How do I turn the table on atheists?

[Al_Moritz]

One argument made for a creator god is this:

‘the huge improbability of life arising by chance’.

But actually, that is no argument at all!

This argument goes: “It’s so very fortunate that the universe has gone our way, we must think there is a creator kind enough to have designed it for us.” Well, let’s think about that. I put it to you that it is even more fortunate to have a creator god, and so by the above logic, that is even more improbable! Of all the possible universes, God walks into ours…

An improbable God? False. But for that you would have to study metaphysics. For a start, I suggest Feser’s compact and well written Aquinas, available dirt cheap at Amazon:

amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Oneworld/dp/1851686908

 

[atheistgirl]

Was it not the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus for blasphemy? And was it not the Roman prefect who ordered the execution of Jesus? Now if you were the supreme governing council or the appointed governor of Judea, would it be in your best interest to have anyone proclaim or write about this guy who you had condemned and executed rose from the dead? Would you not want to destroy the evidence? Would you agree that they persecuted and killed the early Christians (or was that a myth too)? And if they tried to destroy the people proclaiming these “falsities”, wouldn’t you agree that it would only follow that they would destroy any written document of the event?

Nope. Sorry. I dont think that argument washes. History records events - good and bad - why the records of the persecution of the chrstians, and none (except in the Bible) written at the time, of the events. We have the detailed record in the Bible of Jesus’ resurrection, and yet no record, even in the Bible, of the authorities being even remotely interested in this event, right after they crucified Him. Doesnt stack up Im afraid.

I don’t understand this part: “Never mind hundreds if not thousands of graves bursting open and the dead walking into the town and mingling with the living etc.” There was a zombie apocalypse in the Bible???

Matthew 27:52-53.

***52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people. ***

And not one person in authority or one historian, writing at the time, not one, either at the time or afterwards, saw fit to mention this anywhere in the records

Sarah x

 

[OMGJ]

Nope. Sorry. I dont think that argument washes. History records events - good and bad - why the records of the persecution of the chrstians, and none (except in the Bible) written at the time, of the events. We have the detailed record in the Bible of Jesus’ resurrection, and yet no record, even in the Bible, of the authorities being even remotely interested in this event, right after they crucified Him. Doesnt stack up Im afraid.

There were records though. They just don’t fit the criteria you want that would make them believable to you. We’ll have to agree to disagree I guess.

Matthew 27:52-53.

***52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people. ***

Interesting. I’ve never come across that passage before. Just goes to show you that there’s always something new to learn everyday.

 

[atheistgirl]

There were records though. They just don’t fit the criteria you want that would make them believable to you. We’ll have to agree to disagree I guess.

So far, the records are Josephus - disputed and agreed by almost all scholars to contain interpolated sections pertaining to Christ - and the Bible. This does leave a very glaring absense of just about ANY other record. If you have references for records, made at the time, I would love to read them.

Interesting. I’ve never come across that passage before. Just goes to show you that there’s always something new to learn everyday.

That is very true However, we are still left wondering why, after witnessing such a bizzare, frightening, traumatic, fascinating and mind blowing event, not a single person, not one, anywhere, regardless of who they were, thought to record this event, until the Bible authors came along decades and decades later

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

Yes, the laws of nature that we have are incredibly improbable, since they are precisely fine-tuned. As atheist cosmologist Suesskind puts it, the laws of nature are “balanced on a knife’s edge”. The laws are so special that they loudly shout out for design. Atheist cosmologists admit that, but offer the multiverse as a solution. Problem is, in order for a multiverse to be able to randomly crank out so many trillions over trillions over trillions of variations of universes that our own, unlikely as it is, becomes statistically inevitable, it would have to have very special properties. These would loudly shout out for design as well. The multiverse would solve the design problem of our own local universe, but it would not solve the overall design problem.

You know what these scientists begin to sound like, don’t you?

Those Medieval theologians we are told who used to dispute how many angels could sit on the head of a pin!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bobber
**
What extra meaning do you add by saying “This person is happy and really happy”?**

There are people who are really and truly happy. They love and are loved. They have successful careers and little or no tragedy in their lives.

