Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[cnorman18]

guys, some of you have strayed into territory that is tangentially related to the OP at best, and completely irrelevant at worse.

Can you all please make an effort to stick to the question asked: If you believe you have evidence for any supernatural belief, please present it, so that we can discuss it.

Thank you.

I can only speak for myself -- but I offer my apologies. I attempted to begin participation in this thread back in post 2036, before I made the error of engaging with JohnA and attempting to inform him of some of the elementary facts about the modern Jewish religion, which seems to have enraged him. Whatever. Live and learn, I suppose.

To recap; The Hebrew Bible, or "Old Testament," is a collection of the most ancient literature of the Jewish people. It might have some probative value where history is concerned, especially the history of the ancient Mideast and of the religious practices and beliefs of the Jewish people -- but, from where I sit, anyone who takes it as evidence of the literal, historical truth of the "supernatural" narratives there isn't paying attention. It isn't, any more than the Iliad is evidence for the literal existence of the Olympian gods.

To go a bit farther:

That isn't to say that even the most fantastic narratives are necessarily total conscious fabrications, made up out of whole cloth. The Plagues on Egypt narratives in Exodus, for instance, tell of events that are very, very similar to those surrounding the eruption/explosion of the volcanic island of Krakatoa in the Java Strait in 1883; fiery hail from the sky, ecological disruptions, days of thick darkness, mysterious deaths, the sea falling back and then returning in force (a tsunami), a pillar of fire by night and smoke by day, and so on. Too, when one reads the account of the giving of the Law at Sinai, it's hard to avoid the perception that one is reading a primitive account of a volcanic event.

As it happens, there was a similar, but much larger and more violent, explosion of a volcanic island (today called Thera) in the Eastern Med in the 17th century BCE, at approximately the time of the Exodus. As happens with volcanic eruptions, there was more volcanic activity in the surrounding area for years thereafter.

Does this mean that the book of Exodus is a literally accurate account of real events? Of course not. But it DOES mean that those tales are the remnants of real memories of real events experienced by real people, memories that were passed down by word of mouth through the ages, eventually being written down, further revised and redacted, and finally becoming the Exodus stories that we have today. (Interestingly, that same explosion is probably also the origin of the Atlantis myths.)

The study of ancient documents can, and should, move beyond the silly false dichotomy of "absolutely true and Holy Writ, or else total lies and worthless garbage." These stories are, if nothing else, very, very old, and bear study as the ancient literature that they are. Pick up a Jewish Study Bible sometime, and you will find that we Jews study the Hebrew Bible in precisely this way; as teaching stories from our ancestors, as literature, and not as literal, factual history.

On the New Testament: I shall begin by noting that I was once a Christian, in fact a Christian minister, and am now a liberal Jew. Among the reasons for this change (though not the only, or even a primary one) are the difficulties mentioned above by Danmark and others.

Those difficulties are, in my opinion, a problem only for fundamentalists and literalists, and not necessarily for Christians in general. Even when I was a Methodist minister, I had my doubts about the literal truth of the "miracle" narratives, and even of the literal, physical Resurrection; but then I was a liberal Methodist and regarded neither as particularly important to my faith and practice.

That may surprise many here. It remains as true as it was in 2008, when I joined this forum, that the very existence of nonsupernaturalist, non-Biblical-literalist, liberal strains of the Christian faith is not well known, even among Protestant Christians; but it is there nevertheless, and has been for almost a century now. Start with the writings of Rudolf Bultmann, beginning circa 1921, and you might be surprised at what you learn. His lecture of that year, The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message, which advocated eliminating traditional supernaturalism, was an enormous bombshell in the world of Christian theology, and its repercussions and reverberations continue to this day. Here is a quote:

"It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work."

Strong stuff in 1921, and still strong stuff today; but it remains as true a perception now as it was then.

In my opinion, there is NO evidence for the supernatural, and never has been.

