not care and doesn't make a judgement on any action but it also recognises morality is an outcropping of the people who do care.

1. There's no evidence for such evolutionary explanation of how morality "evolved". It's just a story.
2. If cooperation of people in order to survive birthed moral code, how has that not happen among animals which also cooperated to survive? Many animals are still loners, while others live as family to which enhances chance of survival
3. To survive does not necessarily connotes good. The popular "man must survive" slogan can be used to defend almost anything, ranging from fraud to looting.

That people care is a fact that we are not what atheistic worldview describes us.

A. From atheistic philosophy, there's no absolute good or evil.
B. We recognize some actions to be good and others evil
C. Therefore ...

tuna85:


Take your time to study genuine Islaam, you will never regret it. Even as a Muslim, I had to take some time to start learning the basics all over again while I was a Geography Student at the University.

Thank me later.

The basics like your prophet having sex with six years old babies, or pipping his sons wife unclothedness and conspiring for them to get a divorce while he turned around and married her?
What are the basics of Islam? Lying, stealing, killing Jews on their Sabbath day knowing they won't fight back or bombing people all over the world if they refused Islam?
What is are the basics od Islam pls?

Pelecius:

Sorry, your first paragraph has nothing to do with the crux of my discussion. I'm not interested in discussing another thing. I have a lot to respond to already

I used dream and fiction to illustrate I am not talking of something else. Talk about looking at the finger.

Your subjective experience cannot be verified as true, it's that simple.

This is your criteria. Nothing suggest that your criteria for determining reality of Jesus MUST be followed. Like I always say, even if it is met, you'd still either dismiss it or create another (because you already reject it a priori)


Again, you don't set the standard. Cos you can change it if it is met. (Atheism revisionist definition is a good example of how standard can be changed)

It is not my standard it is what we naturally observe. Every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all. You say your Jesus exists yet we can't see or hear or experience him in any tangible way except by subjective feelings. BTW who told you I reject it a priori? I have had lots of come to Jesus moments both as a Christian and as an atheist. I recently had a dream in which a hermit looking black Jesus gave me a joint to smoke and it cleared my mind. Do you deny my experience? Do you think everything I said about my dream is true? Or do you think it was a subjective experience?

Bacteriologist:


Wrong dumbass. Your writeup looks like it was written by an intern Christian apologist.

I will explain to you what atheism entails. Atheism is simply a rejection of the god claim.

Theist: "god exists."
Atheist: "I don't believe you."

Simple. Read that conversation as many times as it takes you to finally understand it.

If we are both handed a sheet of paper right now and asked to write what we think is right and wrong. I'm sure we would both write some things as right. And some things as wrong. That's the sweet spot of human consciousness, despite different beliefs, we can still agree on some basic concepts of morality. No god needed at all.

Also, have you ever heard of the word consensus? Of course not, you haven't. That's how secular laws are made. Arguments are made for and against certain regulations. And the one that sits with majority of the group/people is passed. Which explains why alcohol was once illegal but now is. Same with marijuana and the abolishment of death penalty increasingly becoming legal in many countries.

In fact, that is how the Bible you hold dear was compiled except it was a far less rigorous process. Men like you literally voted for which books to include in the present day bible. And left out some other books.

You wouldn't know that. Since you're likely still a baby Christian trying to ace your apologia class.

Man made god. And man had morals before he made God. Therefore, morality exists without God. Period.

Wrong dumbass
Whoa!!!
Calm down bro. No need for ad hominems yet. (There may be reasons brought up to justify insult anyway. I may come back to this later)

Your writeup looks like it was written by an intern Christian apologist
Alright, I'll just pass

I will explain to you what atheism entails. Atheism is simply a rejection of the god claim.

Theist: "god exists."
Atheist: "I don't believe you."
I don't believe you was never the historical definition. But it became acceptable since Anthony Flew's revised it in 20th century. Justifying such revision that it's to escape the burden of proof.

But this has not always been the case since atheism has sought to explain the world from the premise of THERE'S NO GOD, by providing explanations which are mostly contradictory to the theist's. For example, the universe is eternal, or recently, the universe was made from NOTHING, by NOTHING,.

Simple. Read that conversation as many times as it takes you to finally understand it.
Yes Sir

If we are both handed a sheet of paper right now and asked to write what we think is right and wrong. I'm sure we would both write some things as right. And some things as wrong
Still begging the question. What is right and wrong? How do we know what's right or wrong?
Let's see your answer below

That's the sweet spot of human consciousness, despite different beliefs, we can still agree on some basic concepts of morality
Human consciousness? What is human consciousness? How did consciousness (if it exist in such worldview) emerge from MATTER?