And there are people who think they are happy but we know for a fact (from their behavior) to be miserable and self destructive.

Is each of these states of “happiness” equally subjective in your opinion? Or is one more objective than the other? If the latter, which is the more objectively happy state?

 

[OMGJ]

So far, the records are Josephus - disputed and agreed by almost all scholars to contain interpolated sections pertaining to Christ - and the Bible. This does leave a very glaring absense of just about ANY other record. If you have references for records, made at the time, I would love to read them.

Again, you are looking for something to fit your criteria. Otherwise, it’s not valid. Not a very truthful way of searching for the right answers I’m afraid.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bobber

Of all the possible universes, God walks into ours…

I’m a little puzzled by this remark.

I am not aware of any possible universe outside our own. Nor is there any scientific evidence, or ever likely to be scientific evidence, of other universes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As to the question-topic of this thread, turning the tables, I’d say one might read Peter Hitchens’ new book, The Rage against God. Peter is the brother of famous atheist Christopher Hitchens. He is a former atheist who found his way back to God. This book, which I have just begun, promises to rebut the reasons Peter became an atheist, and also the reasons Christopher became, and remains, an atheist. The first chapter is titled: “The Generation Who Were Too Clever to Believe.”

If you have a family member or friend who has recently become an atheist, you might give this to him/her for a Christmas or birthday gift (surreptitiously by mail if not in person ).

 

[atheistgirl]

Again, you are looking for something to fit your criteria. Otherwise, it’s not valid. Not a very truthful way of searching for the right answers I’m afraid.

Im not looking for something to fit my criteria, and thanks for your comment about the truthfulness of my searching, but it’s not for you to judge.

I am saying it is odd, very odd, in fact totally bizarre, that a nation that recorded the most minute details, left the most comprehensive archaeology and writings and records, that not one person, not one, would see fit to record such an event at the time.

That is a valid observation, and it is valid to ask the question, why would that be, in a search for an answer.

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

So far, the records are Josephus - disputed and agreed by almost all scholars to contain interpolated sections pertaining to Christ - and the Bible. This does leave a very glaring absense of just about ANY other record. If you have references for records, made at the time, I would love to read them.

If you are implying these things probably didn’t happen because we have only the eyewitness Christians’ words that they happened, you have an uphill battle to climb. Almost all history in those days was initially recorded by those who witnessed the events.After what happened to Jesus, the disciples were so busy hiding from the authorities that you can hardly blame them for keeping the Good News under wraps until the dust had settled. And then Jerusalem was a lost cause when the Romans decided to sack it. If any official records existed, they may have been destroyed or spread to the four winds.

What you really should be looking for is recorded evidence of denial that any of these things happened by those who were present in Jerusalem at the time. The evidence for same is non-existent. The Jews were busy persecuting the Christians long after Paul was converted to Christ and was preaching his death and Resurrection. Peter and James were likewise targets of persecution. If the event of Christ’s death and Resurrection was preached by Paul, and no Jews came forward to deny the events, and no Jewish historian can be found to deny them, what does that tell you?

The only case atheists can make is that the events were a total web of lies concocted by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. to defraud an unsuspecting Gentile public. But when you study the writings of any of those just mentioned, one does not get any sense at all that they are in cahoots to create a religion from whole cloth. These men do not appear to be liars. They appear rather to be men who dared to tell the truth and ride a fast horse.

I have heard some atheists willing to give more credence to anything said about Confucius or Mohammed than they will give to anything said about Christ.

 

[emisher]

Nope. Sorry. I dont think that argument washes. History records events - good and bad - why the records of the persecution of the chrstians, and none (except in the Bible) written at the time, of the events. We have the detailed record in the Bible of Jesus’ resurrection, and yet no record, even in the Bible, of the authorities being even remotely interested in this event, right after they crucified Him. Doesnt stack up Im afraid.

Matthew 27:52-53.

***52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people. ***

And not one person in authority or one historian, writing at the time, not one, either at the time or afterwards, saw fit to mention this anywhere in the records

Sarah x

Hello all,

Atheist girl,

I have to agree with OMGJ that it makes sense that the authorities (both Jew or Roman) would never record such a thing as a resurrection appearance of Jesus.