That is not to say that "miracles," so-called, are impossible or do not happen; we, just as the ancients did, can and do encounter phenomena that we do not yet understand and cannot explain. I have seen "miracles" myself, and even experienced a few very strange things in my own life; I am grateful for them, believe (actually, know) that they really happened, but I do not offer them as "evidence" for anything. They remain experiences, and that only -- just as the experiences related by the writers of Scripture, OT or NT, are that only. Even if they are telling the truth about things that they saw and heard and felt, we have only their word, and not God's; we have only their memories, and not scientific analyses and documentation. When we consider those millennia-old orally transmitted stories, we might be dealing with the later remnants of mistaken perceptions, illusions, hallucinations, or even dreams -- or, not impossibly, real memories of things that we STILL would not understand; but at this late date, there is no way to know.

In any case, I don't think, and haven't since I was a child, that belief in the "supernatural" is essential to following and/or finding value in a religious community or tradition. The real moral and ethical teachings of the great religions (as opposed to caricatures of them which are so often passed off as the real thing) stand on their own, with or without the Invisible Super Being of cartoon religion (as I call it), and with or without other "supernatural" considerations.

In my humble opinion, if one requires "evidence," one is pursuing religion for the wrong reasons -- and perhaps criticizing it for the wrong reasons as well.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2125 by cnorman18]

Thanks cnorman. This is such a great perspective. I don't say that just because it is so similar to my own (but of course I suppose that is a reason I have to confess), but because your post is such a great exposition of how religion has so much more to offer than the narrow, literalist, fundamentalist obsession with an actual divine being miraculously and inexplicably being both 3 beings and one, not to mention the required suspension of everything we know about science and nature.

I don't see why we all, theist and non theist alike, cannot move together and appreciate the wisdom that is contained in much of religious literature, and profit by it. Just minutes ago I was able to soothe a client by reminding her of Jesus' words, 'Let today's troubles be enough for today.' One need not even believe Jesus every lived, to be able to share that advice.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 2125 by cnorman18]

Thanks cnorman. This is such a great perspective. I don't say that just because it is so similar to my own (but of course I suppose that is a reason I have to confess), but because your post is such a great exposition of how religion has so much more to offer than the narrow, literalist, fundamentalist obsession with an actual divine being miraculously and inexplicably being both 3 beings and one, not to mention the required suspension of everything we know about science and nature.

I don't see why we all, theist and non theist alike, cannot move together and appreciate the wisdom that is contained in much of religious literature, and profit by it. Just minutes ago I was able to soothe a client by reminding her of Jesus' words, 'Let today's troubles be enough for today.' One need not even believe Jesus every lived, to be able to share that advice.

Very well said. Even though I am no longer a Christian, I retain respect and even reverence for the Christian religion and the good things it has done for humanity over the centuries.

I am a Jew; I have no illusions about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, or the vicious excesses of the Religious Right in our own day; but I know from experience that the overwhelming majority of Christians are not like that, and I have more respect for them than for those who pretend and claim that "all religion" is everywhere, at all times and in all ways, a terrible, pernicious, evil and repressive thing.

That claim is simply and objectively false -- and I would be most happy to present evidence for that fact if evidence is demanded.

[no evidence no belief]

guys, some of you have strayed into territory that is tangentially related to the OP at best, and completely irrelevant at worse.

Can you all please make an effort to stick to the question asked: If you believe you have evidence for any supernatural belief, please present it, so that we can discuss it.

Thank you.

I can only speak for myself -- but I offer my apologies. I attempted to begin participation in this thread back in post 2036, before I made the error of engaging with JohnA and attempting to inform him of some of the elementary facts about the modern Jewish religion, which seems to have enraged him. Whatever. Live and learn, I suppose.

Apology accepted, obviously No biggie.

In any case, I don't think, and haven't since I was a child, that belief in the "supernatural" is essential to following and/or finding value in a religious community or tradition. The real moral and ethical teachings of the great religions (as opposed to caricatures of them which are so often passed off as the real thing) stand on their own, with or without the Invisible Super Being of cartoon religion (as I call it), and with or without other "supernatural" considerations.

This may be the start of another tangent, and if so, we may open another thread, but I have to strongly disagree.

Ok, let's forget about the supernatural aspects, and let's not focus on the modern caricatures and reinventions of religion. Let's look at the actual moral and ethical teachings of the Old Testament itself and nothing else

You say that there is some value to these teachings, and I think that's absolutely not true.