Also, have you ever heard of the word consensus? Of course not, you haven't. That's how secular laws are made. Arguments are made for and against certain regulations. And the one that sits with majority of the group/people is passed
Consensus still prove nothing. That many people agree that a concept is good does not necessarily make it good. The verdict of consensus can always change, which implies that they were WRONG earlier.

Which explains why alcohol was once illegal but now is. Same with marijuana and the abolishment of death penalty increasingly becoming legal in many countries.
Exactly!
Hence, consensus cannot be an absolute standard to know what's good or evil.

So far, it has been difficult in explaining morality under atheistic philosophy. We have some form of conscience, NOT because we are just mere bags of chemicals who dance to the tune of DNA screaming "I must survive". Rather, because we are special beings made in the image of God of dominion and love, but endowed with free will since we are not robots. This, you won't like. Because you don't just want to hear the concept of God.

In fact, that is how the Bible you hold dear was compiled except it was a far less rigorous process. Men like you literally voted for which books to include in the present day bible. And left out some other books.
You'd of course easily believe this since it'll lend credence to support your rejection of the scripture. Men like you who don't want God to exist sought for ways to prove themselves right. Misrepresented the canonization of the scripture and such misrepresentation is swallowed gullibly by folks like you.
The fact that men were led to safe guard the canon from ever increasing counterfeit has given anti-theist a straw man to attack. Pathetic that one sees a variant of such straw man in this age of information.

You wouldn't know that. Since you're likely still a baby Christian trying to ace your apologia class.

Alright "Prof"! If that would make you happy.

Man made god. And man had morals before he made God. Therefore, morality exists without God. Period
Nice syllogism
Just that your first premise is born out of your atheistic conviction. It's not the reality. Hence, you conclusion is invalid.

Pelecius:

1. There's no evidence for such evolutionary explanation of how morality "evolved". It's just a story.

I don't understand when you say there is no evidence. The history of humans clearly delineates this development, that is the evidence I am referring to. Are you saying human history is just a story or what?

2. If cooperation of people in order to survive birthed moral code, how has that not happen among animals which also cooperated to survive? Many animals are still loners, while others live as family to which enhances chance of survival

Other animals have not developed the cognitive abilities we have so while they have rudimentary elements of morality or codes they are not as sophisticated as ours. Example, some animals will refuse to shock another of their species even though they know they'll be rewarded if they do. Also Chimpanzees are known to punish members of their groups for violating social codes. These are rudimentary aspects of morality even though they can't write them or communicate them to us.

3. To survive does not necessarily connotes good. The popular "man must survive" slogan can be used to defend almost anything, ranging from fraud to looting.

Never said it connotes good. It is the basis from which morality begins. To survive is a goal, those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad. It's a group dynamic not an individual thing alone.

That people care is a fact that we are not what atheistic worldview describes us.

Now here we go again with this atheistic worldview. We have spoken about this before that there is nothing like atheistic worldview. If it were me now you'd be claiming I am not listening yet here you are unable to change.

Atheism is compatible with the fact the people care so I dunno where you got the idea that it is opposed to the fact.

A. From atheistic philosophy, there's no absolute good or evil.
B. We recognize some actions to be good and others evil
C. Therefore ...

What?

LordReed:


I used dream and fiction to illustrate I am not talking of something else. Talk about looking at the finger.

Your subjective experience cannot be verified as true, it's that simple.




It is not my standard it is what we naturally observe. Every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all. You say your Jesus exists yet we can't see or hear or experience him in any tangible way except by subjective feelings. BTW who told you I reject it a priori? I have had lots of come to Jesus moments both as a Christian and as an atheist. I recently had a dream in which a hermit looking black Jesus gave me a joint to smoke and it cleared my mind. Do you deny my experience? Do you think everything I said about my dream is true? Or do you think it was a subjective experience?

It's what I said I'm not debating - subjective experience. There's a lot of responding I'm doing, I can't afford to answer many topics at the same time.

But on the other hand, not every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all. Simple example is laws of logic.

Anyway, the reality of Jesus is that he existed on this Earth. Died and rose.
He doesn't need what you're talking about to explain his existence

Anas09:

The basics like your prophet having sex with six years old babies, or pipping his sons wife unclothedness and conspiring for them to get a divorce while he turned around and married her?
What are the basics of Islam? Lying, stealing, killing Jews on their Sabbath day knowing they won't fight back or bombing people all over the world if they refused Islam?
What is are the basics od Islam pls?

Take your time to study genuine Islaam, you will never regret it. Even as a Muslim, I had to take some time to start learning the basics all over again while I was a Geography Student at the University.

Thank me later.

Pelecius:

It's what I said I'm not debating - subjective experience. There's a lot of responding I'm doing, I can't afford to answer many topics at the same time.

But on the other hand, not every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all. Simple example is laws of logic.

