New solar system near by with 7 planets, three habitable.

[shunyadragon]

We have coins and statues of Zeus but he isn't a historical person. And any writings about Alexander were from at least a 1000 years later. And not much at that. No eye witness accounts at all. Just legends.

Again, this is way off topic, and historical academics is not remotely comparable to scientific academics. By the way the coins and statues reference a real person, and the accounts by his adversaries are not 1000 years old.
There is specific archeological evidence of his battles as recorded.

[shunyadragon]

We have coins and statues of Zeus but he isn't a historical person. And any writings about Alexander were from at least a 1000 years later. And not much at that. No eye witness accounts at all. Just legends.

By the way beginning in the Hellenist period ALL coins are depicting real people. This includes Alexander the Great.

[Sparko]

All contemporary accounts of Alexander are lost the earliest record of him was written 400 years later and are secondary sources at best and not even copies of any original texts

[Carrikature]

While I can conceive of why you (and most atheist non-believers) see things this way, I can tell you categorically there is a significant difference between what drives us to believe in God and the remainder of the list you've given. What drives my belief in God is not random or arbitrary.

Belief in those other things isn't random or arbitrary, either.

And the tendency to believe in God or some sort of supernatural deity is intrinsic to mankind.

This is a pretty useless baseline, even if granted. Humans have all sorts of tendencies that lead us away from truth, not towards it.

[rogue06]

By the way beginning in the Hellenist period ALL coins are depicting real people. This includes Alexander the Great.

Assuming that you meant the Hellenistic period that is not true. For instance here are two silver coins from the Greek island Thasos with Dionysus the god of wine on one side and Hercules complete with his lion skin and club on the other side from the mid second century B.C. and a third just showing Hercules from a few decades later

Schnoz_o.jpg0000000000000atc.jpg


0000000000000atc3.jpg0000000000000atc2.jpg


a51066fad04c5d2f3dc03b78fd3ac9f4.jpg



Here is a gold coin depicting from the Greek city of Pergamon in Aeolis (on the Aegean coast of modern Turkey) depicting the goddess Athena dating from the first decades of the Hellenistic.

0000000000000atc4.jpg



And here is another silver coin issued by Antigonus II Gonatas of Macedonia depicting the head of the god Pan on a Macedonian shield, and the goddess Athena on the other side dating from between 277 and 239 B.C.

TritonXVlot1140.jpg



Finally, another Macedonian silver coin issued by Antigonus III Doson (reigned from 229 to 221 B.C.) with the head of the sea god Poseidon on one side and on the reverse the god Apollo reclining on the prow of a galley.

0000000000000atc5.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

Belief in those other things isn't random or arbitrary, either.




This is a pretty useless baseline, even if granted. Humans have all sorts of tendencies that lead us away from truth, not towards it.

Odd I began my post with a statement offering respect for a position I happen to see differently. I see you have no interest in returning that offer.


Jim

[Adrift]

Assuming that you meant the Hellenistic period that is not true.

I literally have coins in my very own collection from the Hellenistic period that bear the images of mythical beings including Hercules, Annona (the goddess who personifies the harvest), and Justitia (the goddess who personifies justice). This is just shunya talkin bout things he don't know much about again.

[rogue06]

I literally have coins in my very own collection from the Hellenistic period that bear the images of mythical beings including Hercules, Annona (the goddess who personifies the harvest), and Justitia (the goddess who personifies justice). This is just shunya talkin bout things he don't know much about again.

Same here. I have one showing Hercules drawing a bow that IIRC is from the 2nd cent. I actually won several ancient coins in a card game several decades back and don't have many details about them.

[Adrift]

Same here. I have one showing Hercules drawing a bow that IIRC is from the 2nd cent. I actually won several ancient coins in a card game several decades back and don't have many details about them.

Figuring out the details is the funnest part of collecting them.

[Tassman]

If you are not willing to believe something, then no evidence will convince you otherwise. No matter what the subject.

Conversely, if you WANT to believe something, even when there is no substantive evidence, you will believe it.

[Tassman]

Evidence that keeps changing and changing the conclusions. In 1912, Wegener was a kook who went around claiming that the continents were moving. 50 years later he was a genius for the same evidence. In 1912 it was not true, in 1960 it was.

And "verifiable" is different for historical facts than scientific one. Can you verify scientifically that Caesar was the Roman Emperor? Or that he was murdered? Can you verify scientifically that George Washington was the president of the USA?

Historical facts are validated according to historical- critical methodology. The greatest degree of assurance is had when there are:

a) multiple pieces of evidence
b) multiple types of evidence
c) multiple sources of evidence
d) independence of sources
e) contemporary evidence
f) internal consistency of the available evidence

The fewer of these elements that are present, the weaker the claim becomes concerning the historical event.

[Roy]

While I can conceive of why you (and most atheist non-believers) see things this way, I can tell you categorically there is a significant difference between what drives us to believe in God and the remainder of the list you've given. What drives my belief in God is not random or arbitrary. And the tendency to believe in God or some sort of supernatural deity is intrinsic to mankind. Our sense that He is out there, and of a nature beyond what we can't quite understand results in all sorts of characterisations across humanity. But this sense He (or something) bigger than us 'is there' is fairly ubiquitous.

