Atheism is not scientific

[ecco]

This is probably not what you had in mind but it gives an idea of the encroachment of secular ideas and teaching into the Christian Church and learning institutions.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia
Burton L. Mack - Wikipedia

It's not about what I had in mind, it's about what you had in mind when you wrote...

Skeptical because the main assumption seems to be that the accounts had to have been written after the prophesied destruction of the temple. That is secular historian assumption.

Then you posted links to two people. I just took the first one. Here are some excerpts from your link...

• A liberal Christian theologian...
• He received his Master of Divinity degree from the Virginia Theological Seminary in 1955. He has had honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees conferred on him by Virginia Theological Seminary and Saint Paul's College, Virginia...
• In 2005, he wrote: "[I have] immerse[d] myself in contemporary Biblical scholarship at such places as Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School and the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge."...
• Spong describes his own life as a journey from the literalism and conservative theology of his childhood to an expansive view of Christianity. In a 2013 interview, Spong credits the late Anglican bishop John Robinson as his mentor in this journey...
• He is representative of a stream of thought with roots in the medieval universalism of Peter Abelard and the existentialism of Paul Tillich, whom he has called his favorite theologian...

I see nothing in there that shows he was influenced by "secular" historians. Quite the opposite, his influences are all religious. You do understand there is a difference, a big difference, between theologically liberal and secular.





sec·u·lar
adjective

1. 1.
   denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
   "secular buildings"

theologically liberal
Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[Brian2]

It's not about what I had in mind, it's about what you had in mind when you wrote...


Then you posted links to two people. I just took the first one. Here are some excerpts from your link...

• A liberal Christian theologian...
• He received his Master of Divinity degree from the Virginia Theological Seminary in 1955. He has had honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees conferred on him by Virginia Theological Seminary and Saint Paul's College, Virginia...
• In 2005, he wrote: "[I have] immerse[d] myself in contemporary Biblical scholarship at such places as Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School and the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge."...
• Spong describes his own life as a journey from the literalism and conservative theology of his childhood to an expansive view of Christianity. In a 2013 interview, Spong credits the late Anglican bishop John Robinson as his mentor in this journey...
• He is representative of a stream of thought with roots in the medieval universalism of Peter Abelard and the existentialism of Paul Tillich, whom he has called his favorite theologian...

I see nothing in there that shows he was influenced by "secular" historians. Quite the opposite, his influences are all religious. You do understand there is a difference, a big difference, between theologically liberal and secular.

sec·u·lar
adjective

1. 1.
   denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
   "secular buildings"

theologically liberal
Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia

 

[rational experiences]

Neither atheism nor belief have anything to do with science. Both are unprovable philosophical stances. Science is all about what can be proven by experimentation.

Yet machines are not the experiment.

And without machines science is only a philosophy in reality.

A machine is not a copy it is used for a human cause.

 

[Brian2]

It's not about what I had in mind, it's about what you had in mind when you wrote...


Then you posted links to two people. I just took the first one. Here are some excerpts from your link...

• A liberal Christian theologian...
• He received his Master of Divinity degree from the Virginia Theological Seminary in 1955. He has had honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees conferred on him by Virginia Theological Seminary and Saint Paul's College, Virginia...
• In 2005, he wrote: "[I have] immerse[d] myself in contemporary Biblical scholarship at such places as Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School and the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge."...
• Spong describes his own life as a journey from the literalism and conservative theology of his childhood to an expansive view of Christianity. In a 2013 interview, Spong credits the late Anglican bishop John Robinson as his mentor in this journey...
• He is representative of a stream of thought with roots in the medieval universalism of Peter Abelard and the existentialism of Paul Tillich, whom he has called his favorite theologian...

I see nothing in there that shows he was influenced by "secular" historians. Quite the opposite, his influences are all religious. You do understand there is a difference, a big difference, between theologically liberal and secular.


sec·u·lar
adjective

1. 1.
   denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
   "secular buildings"

theologically liberal
Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

So a good topic is the dating of the gospels.
It is hard to find articles supporting the late dating of the gospels. I have tried to be fair and give both sides in these articles however even if both side with the early dating in the end.
Conservatives seem to want to point out the assumptions of liberals as naturalistic and so they do not believe in predictive prophecy and date accordingly after 70AD or close enough that the authors could guess what would happen when writing the gospels.

https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3044&context=etd
On Dating Luke & Acts, and It’s Synoptic Consequence

 

[Yazata]

Atheism, is based on ignorance or a lack of knowledge of reality.

I suppose that if God (or gods, or whatever it is that atheists are denying, transcendent realities I guess) do exist, then most atheists would lack knowledge of that divine reality.

As I am 100% aware of the reality of a universal consciousness I seek ways of translating the explanation to the layman. However, as my intelligence is limited while in my normal state I cannot perceive a universal explanation that can reach each and every one of you.