Anyway, the reality of Jesus is that he existed on this Earth. Died and rose.
He doesn't need what you're talking about to explain his existence

Haba now everyone can know what the laws of logic are, that's not an example at all.

I can certainly grant that someone called Jesus lived and died, any other thing such as resurrection has no proof other than subjective experiences. Even what Paul had was a subjective experience as described in the Bible.

LordReed:


I don't understand when you say there is no evidence. The history of humans clearly delineates this development, that is the evidence I am referring to. Are you saying human history is just a story or what?



Other animals have not developed the cognitive abilities we have so while they have rudimentary elements of morality or codes they are not as sophisticated as ours. Example, some animals will refuse to shock another of their species even though they know they'll be rewarded if they do. Also Chimpanzees are known to punish members of their groups for violating social codes. These are rudimentary aspects of morality even though they can't write them or communicate them to us.



Never said it connotes good. It is the basis from which morality begins. To survive is a goal, those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad. It's a group dynamic not an individual thing alone.



Now here we go again with this atheistic worldview. We have spoken about this before that there is nothing like atheistic worldview. If it were me now you'd be claiming I am not listening yet here you are unable to change.

Atheism is compatible with the fact the people care so I dunno where you got the idea that it is opposed to the fact.



What?

I don't understand when you say there is no evidence. The history of humans clearly delineates this development, that is the evidence I am referring to.

Are you saying human history is just a story or what?
It's the history I want you to show me. When and where did humans decided that coming together will help survival? What were they doing before coming together?

You are yet to show me the history you talked about. So why asking me?

Other animals have not developed the cognitive abilities we have
It's not that THEY HAVE NOT. They can't. There's no known mechanism for development of cognitive ability.

while they have rudimentary elements of morality or codes they are not as sophisticated as ours. Example, some animals will refuse to shock another of their species even though they know they'll be rewarded if they do. Also Chimpanzees are known to punish members of their groups for violating social codes. These are rudimentary aspects of morality even though they can't write them or communicate them to us.
Most of these though impressive, are just attempts to anthropomorphize animals. Especially, that of the chimpanzee. The interpretation of the observation were highly anthropomorphic (I wondered how such was interpretation of not even debated. Maybe to give credence that they share ancestor in support of the ruling theory).
Anyway, those are not morality to them. It's more of survival instincts. Hence, coming together doesn't provide support for we know as morality

Never said it connotes good. It is the basis from which morality begins. To survive is a goal, those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad. It's a group dynamic not an individual thing alone.
Alright, my bad.
But what helps survival of a group can't still be termed as good. Example: to reduce competition of food which helps survival, a group could attack to kill or drive away another set of people or animals from that source of food.
Is that a definition of good to the victims, using your logic?
In same vein, should allowing others to share from the limited resources, when they can easily be sent away be regarded as bad? Since it doesn't help the survival of such group.

Now here we go again with this atheistic worldview. We have spoken about this before that there is nothing like atheistic worldview. If it were me now you'd be claiming I am not listening yet here you are unable to change
It's you having good conscience in which the implications of such philosophy does not agree with you, making you to deny that there's an atheistic worldview. (Cognitive dissonance?)
In fact, same Dawkins I mentioned was asked in an interview that such implications would result to a moral vacuum. He replied:
All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth
Of course, you'd object that that's him and not you.

Atheism is compatible with the fact the people care so I dunno where you got the idea that it is opposed to the fact
It's not that it is not compatible, but the crux is that it is indifferent.
Hence, atheists can be good people (depending on the definition) or bad. The godless world doesn't really care whatsoever. It's more about surviving and passing on ones gene

LordReed:


Haba now everyone can know what the laws of logic are, that's not an example at all.

I can certainly grant that someone called Jesus lived and died, any other thing such as resurrection has no proof other than subjective experiences. Even what Paul had was a subjective experience as described in the Bible.

Well, I used that since you defined what objectively exists as what can be seen and experienced.
And the laws of logic can't be seen nor experienced, yet exist.

Well, subjective experience was not the only proof. The empty tomb has no explanation also. Hence, folks tried to argue that he didn't really die, in order to explain the empty tomb.

tuna85:


Take your time to study genuine Islaam, you will never regret it. Even as a Muslim, I had to take some time to start learning the basics all over again while I was a Geography Student at the University.

Thank me later.

When you say genuine Islam you mean there's fake Islam?
Abeg clear me, in which if the Islams does Muhammad sleeps with Aisha when she was 9rs old?

Pls introduce me to the real Islam. Guy, I know your religion more than you, so rest.