Isn't the above equally applicable to a belief in ghosts?

I would not be at all surprised to see a ghost advocate write e.g.

"I can tell you categorically there is a significant difference between what drives us to believe in ghosts and the remainder of the list you've given. What drives my belief in ghosts is not random or arbitrary. And the tendency to believe in ghosts or some sort of surviving soul or spirit is intrinsic to mankind. Our sense that they are out there, and of a nature beyond what we can't quite understand results in all sorts of characterisations across humanity. But this sense they (or something) that is a remnant of us 'is there' is fairly ubiquitous."

Most of the above is perfectly true - there is widespread belief in ghosts, across all human societies. But the above commits that same fallacy that you have: just because something is commonly believed doesn't mean it's correct. You should know this.

Christians believe God has to come to us to make some sort of real sense of that basic 'sense' there is a God out there somewhere. And we believe Christ is the promised one who would reveal Him to us. But independent of specific beliefs, when you (or anyone) tries to equate belief in God with things like 'winnie the pooh' or 'the flying spagetti monster' etc, I think you misunderstand both the source of such beliefs and its real motivation and cause.

I wasn't - I was referring to the 'logical' arguments given for the existence of your god, which are usually terrible. There is a difference between the kind of evidence provided for your god vs the kind of evidence provided for London/elephants/DJTrump, and that difference even extends to supposed entities such as UFOs and bigfoot, whose advocates at least try to provide examinable evidence. But when I ask some-one for evidence for 'God' and the only answer that comes back is 'you have to believe first' then I feel fully justified in rejecting their views completely - as I suspect you would for anything you do not already believe in.

It is a trivialization of something deeply important and motivating the majority of humanity and thus becomes a mockery. Mockery rarely leads to understanding. And actually Roy, I am convinced you represent a much higher standard of thinking than that. Even if you don't believe, try to understand why others do and hold open the possibility it is something worthy of respect, at least in its more noble forms.

Jim, I think I do understand why some people believe the way they do, and when some-one says they have personal experience of some god (as you do) I have no way to refute that other than to say that I haven't had that experience. I think they are mistaken, but I can't really argue. When some-one says that evidence is available, and then can't produce any or drivels trivial fallacies or goes into a 'clap if you believe in fairies' routine, then it's not a case of mockery not leading to understanding, but of understanding leading to mockery. Particularly when those advocates for god hypocritically reject identical arguments when applied to entities in which they don't believe, and especially when they try to insist that I do believe in their preferred deity but I am pretending not to for hedonistic reasons.

If there were some god with the characteristics often claimed, that god should be as obviously existent as London or dinosaur fossils - probably more so. But it isn't. While I respect people's rights to believe whatever they wish, that doesn't necessarily extend to respecting the content of their beliefs.

[Roy]

Evidence that keeps changing and changing the conclusions. In 1912, Wegener was a kook who went around claiming that the continents were moving. 50 years later he was a genius for the same evidence. In 1912 it was not true, in 1960 it was.

No - the continents did not start moving. They were moving just as much in 1912 as they were in 1960, it just wasn't believed that they were moving.

What is true does not change, only what is believed to be true.

[Roy]

And Christianity is based on history. We have verifiable archeological and documentary evidence. A heck of a lot more for Jesus than for Alexander the Great, for example.

I don't know why people keep making such claims. It is not only false, it is trivially so.

There is far more archaeological evidence for many historical figures - statues, coins, writings, portraits, diaries, contemporary accounts, place-names, in some cases even physical remains - than there is for Jesus.

I'll accept there is more evidence for Jesus that there is for other historical figures when some-one shows me his mummified body (and carbon dates it to the right era).

And any writings about Alexander were from at least a 1000 years later.

[Redacted].

[Sparko]

By the way beginning in the Hellenist period ALL coins are depicting real people. This includes Alexander the Great.

They STARTED using real people on coins at that time, but not exclusively. Also the Hellinistic period started AFTER Alexander died.

from wiki (yeah I know probably your favorite source): The most striking new feature of Hellenistic coins was the use of portraits of living people, namely of the kings themselves. This practice had begun in Sicily, but was disapproved of by other Greeks as showing hubris (arrogance).

But regardless,

1. I was making the point that just because there are statues and coins of someone does not mean they actually existed.
2. That the standard and type of evidence for history and historical figures is not even remotely the same as the scientific evidence for the existence of planets, or subjects that use the scientific method. Yet the evidence for history is acceptable as accurate and reliable.
3. The evidence for Jesus is more than for many historic figures like Alexander. I am not arguing that Alexander did not exist. Just that the documentary evidence is closer to the source, actual copies of eye witness reports, and claims in the documents that can be checked out by archaeology have been verified.

This was something Tassman started arguing about and you decided to continue. If you want to go back on topic, let's do that.