I think there are only three types of teachings in the Bible, as they relate to us today.

1) The good, but totally obvious and thus entirely unnecessary ones

2) The absolutely crazy, meaningless, irrelevant ones

3) The obscenely evil and perverted ones

Let me expand.

Type 1: These are things like "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not steal". Everybody knows this. Everybody knew it waaaaaaay before the Bible was written. Every culture that developed entirely separate from the Israelites (Native Americans, Native Australians, Eskimos, etc) all understand these types of rules and abide by them at least as "religiously" as the Israelites. The Israelites do not get credit for contributing something... they didn't contribute. I don't get to call myself the "inventor of masturbation" just because I figured out how to do it by myself, just like every other dude in the world.

Type 2: "When two men are fighting, if a wife intervenes and grabs a guy's balls, her hand must be cut off", "don't wear garments of two different fabrics", "don't eat seafood"... what? Crazy, dumb, absurd, irrelevant dribble that may or may not have made sense at the time, but is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever in today's world.

Type 3: "If a child hits his parents, kill him", "If you catch two men having sex, kill them", "If a woman doesn't scream loud enough while being raped, kill her", "When you sell your daughter as a sex slave... [I don't even need to go further on that]", "Kill witches". Kill, kill, kill, plunder, plunder, plunder, rape, rape, rape, ravage, ravage, ravage. I dare you to find one evil thing that Charles Manson has ever done or said that can't be matched with a similar action or statement which is lauded or encouraged in the Torah.

I can't find a single thing in the Old Testament that isn't either obvious, useless, or evil. Can you?

In my humble opinion, if one requires "evidence," one is pursuing religion for the wrong reasons -- and perhaps criticizing it for the wrong reasons as well.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

If a factual claim is being made ("Jesus was the son of God", "there was a global flood 6000 years ago", "Moses talked to a burning bush", etc) then believing in it without evidence is wrong, and requiring evidence for it is right. Same as anything else. If the claim is "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" or "Obama was born in Kenya" or "there are crocodiles in the sewer system in NYC", believing it without evidence is wrong, requiring evidence is right.

Now, if you're rejecting all the supernatural claims, and taking the dubious historical claims with a grain of salt, and just look to the ancient literature for moral an ethical teachings, then you are misguided, because as I said in that sense the Bible is one of the worse books ever written.

The only way that your position (as I understand it) makes sense to me, is if you look at the Bible the same way I look at a painting. I look at a painting and just say "this seems beautiful to me, I enjoy looking at it". I have every right to hold that position, just like you'd have the right to look at the same painting and hate it. In that sense, if you say "I enjoy studying the Bible", then it's totally fine, and there are no right and wrong answers, and no requirement for you to submit evidence of anything.

[no evidence no belief]

I know from experience that the overwhelming majority of Christians are not like that, and I have more respect for them than for those who pretend and claim that "all religion" is everywhere, at all times and in all ways, a terrible, pernicious, evil and repressive thing.

That claim is simply and objectively false -- and I would be most happy to present evidence for that fact if evidence is demanded.

Obviously I agree with your position, but to paraphrase Hitchens, whatever good can be achieved through a dogmatic mindset can also be achieved without one, whereas there are plenty of evil things that a dogmatic mindset would produce that wouldn't even occur to somebody with a skeptical and rational mindset

[no evidence no belief]

Just minutes ago I was able to soothe a client by reminding her of Jesus' words, 'Let today's troubles be enough for today.'

Would you have been unable to reassure her without quoting the Bible?

Would Bin Laden have been able to persuade college educated folks to fly into two buildings without some serious dogmatic brainwashing?

I applaud you and cnorman for extending an olive branch and trying to bring religion into the 21st century, but in my opinion religion belongs - and should have remained - in the 1st century. No good can come of it that couldn't come without it, and plenty of bad comes with it that wouldn't come without it.

Religion is like a cigarette. It relaxes you and causes cancer. Skeptical inquiry, rational thinking and secular morality are like meditation. It relaxes you, but doesn't cause cancer.

[Danmark]

Just minutes ago I was able to soothe a client by reminding her of Jesus' words, 'Let today's troubles be enough for today.'