Pelecius:

Sorry, your first paragraph has nothing to do with the crux of my discussion. I'm not interested in discussing another thing. I have a lot to respond to already


This is your criteria. Nothing suggest that your criteria for determining reality of Jesus MUST be followed. Like I always say, even if it is met, you'd still either dismiss it or create another (because you already reject it a priori)


Again, you don't set the standard. Cos you can change it if it is met. (Atheism revisionist definition is a good example of how standard can be changed)

don't you think a god that exists, created every fibre of my being and everything around me, knows all of me even better than myself knows what to do to convince me of his/her/it's existence with no input required from me?

Anas09:

When you say genuine Islam you mean there's fake Islam?
Abeg clear me, in which if the Islams does Muhammad sleeps with Aisha when she was 9rs old?

Pls introduce me to the real Islam. Guy, I know your religion more than you, so rest.

Take your time to study genuine Islaam, you will never regret it. Even as a Muslim, I had to take some time to start learning the basics all over again while I was a Geography Student at the University.

Thank me later.

Pelecius:

Evangelism is done more in New atheism than in Christianity, with high priests: Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse, Christopher Hitchens, etc with anti God sites serving as 'worship' centers inorder to get half truths to cement their beliefs

Good!
All I see is progress.
Anyone who feels hurt by this "new change" can cry in the corner. 10years from now religious lies would be obvious for all to see. I love to see it.

Timoleon:
You don’t explain to them. You live at peace with your parents. If giving them a few hours of your Sunday secures that peace, give it to them. Religion/spirituality is a personal journey. If you like go to church and study online or work online, they won’t think much of it. For the most part, people are more concerned with appearances than reality. So if going to church especially if you still stay under their roof allows you and them peace of mind, do it. If you aren’t under their roof, always tell them church was fine whenever they ask ‘how was church?’ Wether you go or not.
Seek peace at all times.

So he should live a life of deceit because he wants to please some people who can't accept his decisions? So his own happiness doesn't matter?

kingxsamz:


So he should live a life of deceit because he wants to please some people who can't accept his decisions? So his own happiness doesn't matter?

I’m certain that there’s no where in my post where he implied that he should please his parents to displease himself. Instead I implied that he should find peace for both himself and his parents. How so? you might ask.

First you must admit that going to church does not guarantee that you are a Christian.

If he stays with his parents, he has the option of either going to church or not while they have the option of supporting his dreams and ambitions or not. If by going to church it guarantees him food, shelter and finance and guarantees them happiness and satisfaction, it’s a win win situation if you ask me.

That said, I added in my original post that if he doesn’t want to consider the few hours in church as wasted, he could as well go there and be studying online. But the mere fact that he’s in church leaves him in a good relationship with his parents. Who May also just be church devotees like majority but not Christians.

On the other hand, if he’s not under his parents’ roof, he can decide not to go because of his convictions but if he still desires cordial relationship with his parents, he might as well simply answer to his parents ‘church was fine, we thank God’
This of course does not change his convictions. He is able to be irreligious while also having parents who love and support him. Win win.

Bacteriologist:


What is "atheist philosophy? "

just their disbelief in Gods existence and their foolish theories.

kingxsamz:


Good!
All I see is progress.
Anyone who feels hurt by this "new change" can cry in the corner. 10years from now religious lies would be obvious for all to see. I love to see it.

Enjoy your delusion.
You're not the first or the last that'll make such prediction

hopefulLandlord:


don't you think a god that exists, created every fibre of my being and everything around me, knows all of me even better than myself knows what to do to convince me of his/her/it's existence with no input required from me?

You may be right or wrong.

Pelecius:

Enjoy your delusion.
You're not the first or the last that'll make such prediction

My guy say na delusion.
The irony.

Dan7432:
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Proverbs 14:12

You have said it all.

Pelecius:

Well, I used that since you defined what objectively exists as what can be seen and experienced.
And the laws of logic can't be seen nor experienced, yet exist.

The laws of logic are descriptive, they can be taught to anybody just like any other concept. Concepts are not tangible material that you pass by hand to someone else, they are communicated so that others understand it. This is not a valid example, try again.

Well, subjective experience was not the only proof. The empty tomb has no explanation also. Hence, folks tried to argue that he didn't really die, in order to explain the empty tomb.

No empty tomb has been found that one could conclusively say Jesus was buried in so again not evidence of a resurrection.

Pelecius:

Evangelism is done more in New atheism than in Christianity, with high priests: Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse, Christopher Hitchens, etc with anti God sites serving as 'worship' centers inorder to get half truths to cement their beliefs

LMAO! Na wa o, the level of projection on display no be here. Bwahahahahaha!

Pelecius:

I don't understand when you say there is no evidence. The history of humans clearly delineates this development, that is the evidence I am referring to.

Are you saying human history is just a story or what?
It's the history I want you to show me. When and where did humans decided that coming together will help survival? What were they doing before coming together?

