The ultimate psyop
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Rejecting history (the Bible) because Richard Dawkins yelled emotionally at God in his fallacious book is like burning down your house because you found a spider in the attic. It's a race to the primitive and empty and bad, and exactly what we're trying to avoid because it ends with practicing wickedness and deviancy, and eating cats like a 3rd worlder.
The Bible is not history
Archeology wrecks your claim.
For some of the names and places, but there is no proof of anything supernatural. No evidence that the Jewish people were ever in bondage in Egypt. No evidence that Joshua blew a trumpet and crumbled walls, No credible evidence of a global flood. etc....
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/15HbbQEgDL/special-study-1718-apr-2022-phar/c
I can give you a rundown on Kathleen Kenyon's Jericho dig and the 4.2kya event too if you like, but your comment strikes me as somehow antiscientific. Maybe (with your username) you need to start out letting us know your presuppositions, or perhaps contribute to c/satanism.
https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK57sVTK/top-pinned-post-at-catheist/c
The Cosmos is divine? The Cosmos is sacred? I see no evidence for that leap of logic. The list of philosophical arguments for the existence of god and relating it to the universe is impressive, and if people want to accept that definition of what god is, at least it is better than the superstitious bronze age goat herder tale. I remain skeptical about the supernatural aspects of the christ story, the existence or non-existence of a messianic preacher from Galilee named Yeshua not withstanding.
That was written for atheists who are so materialist that they define divine and sacred as anything supernatural (i.e. unexplained by known laws), when they don't realize that all good scientific theories, including the Big Bang in its first Planck instant, admit that unexplained things exist. If the Cosmos is everything that exists, it's also going to be the most divine and sacred of anything, and only the totality of the Cosmos can successfully map itself (any other map is not the territory). So most philosophers cross that pons asinorum pretty early.
I appreciate that you're content with the minimalist god as simply defining it as the greatest of all possibilities. What we find out is that, when we consider all the detailed proposals that have been made to explain it, including all the superstitions (inexplicables) that have been offered throughout history, the goatherders are batting impressively by comparison. Science calls for an inference to the best explanation, and so I choose my inferences based on which concept explains reality the best, and I keep improving my inferences (I trust you do too).
The conclusion of that piece is not only the existence of the messianic (anointed) preacher but also very confident history of the specifics of his teaching. The link had sublinks that detailed these and I added an eighth one here. The historical issue is that the novelty of all these claims together, and the uniqueness of the testimony of wonders (inexplicables) performed by Jesus from both supportive and hostile witnesses, indicates a personality and concept set that is nonpareil in all of history. He had a self-concept that is both unprecedented and transcendent, and he affirmed many historical accounts of the supernatural as true events too. So if the 1st century (so named after him) contains accounts of a man with such world-changing force, then either he really was supernatural, or (if there is no supernatural) belief in the supernatural is still better for the world than the alternative. Descartes said something similar.
I count myself a skeptic, and you obviously count yourself a devil's advocate. I think the path forward is (1) recognize that "supernatural" simply means "unexplained by known law", (2) recognize that all scientific theories by nature leave room for the unexplained, (3) focus on the unexplained aspects of the resurrection evidence, and (4) make an inference to the best (most complete, most sufficient) explanation.