Some other things to consider: The gospels are valid sources of history as well, even though they present a very miraculous series of events. Scholars have found that what is described in the gospels is very accurate to what is known from others sources of the land at the time in the first century. Luke for instance is considered to be an accurate historian. His writings have been used by historians.
Another point, they were not written all that long after the events they describe. Certain of Paul’s letters for instance have been dated to only about 20 years after Jesus’ death. They include all the major claims of the gospels. So that puts them very close to the events they describe. To refer to them as having been written “hundreds of years” after as many atheists do (not you) is just not accurate.

Lastly, regarding the tombs opening up–it says that many people rose, it doesn’t say thousands or hundreds. Many could be 10 or 20, or 150. It says they appeared to many people, but doesnt’ say they appeared to the authorities to be verified. Something to comsider–notice, Jesus doesn’t appear in public. He appears to his friends and others who were open to him. He wasn’t going to appear to Pilate or Caiphas. Access to the mystery of his resurrection is only accessible through faith. Faith is the key that unlocks all the difficulties.
So likewise, it makes sense that the people who were raised would not appear to those in authority, but perhaps to families members or others who were open to all this unfolding in the land at the time. It’s likely that many or most of these people would not have been able to write, but it’s more likely that they would have no impulse to write it down as that would be evidence for them being Christians. They would have more impulse to go and be among those who did believe and experience the joy of community. Perhaps some did write it down and it no longer exists. And of course only a few decades later it would be written down, but in the gospels, which for many is not allowable.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ve read a bit about Josephus, and stuff around him on catholic sites so I’m not just coming at this from one angle. And the fact remains his two entries regarding Jesus in the ‘Antiquities’ are highly disputed, and most biblical scholars now accept the references to Jesus as the Messiah were interpolations.

He was also born after Jesus died, so he was not a contemporary. Which leaves us right back to my original observation - not a single religious, civil, or Roman authority figure or historian thought to make a record of a man who was crucified as king of the jews, and who the romans’jewish authorities initially feared as a rebel rouser, returning from the dead. Never mind hundreds if not thousands of graves bursting open and the dead walking into the town and mingling with the living etc.

Not one person of any authority what so ever, civil or religious - at the time - saw fit to record this???

Sarah x

Here is atheist Tim O’Neill debunking the Jesus myth:

armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

 

[OMGJ]

Im not looking for something to fit my criteria, and thanks for your comment about the truthfulness of my searching, but it’s not for you to judge.

I’m sorry. That wasn’t meant to be a personal attack. It was a general comment on that particular method of investigation.

I am saying it is odd, very odd, in fact totally bizarre, that a nation that recorded the most minute details, left the most comprehensive archaeology and writings and records, that not one person, not one, would see fit to record such an event at the time.

That is a valid observation, and it is valid to ask the question, why would that be, in a search for an answer.

It isn’t odd if you consider the era of the event and the roles of the various people involved in the event during that time. The Christians were busy hiding from the Romans and then after, too busy proclaiming the gospel. The Romans and Jewish authority were too busy trying to suppress the crazy movement.

What I do find VERY odd is the thought that if it never happened and that the resurrection was indeed something that the Apostles cooked up, that they willingly died, under pain of torture, for that hoax. Then those followers of theirs who also were willing to die for it as well. Talk about CRAZY!!

 

[emisher]

[What I do find VERY odd is the thought that if it never happened and that the resurrection was indeed something that the Apostles cooked up, that they willingly died, under pain of torture, for that hoax. Then those followers of theirs who also were willing to die for it as well. Talk about CRAZY!!
[/QUOTE]

That’s right.

And another thing to restate is that no Jew would ever make up such a belief system about God becoming man. The very idea was offensive to them and still is. And no pagan would have made up a religion based upon a monotheistic God who called people to give up their belongings to help the poor, restrain their sexual impulses and who repudiated earthly power and ambition.

 

[Bobber90]

Obviously, you have not read the link by Luke Barnes that I gave you.