Good luck with that.

For as long as I've known you, you have been insisting that you are some kind of divinely inspired prophet with some kind of exclusive access to the divine. Frankly, I don't believe that you do.

And for as long as I've known you, you have been making incomprehensible posts about how Christopher Langan possesses the secret of the universe. I don't believe that he does.

 

[Yazata]

Of course atheism is scientific.

Science seems to me to be empirical, based on sensory experience. So just from its empirical nature, science wouldn't seem to apply to any realities that aren't observable by the senses (and their instrumental extensions) and that don't interact with us in physical/causal ways.

So science would seem to be out of its depth if it tries to pontificate on the existence/nonexistence of whatever might lie outside its empirical scope.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Science seems to me to be empirical, based on sensory experience. So just from its empirical nature, science wouldn't seem to apply to any realities that aren't observable by the senses (and their instrumental extensions) and that don't interact with us in physical/causal ways.

So science would seem to be out of its depth if it tries to pontificate on the existence/nonexistence of whatever might lie outside its empirical scope.

Not really. Science applications can be made if there is something that even can be approached and determined.


If there is nothing there, or nothing that can be approached to start an inquiry, then nothing is the acknowledged result. Probably referred to philosophy or idealism thereafter.

 

[ecco]

Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia

No, I'm not going to follow another link you post. I followed one of them and it didn't support your argument in the slightest.

If you couldn't support your argument, perhaps it's because you don't have one.

 

[ecco]

So a good topic is the dating of the gospels.

See post # 248 above.

 

[ecco]

So science would seem to be out of its depth if it tries to pontificate on the existence/nonexistence of whatever might lie outside its empirical scope.

Research tells us that there have been thousands of gods posited by man over the centuries. Logic and common sense tells us they can't all be actual real gods. The writings ascribed to these gods tells us that all gods except the one are false gods. There is no reason to believe that just one of these gods is an actual and real god.

There is every reason to accept that all gods are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[Yazata]

I'm not sure that you are even addressing my point, Ecco. I was arguing that atheism isn't scientific. That's not the same thing as saying that there are no arguments for atheism. It's only saying that the arguments for atheism aren't scientific arguments. (And interpreting 'science' to mean reason in general is scientism, the topic of another recent thread.)

Research tells us that there have been thousands of gods posited by man over the centuries. Logic and common sense tells us they can't all be actual real gods.

There are Hindus who recognize countless gods and goddesses, but view them as kaleidoscopic fragments of one transcendental divine reality. Since the individual gods and goddesses represent particular personified aspects of the one reality, they needn't all be consistent or harmonious.

The writings ascribed to these gods tells us that all gods except the one are false gods.

That's reading a particular sort of 'Abrahamic' monotheism into the question of the existence transcendental realities, where arguably it might not belong.

There is no reason to believe that just one of these gods is an actual and real god.

I agree that traditional 'Abrahamic' monotheists are already atheists of a sort, when it comes to everyone else's deities apart from their own.

There is every reason to accept that all gods are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

Scientific reasons?

 

[ecco]

That's reading a particular sort of 'Abrahamic' monotheism into the question of the existence transcendental realities, where arguably it might not belong.

Why wouldn't it belong? What makes the monotheistic Abrahamic gods any different from your aforementioned Hindu gods or the Norse or Roman or African or native American gods?

They all sprang from man's imaginings.

I agree that traditional 'Abrahamic' monotheists are already atheists of a sort, when it comes to everyone else's deities apart from their own.

All theists are atheistic toward gods other than their own.

Scientific reasons?

Don't you consider the study of humans to be scientific?

 

[Ostronomos]

Why wouldn't it belong? What makes the monotheistic Abrahamic gods any different from your aforementioned Hindu gods or the Norse or Roman or African or native American gods?

They all sprang from man's imaginings.

No, this is not true. It sprang from so much more. The universe is no doubt panpsychic (having a consciousness that can be accessed under strict conditions and can be interacted with). Think of it like this, reality is processing information. It is also perceiving itself. The very existence of consciousness is an open debate. It is yet to be answered. But one thing is for sure; that one consciousness never dies.

Consider what I wrote when I was the smartest person in the world for 1/2 hour in 2007:

Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themselves as separate and distinct lifeforms.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Don't you consider the study of humans to be scientific?

Well, yes. But there is still this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In the end the metaphysical/ontological status of objective reality is philosophy and not science..

 

[ecco]

The universe is no doubt panpsychic (having a consciousness that can be accessed under strict conditions and can be interacted with).

"No doubt" Really? I, for one, doubt it. In fact, I put it into the bucket I reserve for all woo.

But one thing is for sure; that one consciousness never dies.

"For sure" Really? Perhaps you mean for sure in your mind.

Consider what I wrote when I was the smartest person in the world for 1/2 hour in 2007:

Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themselves as separate and distinct lifeforms.

Uh huh.