You are yet to show me the history you talked about. So why asking me?

Read up about the development of human civilisations. You will note how human societies went from small closely related family groups to the large cities and nation states we have now.

Good place to start: https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/social-life

Other animals have not developed the cognitive abilities we have
It's not that THEY HAVE NOT. They can't. There's no known mechanism for development of cognitive ability.

Yes there is. Read: Evolution and Cognitive Development http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/EvoCogDev%5BChap%5D.pdf

while they have rudimentary elements of morality or codes they are not as sophisticated as ours. Example, some animals will refuse to shock another of their species even though they know they'll be rewarded if they do. Also Chimpanzees are known to punish members of their groups for violating social codes. These are rudimentary aspects of morality even though they can't write them or communicate them to us.
Most of these though impressive, are just attempts to anthropomorphize animals. Especially, that of the chimpanzee. The interpretation of the observation were highly anthropomorphic (I wondered how such was interpretation of not even debated. Maybe to give credence that they share ancestor in support of the ruling theory).
Anyway, those are not morality to them. It's more of survival instincts. Hence, coming together doesn't provide support for we know as morality

Of course it is anthropomorphising them, that's the way we make sense of the world. Just like how you anthropomorphise your god. You hear people claim your god is beyond space and time yet he has hands, eyes, ears and can eat food. It is no surprise that we describe the world around us in human terms, for instance we call ships her and say things like father land. In which other terms would we have described it if not our own. Ants don't call anthills anthills, it is we humans who call it that.

The animals are behaving just like us at a rudimentary level and while they won't describe what they are doing as morality, we who have the sophistication of language can recognise the patterns and describe it thus.

Never said it connotes good. It is the basis from which morality begins. To survive is a goal, those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad. It's a group dynamic not an individual thing alone.
Alright, my bad.
But what helps survival of a group can't still be termed as good. Example: to reduce competition of food which helps survival, a group could attack to kill or drive away another set of people or animals from that source of food.
Is that a definition of good to the victims, using your logic?
In same vein, should allowing others to share from the limited resources, when they can easily be sent away be regarded as bad? Since it doesn't help the survival of such group.

Is this not what we see playing out in the world? Even your bible says the Israelites killed off portions of the Levant in order to establish themselves, was it good for the victims? Nope. Thankful that type of dynamic has slowly evolved away, we are now largely a cooperative group, we are learning more and more how to share finite resources and how to build systems that allow us to stretch those resources to benefit more people. Is it prefect? Nope. Will it be? I doubt it. No human system so far is prefect, not even religious ones that claim to be birthed by the inspiration of otherworldly beings called gods.

Now here we go again with this atheistic worldview. We have spoken about this before that there is nothing like atheistic worldview. If it were me now you'd be claiming I am not listening yet here you are unable to change
It's you having good conscience in which the implications of such philosophy does not agree with you, making you to deny that there's an atheistic worldview. (Cognitive dissonance?)
In fact, same Dawkins I mentioned was asked in an interview that such implications would result to a moral vacuum. He replied:
All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth
Of course, you'd object that that's him and not you.

LoL. I have no problem with Dawkins views, they are his and I am free to disagree with any portion of it. Unlike what you call an atheistic worldview, the atheistic position is not a monolith and is linked by the only thing we have in common, a lack of belief. You quoting Dawkins as if his views must necessarily be mine shows a failure of yours to understand a fundamental difference between an atheist and a religious adherent, we have no dogma or priests. You are trying to read into it your own religious structures and you will continue to make that mistake as long as you do that.

Atheism is compatible with the fact the people care so I dunno where you got the idea that it is opposed to the fact
It's not that it is not compatible, but the crux is that it is indifferent.
Hence, atheists can be good people (depending on the definition) or bad. The godless world doesn't really care whatsoever. It's more about surviving and passing on ones gene

You mean godless people don't care about your brand of morality, we have ours. That our morality is based on natural systems doesn't make us indifferent, humanism for instance is a position that anybody can subscribe to without becoming bogged down by religious strictures and yet shows that the universal brotherhood of man is a possibility.

Pelecius:

You may be right or wrong.

Why would he be wrong? Doesn't your god know all things?

LordReed:


The laws of logic are descriptive, they can be taught to anybody just like any other concept. Concepts are not tangible material that you pass by hand to someone else, they are communicated so that others understand it. This is not a valid example, try again.



No empty tomb has been found that one could conclusively say Jesus was buried in so again not evidence of a resurrection.

I guess I need to put it this way since you seem to be turning it around
You claimed that Every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all.

Now, are you standing by your definition of objectively existing thing?
If yes, Laws of logic cannot be seen and experienced. In fact, it's not just a concept, it is transcendent.
Hence, do they exist?


