Hitch is dead

I say that the deistic position can't be ruled out. That's because an invisible, undetectable god that does not intervene with our universe is impossible to say anything about at all. He has the same effect on us as if he didn't exist. Funny that. But I'm forced to say the same about unicorns - logically I can't rule them out, but I still say they don't exist. Balance of probabilities and all that. The last time I read any philosophy it had not answered the question of gods' existence. Philosophy is just a thinkpiece. If you want to *know* something you need evidence. I've followed the evidence where it lead me.I would have really preferred the answer that there was a loving god looking after me and that so long as I lead a good life and said the right prayers at the right time with the proper amount of kneeling and standing and sitting down, I'd live forever happily ever after surrounded by my loved ones.Can you think of any reason why I would choose the other path?The other difference between us is that I'll change my mind in a heart beat if anything resembling evidence can be found. Absolutely nothing will change your mind. No shit! Oh please don't tell us that dark matter is where god is hiding. It would hurt too much.

Let's call it what it is eh? science. It doesn't discount any evidence. You're confused about what evidence it. The best philosophy can do in this area is create thought experiments, it can't prove anything. I note that you didn't comment on the quite obvious fact that philosophy has not solved this problem after thousands of years of trying.Science actually answers things. It's its turn now. Hitch - the initial subject of this thread - was one of them. But that because he saw the Christian god as an evil despot running an immoral dictatorship. Who would want to be part of that?It all depends on the sort of god you're not believing in ... ! your lovely kind god - a very modern invention - doesn't sound so bad. There is no evidence from philosophy, just argument and the arguments are both for and against with no possible way of resolving them. There are no reliable historical records of the events written in the bible. That subject has been done to death. It's even doubtful whether Jesus existed at all let alone did the things that the anonymous authors that never even met him wrote about. The entire edifice is a fiction created for political reasons. It's not anything a thinking person should build their lives around.

Devils and Satan, CS bleedin' Lewis and trickery. You couldn't make it up... For me and mine, fine. Not so good for a lot of others. Still, the sun is shining and spring is springing.

Er, we don't see that - ever. That's just meaningless blather. If you do can you please stop coming out with this utter bollox.

Have you been listening to the sermons of the ignorant again? This sort of archaic language isn't doing anything to help you.So what happened to freewill in heaven then?

Which is why it's a useless way of finding answers. Either believe whatever suits your personality or don't accept ideas that have no foundation in reality. Of course it is. You're floppy, lovely god is brand new - unrecogniseable to an 18th century Christian. Oh ffs, the 'golden rule' is human nature. That's it; evolved moral traits. The 'do as you would be done by' trope is not a supernatural intervention, it's as much part ofus as our ears. How many times? The bible is hearsay. Hearsay is the opposite of reliable. That's why it's not regarded as evidence.

Right, no freewill in heaven then. So it's possible for everybody to be perfectly content without freewill after all. So why all this fuss and bother with mortality and suffering if it's possible without?

It's not an sodding assertion! It's a fully observed, evidentially supported and scientifically frigging tested finding. Try not to deny in your face facts, it harms your credibility. We do not know who wrote the stories. Period. Without even that basic piece of information everything in them is speculative. They were all written decades after the events and none of them were eye witnesses. All hearsay. Look it up.

quote:

---

Gospel of Mark, 68—70 CE.[85] Mark, like all the gospels, is anonymous. It relies on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which is evidence against the tradition that its author was John Mark (Mark the Evangelist), the companion of Peter, or that it was based on Peter's preaching.[86] Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Roman Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish, Christian community. The community had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs, and then developed them further independently of Paul the Apostle.[87] References to persecution and to war in Judea suggest that the context in which Mark was written was either Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the First Jewish—Roman War (66-73 CE).[88]

​

Gospel of Matthew, 80—90 CE.[89] The majority of modern scholars believe it is unlikely that this gospel was written by an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus.[90] Internal evidence suggests that the author was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria,[91] and that he used a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus, most importantly Mark and the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source.[92] The date is based on three strands of evidence: (a) the setting of Matthew reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 CE; (b) it reflects the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman Empire in 70 CE; (c) it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 CE, as a source.[93]

​

Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles, 80—90 CE, with some scholars suggesting 90—100.[94] There is general agreement that Luke and Acts originated as a two-volume work by a single author.[95] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian", who was versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world.[96] In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events. The we passages in Acts are written in the first person plural the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me" and these are usually regarded as fragments of some earlier account which was incorporated into Acts by the later author, or simply a Greek rhetorical device which was used for describing sea voyages.[97] If Acts uses Josephus as a source, as has been proposed, then it must have been composed after 93 CE; the social situation is one in which the faithful need "shepherds" to protect them from heretical "wolves", which again reflects a late date.[98] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century. (Marcion of Sinope was a 2nd-century heretic, who produced his own version of Christian scripture, based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles).[99]

​

Gospel of John, 90—110 CE. [100] John 21:24 identifies "the beloved disciple" as the author of at least some of the gospel, and from the late 2nd century this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified as John the Evangelist, the author of the entire gospel.[101] Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30—31,[102] and believe that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.[103] The lower date of c.90 CE is based on internal reference to the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, and the upper on external evidence that it was known in the early 2nd century

---

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

Well done him. They were written up to 80 years after Jesus's alleged death. A massive game of telephone had been played around thousands of campfires by then. The authors are unknown and were not eyewitnesses, therefore it is all hearsay.Witness evidence is terrible anyway, the worst kind; anonymous people writing up other people's stories decades after the supposed events is useless. Doesn't even come close to anything remotely useful.

Oh bloody hell GDR, telling stories of imagination is as old as people.

It's more likely that followers couldn't believe that it was over and wanted it not to be. Then just imagined up all sorts of self-reinforcing myths and rumours. You see it even today when wacky evangelicals predict the second coming - they find excuses why it didn't happen and their beliefs either strengthen or disappear. Because it's obvious bullshit.

Alternatively...

quote:

---

The collection
If one is looking for a motive for participation in the early Christian church, one need look no further than the collection. It was Paul's promise to "remember the poor" that apparently allowed an agreement between him and the "pillars" in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9-10).
In his letters, Paul gives instructions to several churches to prepare a collection for Jerusalem in anticipation of his arrival (1 Corinthians 16:1-3, 2 Corinthians 8:1-15, 2 Corinthians 9). Paul thanks Philippi for their aid (Philippians 4:10-19) and mentions a contribution for Jerusalem made by Macedonia and Achaia in Romans 15:25-28.
It was apparently while delivering this collection that Paul was arrested in Jerusalem, and it is claimed he mentioned it at his trial in Acts 24:17.

---

Paul of Tarsus - RationalWikiStill a 'tax' collector it seems.

That's exactly the kind of terminology that the fake televangelist uses today isn't it? You asked for the founder's motives; money is the single biggest motive in human history. The individual's incentive to join the movement is not the same as the leaders incentive to create one is it? We've seen this time and again in fake religions like Christian Scientists, Mormonism and the endless ranks of American mega churches raising vast sums of money for their corrupt leaders. People follow leaders for multiple reasons, leaders exploit followers for a few simple ones; power and money.The early history of the church is all about power and money. Have a read of this and notice the power struggles, divisions and splits between Paul and the other players in the very early days of the founding of the church. And don't forget, Paul knew all about money.Focus On: Paul's Collection for the Poor in the Church at Jerusalem

I really couldn't care less. The point under discussion is about Paul's collections, did you want to comment on that?

Which is an unevidenced belief.If you can bear it, this is the more objective version of events described in your book. You'll probably find yourself rebelling against it, but do try.Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story » Internet Infidels