Why don’t you read my article? Or are you here just to discuss things without really seriously intending to study them? If I had had that attitude I would still be discussing and defending Intelligent Design, instead of studying the issues and becoming not only a die-hard evolutionist, but also someone who wrote an in-depth article on the origin of life by natural causes on Talkorigins.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

(Talkorigins.org is a leading evolution website, if you google for origin of life, my article comes up on the first page.)

The truth is that I don’t need to read the article to know that several arguments here are false. I am very interested in talking seriously about this stuff, and if you know of anything in any of these lengthy articles that challenges the following, please don’t hesitate to deploy your extensive knowledge.

From the notion that the conditions of the universe are ‘precisely fine-tuned’ for life it does not follow that these conditions are also hard to come by or improbable.

Indeed, we cannot claim to know how probable the existence of our universe is, because we only have one universe to look at. If we could know that there was a multiverse, and several billion universes like ours, clearly the probability of having life exist within them might not be so low.

Thank you!

 

[emisher]

The truth is that I don’t need to read the article to know that several arguments here are false. I am very interested in talking seriously about this stuff, and if you know of anything in any of these lengthy articles that challenges the following, please don’t hesitate to deploy your extensive knowledge.

From the notion that the conditions of the universe are ‘precisely fine-tuned’ for life it does not follow that these conditions are also hard to come by or improbable.

Indeed, we cannot claim to know how probable the existence of our universe is, because we only have one universe to look at. If we could know that there was a multiverse, and several billion universes like ours, clearly the probability of having life exist within them might not be so low.

Thank you!

But we’ll never know that. We’ll never be able to know what was going on before the universe. We’ll certainly never be able to observe, analyze or examine it, therefore it’s not a scientific question, but a metaphysical issue. That’s why it’s just a waste of time to argue about it. It’s much more reasonable in my opinion, to look at the claims of the one who claimed to be from beyond the universe.

 

[Bobber90]

Peter Hitchens’ new book, [ch 1 title] “The Generation Who Were Too Clever to Believe.”

Is that not a title that might backfire on the believers?

 

[Bobber90]

But we’ll never know that. We’ll never be able to know what was going on before the universe. We’ll certainly never be able to observe, analyze or examine it, therefore it’s not a scientific question, but a metaphysical issue. That’s why it’s just a waste of time to argue about it. It’s much more reasonable in my opinion, to look at the claims of the one who claimed to be from beyond the universe.

I agree with you quite a lot, but why would anyone then think that someone supposedly in communion with ‘one who claimed to be from beyond the universe’ is a reliable source? You’d think they were a nutter! … loosely speaking.

 

[emisher]

I agree with you quite a lot, but why would anyone then think that someone supposedly in communion with ‘one who claimed to be from beyond the universe’ is a reliable source? You’d think they were a nutter! … loosely speaking.

I’m pretty sure, I remember the liar, lunatic or Lord argument earlier in the post, but I haven’t read each page from the beginning, so forgive me if it already came up.
But it seems to fit. I mean most people consider Jesus to be a moral teacher, although not all do. I’ve read some atheists call him derogotary names.
It would seem that most would not be prepared to say he was a pathological liar.

As for him being crazy. It would seem possible and obviously some thought that he was, but in reality he didn’t act like someone who was insane or delusional. People who are mentally ill tend to be very rigid, they don’t deal well with change, but Jesus often changed his plans on the spot to go and help another. Mentally ill people also tend to be very self-absorbed, not necessarily out of a willful desicion, but just due to the stresses of the disease. But Jesus was constantly giving of himself, his time, his energy, etc. Sure he claimed to be God, and that could seem like a deal breaker to many, but the rest of his character also needs to be taken into consideration.

so that leaves the possiblity that he might have been who he said he was. The fact that he cured people was powerful, but it didn’t always convince the apostles who still always doubted. I suspect our answer has to lie in how we view the credibility of the first two possibilities. And of course, in the credibility of a real actual resurrection.

I know some say that it all could just be one elabortate story, but like I said in other posts, what Jew or pagan would make up such a weird story?