The case of the empty tomb is summarized thus:
If the tomb was not empty, it'll be easy for critics to point to his Jesus dead body to deny the claim of his resurrection by his disciples. The fact that they couldn't do that, but resorted to the irrational idea that his disciples stole his body proved that the tomb was empty.
That's what I meant. I felt you'd know that, but I was wrong in such assumption.

Pelecius:

I guess I need to put it this way since you seem to be turning it around
You claimed that Every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all.

Now, are you standing by your definition of objectively existing thing?
If yes, Laws of logic cannot be seen and experienced. In fact, it's not just a concept, it is transcendent.
Hence, do they exist?

The laws of logic are description of something anybody can figure out ie they are a concept, anybody can experience concepts if they are taught or think about them. Are you thinking experiencing an objectively existing thing means you must be able to physically touch and see them?

The case of the empty tomb is summarized thus:
If the tomb was not empty, it'll be easy for critics to point to his Jesus dead body to deny the claim of his resurrection by his disciples. The fact that they couldn't do that, but resorted to the irrational idea that his disciples stole his body proved that the tomb was empty.
That's what I meant. I felt you'd know that, but I was wrong in such assumption.

What tomb? That is the first question. How do we even know he was buried in a tomb and not a mass grave like all Roman criminals normally are?

Another question would be if there was the dead body of Jesus how would we know it was the Jesus of the Bible?

LordReed:


Read up about the development of human civilisations. You will note how human societies went from small closely related family groups to the large cities and nation states we have now.

Good place to start: https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/social-life



Yes there is. Read: Evolution and Cognitive Development http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/EvoCogDev%5BChap%5D.pdf



Of course it is anthropomorphising them, that's the way we make sense of the world. Just like how you anthropomorphise your god. You hear people claim your god is beyond space and time yet he has hands, eyes, ears and can eat food. It is no surprise that we describe the world around us in human terms, for instance we call ships her and say things like father land. In which other terms would we have described it if not our own. Ants don't call anthills anthills, it is we humans who call it that.

The animals are behaving just like us at a rudimentary level and while they won't describe what they are doing as morality, we who have the sophistication of language can recognise the patterns and describe it thus.



Is this not what we see playing out in the world? Even your bible says the Israelites killed off portions of the Levant in order to establish themselves, was it good for the victims? Nope. Thankful that type of dynamic has slowly evolved away, we are now largely a cooperative group, we are learning more and more how to share finite resources and how to build systems that allow us to stretch those resources to benefit more people. Is it prefect? Nope. Will it be? I doubt it. No human system so far is prefect, not even religious ones that claim to be birthed by the inspiration of otherworldly beings called gods.



LoL. I have no problem with Dawkins views, they are his and I am free to disagree with any portion of it. Unlike what you call an atheistic worldview, the atheistic position is not a monolith and is linked by the only thing we have in common, a lack of belief. You quoting Dawkins as if his views must necessarily be mine shows a failure of yours to understand a fundamental difference between an atheist and a religious adherent, we have no dogma or priests. You are trying to read into it your own religious structures and you will continue to make that mistake as long as you do that.



You mean godless people don't care about your brand of morality, we have ours. That our morality is based on natural systems doesn't make us indifferent, humanism for instance is a position that anybody can subscribe to without becoming bogged down by religious strictures and yet shows that the universal brotherhood of man is a possibility.

Read up about the development of human civilisations. You will note how human societies went from small closely related family groups to the large cities and nation states we have now.

Good place to start: https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/social-life


I laughed hard when reading your link.
Let me put it in perspective
Me: "Show me where and when humans realized that the best way to survive is due to cooperation" (of course, which apparently birthed morality)
Reed: "We've found evidence of ancient humans in groups. Therefore, they cooperated to enhance their chance of survival"
That's funny I believe but that's what could be inferred from your link. (as related to my question?
Maybe I'm wrong sha, you could kindly show me evidence of such history when they realized that coming together is the solution.

Yes there is. Read: Evolution and Cognitive Development http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/EvoCogDev%5BChap%5D.pdf

I must confess, I was disappointed.
I was expecting to see mechanisms, that through the known path ways put forward for evolution or otherwise, would explain how organisms should develop abilities such as: abstract thinking, planning, comprehension of complex ideas and maybe languages (which are obviously the abilities that separates us from animals). I don't think anyone need paper to explain that experience is the best teacher which is the general tone of the message therein.
What we want to see is mechanisms for those abilities I mentioned, which the paper itself calls nonevolved cognitive competencies. In fact, it says in a place that this type seems designed. Implication of which I should be silent, after all, the "holy" word - evolution has been used to saturate the piece.

I may be wrong anyway, so you could kindly provide the mechanism for such abilities that I claimed that animals can never develop from the paper.