Would you have been unable to reassure her without quoting the Bible?

I don't know. Probably. My background includes the Bible, so I can plug in appropriate verses from that source. But the Bible hardly has a lock on wisdom.

The key thing to keep in mind is that the wisdom literature, as well as other statements from the Bible and other ancient sources reflect the wisdom of man, not some imaginary super being. That this is so is easily demonstrated by the fact that all of these valuable proverbs and other pithy verses that ring true about human nature are reflected in numerous religions and cultures and folk wisdom.

Perhaps that raises a good challenge for Christians. Same one bit of advice that is accepted universally that is specific to Christianity alone.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 2047 by JohnA]

Noevidencenobelief wrote:

Except for random ramblings of various sorts, we've had Goose claiming that a putrefied brain-dead, heart-dead, maggot-infested carcass of a carpenter, with blood fully clotted in its veins and failed liver, kidneys, lungs, etc, after decomposing in the middle-eastern heat for 3 days, came back to life and then flew into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

His evidence for this: He claims that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

Sonofason wrote:

You are somewhat mistaken I think. You see it is not a claim that some people wrote down that they saw it happen. It is a fact that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

JohnA wrote:

He never claimed it was. He said that Goose claimed that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

This statement of yours shall be justly ignored by me, as it holds no weight whatsoever, and adds nothing to the atheist argument. It is completely void of content. It means absolutely nothing. The fact is that people wrote down that they saw it happen, just as I said. People can make claims all day long about what the book says, and those claims are all meaningless. The book speaks for itself, and doesn't require justification by atheists or theists as to what is contains. People saw the empty tomb. People saw the risen body of Jesus Christ. Their testimony speaks for itself.

JohnA wrote:

Sure, it is a fact that I just read your post and now replying. But that does not imply that the fact supports a claim. It does not mean because of the fact that some people wrote down words the words are true and can be used as a factual information to support a claim - to convert the claim itself into a fact.
What is so hard about this to understand?
You already admitted you have NO evidence. Why are you trying your best to contradict yourself, your scripture and your central tenant of you religious dogma (faith), is absolutely beyond me.

Of course it does. Personal testimony is evidence. It is not perfect evidence, but it is evidence. And it speaks for itself.

I have no evidence to show to a closed minded atheist who refuses to acknowledge reasonable evidence. And so I say I have no evidence to show. I have no evidence to show you. I have no evidence for YOU. But I have quite substantial evidence for reasonable people who accept reasonable evidence as evidence. Don't even try asking for it, because I refuse to even try to show you one shred of evidence for anything in the future, ever. I am not trying to convince you of anything. If you should find yourself in hell, because you won't believe in God, I will be laughing my way all the way to heaven.

I completely support your statement that personal testimony is evidence. Tho' I expect there are almost no non theists or atheists here who agree with JohnA's position an anything, particularly his iconoclastic buffoonery on what evidence consists of, wouldn't you agree it is neither helpful nor instructive to suggest you "will be laughing ... [your] way all the way to heaven?"

That's an interesting question Danmark. At this point in time, I cannot determine whether or not this comment of mine was helpful or instructive. I assure you, it was intended to be helpful and instructive. But I cannot say that it was, or that it wasn't.

[cnorman18]

Reply to NENB -- or at least the beginning of one -- on the other thread. Thanks for the opportunity.

[Danmark]

If you should find yourself in hell, because you won't believe in God, I will be laughing my way all the way to heaven.
.... At this point in time, I cannot determine whether or not this comment of mine was helpful or instructive. I assure you, it was intended to be helpful and instructive. But I cannot say that it was, or that it wasn't.

Can't you agree that laughing at people who go to Hell is not an act of either Christian love, or common decency? That's really the point. You are posturing that you are dancing on the heads of those who are going to spend eternity in excruciating pain. I find this attitude to be as despicable and vile and inhuman as anything I have ever read. I do not believe for one second that this is what Christianity teaches.
But it is what you teach. This attitude of expressing joy and laughter at the eternal suffering of others is certainly not Christian. It is the most hideous and deplorable exercise of hatred and lack of compassion that I can imagine. Only religion can inspire such vile hatred.