Of course it is anthropomorphising them, that's the way we make sense of the world.
Let me also put this in perspective (and of course, no need for the low blows. I removed them here but intact in your mention anyway)
data about chimpanzee (from journals): We discovered that Chimpanzees will prefer not to work with any individual chimpanzee which are seen to sabotage group effort of acquiring food and dominants of the group will aggressively attack the freeloader in most cases to retrieve their meals, while subordinates to the free loaders would prefer to collapse meal so that no one gets the food.
Popular science media: Like Humans, Chimps Reward Cooperation and Punish Freeloaders and other misleading interpretations.
Reed: Chimpanzees are known to punish members of group for violating social codes.

Very funny way of anthropomorphism which directly changed the meaning of observed phenomenon. In fact, what was observed was what should be expected and has nothing to do with our definition of morality.

Is this not what we see playing out in the world? Even your bible says the Israelites killed off portions of the Levant in order to establish themselves, was it good for the victims? Nope. Thankful that type of dynamic has slowly evolved away, we are now largely a cooperative group, we are learning more and more how to share finite resources and how to build systems that allow us to stretch those resources to benefit more people. Is it prefect? Nope. Will it be? I doubt it. No human system so far is prefect, not even religious ones that claim to be birthed by the inspiration of otherworldly beings called gods.
No need to resort to the Tu Quoque fallacy, or low blows. You should only defend your claim.
Your claim: "Those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad"
Do you stand by this your claim?
If yes, using this example:
To reduce competition for food, a group attack to kill or drive another group from that source of food
Is this an example of goodness?

LoL. I have no problem with Dawkins views, they are his and I am free to disagree with any portion of it. Unlike what you call an atheistic worldview, the atheistic position is not a monolith and is linked by the only thing we have in common, a lack of belief. You quoting Dawkins as if his views must necessarily be mine shows a failure of yours to understand a fundamental difference between an atheist and a religious adherent, we have no dogma or priests. You are trying to read into it your own religious structures and you will continue to make that mistake as long as you do that.
Dawkins is being truthful to himself and I commend him for being so. But we have folks who believe that they can reject God but borrow concepts from a theistic world since they are having cognitive dissonance with many implications that arrive from rejecting God.
I'll end this part here

You mean godless people don't care about your brand of morality, we have ours. That our morality is based on natural systems doesn't make us indifferent, humanism for instance is a position that anybody can subscribe to without becoming bogged down by religious strictures and yet shows that the universal brotherhood of man is a possibility
Alright. I'll also end this also here

LordReed:


The laws of logic are description of something anybody can figure out ie they are a concept, anybody can experience concepts if they are taught or[b] think about them[/b]. Are you thinking experiencing an objectively existing thing means you must be able to physically touch and see them?



What tomb? That is the first question. How do we even know he was buried in a tomb and not a mass grave like all Roman criminals normally are?

Another question would be if there was the dead body of Jesus how would we know it was the Jesus of the Bible?

Thinking about a concept is experienced? Again, I rechecked definition of experienced and was wondering how you came about your word gymnastics.


If this is what you want to resort to, then I'll also end this here. Else, what was your primary source for his life and death that you said you knew? Now you are asking what tomb? Are you implying that you now reject those PRIMARY SOURCES? After all, the secondary sources cannot be trusted (if you want to claim those) if the primary sources are rejected a priori.

Anyway, do have a wonderful time

@Op, please sit down and read this carefully....

Even Jesus was against the religious people of his days (the Pharisees and Sadducees)

Religion is the system that men continue to design and rejig to serve God...wonder why Christianity has so many denominations? What God ever wants for those who want to experience Him is "relationship" not religion, and I think the sincerity of your heart is a good start for you.

Religion is what a larger percentage of Nigerians practice and raise their kids to follow --- the kiddos grow up and start to see that all their years they'd been coerced into religion with no results. They begin to gravitate towards atheism...a masterful trick of the Satan to give people over to their reprobate minds. Nigeria is a mess today not because God doesn't exist, but because people do religion and NOT have an inch of a relationship with Him. Isaiah 29:13 - The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

These days it is far easier to doubt God's existence because we are sensual beings, not drawn to the spiritual side of life -- Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. How can you believe in what you can't see? Things happen by chance, why should we pray? People who claim to know God [by religion] are the worst kind of people around, why should we keep believing?

It's complicated, yet so simple. It depends on which side of the divide you choose. Have an open and sincere mind to find God on your own...there are far too many journals, literature and religious people to confuse you further though...

I know there's that little voice that keeps telling you not to give up on God...the louder one brought you to Nairaland...and guess what? Despite all these seeming "He's not real" campaign in your head...God Himself is the One setting you up on this journey of conviction!!!

Waiting for your testimony soon.

Pelecius:

I didn't need to engage your points one by one. I already saw the crux of everything you said and picked it out. In fact I didn't even read everything you wrote but just by you mentioning "encounter with Christ" I already knew where you are driving at and that place is a place I have been and seen it for what it really is -- an illusion.
Of course, your opinion and disdain for what you understood with the word encounter must have made you think I was talking about visions or dreams of seeing Jesus. Hence, you assume that it's a place you've been and label it illusion.
You built all your arguments on this assumption which is obviously wrong.
Of course, any form of encounter is subjective, it cannot be repeated (reason I wonder how you've been there. Lol)
A change in heart, doing what you can't do before and ceasing to do some things which are contrary to the will of God was what I referred to.
Now, we need to check your definition of ILLUSION. LOL

The knowledge that led you to Christ is what prepared your mind for an encounter with him.
Now that I have explained what I meant with encounter, this your statement becomes invalid.
Why not dwell on the knowledge? After all, knowledge led you to the belief of there's no God (though in changing ground, atheists have tried to redefine it as lack of belief in God, to remove burden of prove. How cowardly?).

I can bet my life that this encounter with him wasn't objective, it was subjective. They are always subjective. That's why God/Christ's existence is still been debated till today because a subjective encounter with Christ only exists in ur mind, it's not real for someone who has had an encounter with Amadioha or for a person whos had none
Again, this is not your definition of seeing Jesus. It's unfortunate that you built so much on a wrong premise. This could have been avoided if you had not allow emotions to judge but calmly try to understand what I was driving at. I went on to explain that he should seek knowledge, as I didn't ask him to seek encounter.

Isn't it funny that you claim that Christ existence is debated BECAUSE of the subjective nature of encounter? How does Christ existence depend on encounter? I laugh more when I see wannabe atheists trying to debate the existence of Christ, showing that it's just their wishes. They reject him (as a belief system of theirs) and then begin to look for evidence to prove it.

Someone living in a remote island can't have an encounter with Christ. An encounter usually follows a pre-existing conscious or subconscious knowledge about him. If it's possible for someone in a remote island to have an encounter with him, link me to any piece where a tribe or person that had never heard of Christ encountered him already before they were preached the gospel and converted.
Your first statements cannot be taken as absolute. You don't have all the knowledge, so you can't make a claim.
Secondly, absence of evidence is not the evidence of it's absence.

Lastly, even if it was reported that what you want happened (using your definition of encounter), you would still scoff at it because you already BELIEVE that it's impossible. And explain it away as hallucinations or any other thing.

Xtianity started 2000 years ago, it first reached Nigeria 400 years ago. So for 1600 years, no where in history is there mention of our ancestors encountering this Christ before the missionaries came. But in 2021, encounters with Christ stories have suddenly become replete. People are having visions, dreams, trances and hearing voices from Christ only after the missionaries have come and gone.
Like I said earlier, absence of evidence is not same as evidence of it's absence. You don't have ALL knowledge.
Also, how many history has your ancestors kept? How many things do you know about your ancestors, if you want to appeal to them keeping history?
Again, what would be the reaction or how would they have explained such incident (I am just using your definition this time, though I explained what I meant earlier)?

Lastly, the knowledge of the missionaries would set the tone to explain whatever anyone sees. As you wouldn't know what it means if you don't have a prior knowledge.
It takes a Paleontologist (trained with knowledge) to recognize a fossil, else, another person will just wonder and probably leave it.

I agree that I assumed your encounter must have been having dreams or seeing visions, those sort of thing but whatever it was, it still doesn't negate my point of every encounter being subjective. Note that you can't universalize a subjective experience. This is the basis for my argument. I can't dispute anyone's claims of having a divine experience that is subjective, I will only dispute that if the person tries to universalize his experience.

Let's be honest if there was such an encounter(even if our ancestors didn't keep such records which is very unlikely because such an event would be tumultuous across the land, shaking the then existing beliefs) the missionaries at least would have taken note of foreign cultures who had already encountered Jesus before they came with his(Jesus') gospel.
Based on the evidence we have, there's no evidence anywhere of such encounter before the missionaries came. This evidence is also missing in cultures across the world.

keppler:

Thinking about a concept is experienced? Again, I rechecked definition of experienced and was wondering how you came about your word gymnastics.

Which dictionary did you check?

If this is what you want to resort to, then I'll also end this here. Else, what was your primary source for his life and death that you said you knew? Now you are asking what tomb? Are you implying that you now reject those PRIMARY SOURCES? After all, the secondary sources cannot be trusted (if you want to claim those) if the primary sources are rejected a priori.

Anyway, do have a wonderful time

Which secondary sources talk about Jesus' burial in a tomb?