How do you feel about atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter punisherthunder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faithdancer said:
Actually there are two contemporary accounts of Jesus, very widely read. One is called the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the other is called the Gospel of St. John.
Click to expand...
No, the gospels were written after jesus died, they are not contemporary.

For example, historians generally agree that john was written between 90 and 100 CE
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Moral absolutes are a tricky one. There are certainly moral absolute, but they are situation dependent, but then calls into question if they are absolute. Can you give me an example of something you consider to be a moral absolute?
Click to expand...
Rape under any circumstance is immoral, human sacrifice, cannibalism, cowardice, greed . . . etc.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Not at all gravity is not material, the only evidence I will accept it verifiable evidence. I am baffled that anyone would accept evidence that they cannot verify? :confused: If one can’t verify it then what is the process of validation it, and if there is no process of validation the how the heck can you know it is valid?
Click to expand...
My faith has been verified. But you should understand, Catholics don’t put forth what God has revealed to themselves as binding on anyone else.

If you truly seek Truth, then you will pray. Even if it feels absurd and like talking to the air, you would seek the experience of truth that you have heard of numerous times. And you wouldn’t try it once, but would seek truth in prayer until you find what you seek.
As for historical jesus there is not a single contemporary account of jesus, NOT ONE. And don’t try to hit me with josephus he was not a contemporary.
Click to expand...
The evidence is in the existence of His disciples. Who do you think the first Christans were following?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
No, the gospels were written after jesus died, they are not contemporary.

For example, historians generally agree that john was written between 90 and 100 CE
Click to expand...
But John (including the other apostles) was a contemporary of Jesus, and as such can be viewed as someone who could and did write an account of Jesus’s life.
 
Faithdancer said:
Yes, gravity. Yet another aspect of an exceedingly finely tuned universe.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that the fine tuned universe is meaningless, as are all retrospectively applied statistics, the fined tuned universe theory actually support a NATURAL universe. After all, it need to be this way for life to occur naturally, it does NOT need to be this way for live to occur supernaturally. Why would god care what the physical constants of the universe are? Can god not create life without physical limitations? Is the soul not none physical? What bearing do the physical constants have on the soul? The bottom line is the constants have to be this way for our precise version of naturally occurring life.
 
Faithdancer said:
Very true. The question has been put to rest by scholars of antiquity. Jesus existed. Done deal.
Click to expand...
I don’t even understand why an atheist would broach this subject, being that historians/scholars have already provided the answers, i.e., it smacks of hubris to believe otherwise.
 
josie_L said:
But John (including the other apostles) was a contemporary (friend) of Jesus, and as such can be viewed as someone who could and did write an account of Jesus’s life.
Click to expand...
But that is not what contemporary means. THAT, is a second hand account, which is hearsay.
 
josie_L said:
I don’t even understand why an atheist would broach this subject, being that historians/scholars have already provided the answers, i.e., it smacks of hubris to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
Like I say with everything, prove it. BTW I not really overly bothered if a man named jesus existed of not, I am just pointing out that I have yet to be provided with any evidence that supports his existence. However, even if he did that does not mean he was a god.
 
josie_L said:
But John (including the other apostles) was a contemporary (friend) of Jesus, and as such can be viewed as someone who could and did write an account of Jesus’s life.
Click to expand...
So John would have potentially been in his 80’s when he released his Gospel to the world. So what? People did live into their 80’s in the 1st century. It wasn’t common, but it happened. It was also common to take many years to complete any written work, there are myriad examples of this throughout history. As a writer, I can attest that even with a computer, the writing, editing, revision process can take years.

As far as Matthew, he was a disciple and a direct contemporary of Christ as well.

Again, the consensus of contemporary historians is that Jesus existed. 'Nuff said.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
But that is not what contemporary means. THAT, is a second hand account, which is hearsay.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but you are way off base. You might review the difference between primary vs. secondary sources. John and Matthew are primary sources. They were there; they observed and recorded; they transcribed what Jesus said. Primary sources.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
But that is not what contemporary means. THAT, is a second hand account, which is hearsay.
Click to expand...
How can it be a second hand account, when I’ve already stated that John knew Jesus and actually stayed with him for three years prior to his death, i.e., he witnessed and then later catalogued his accounts? Moreover, the objective of the apostles and surviving witnesses was not necessarily to write an account of events as much as it was about relaying those events orally to any and all who would listen (the majority of people could not read).

p.s. Recollect that the ancient world did not necessarily rely on writing down events as they happened as much as they did relaying them orally (initially).
 
Faithdancer said:
So John would have potentially been in his 80’s when he released his Gospel to the world. So what? People did live into their 80’s in the 1st century. It wasn’t common, but it happened. It was also common to take many years to complete any written work, there are myriad examples of this throughout history. As a writer, I can attest that even with a computer, the writing, editing, revision process can take years.

As far as Matthew, he was a disciple and a direct contemporary of Christ as well.

Again, the consensus of contemporary historians is that Jesus existed. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...
John did not write the book of John…

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 Bible-icon.png seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (John 14:31 Bible-icon.png; John 18:1 Bible-icon.png). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. [1]”

Again, the consensus of contemporary historians is that Jesus existed. 'Nuff said.

Are you aware of the fallacy of appealing to authority? I don’t care what they agree on, I only care WHY they agree it, i.e. what is the evidence.

The ONLY evidence I have EVER seen is… “they all agree”. Sorry but that is not evidence.
 
Faithdancer said:
I’m sorry but you are way off base. You might review the difference between primary vs. secondary sources. John and Matthew are primary sources. They were there; they observed and recorded; they transcribed what Jesus said. Primary sources.
Click to expand...
Exactly so, this is basic history 101.
 
josie_L said:
How can it be a second hand account, when I’ve already stated that John knew Jesus and actually stayed with him for three years prior to his death, i.e., he witnessed and then later catalogued his accounts? Moreover, the objective of the apostles and surviving witnesses was not necessarily to write an account of events as much as it was about relaying those events orally to any and all who would listen (the majority of people could not read).

p.s. Recollect that the ancient world did not necessarily rely on writing down events as they happened as much as they did relaying them orally (initially).
Click to expand...
Because john did no write it…

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 Bible-icon.png seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (John 14:31 Bible-icon.png; John 18:1 Bible-icon.png). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. [1]”
 
MrEmpiricism said:
John did not write the book of John…

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 Bible-icon.png seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (John 14:31 Bible-icon.png; John 18:1 Bible-icon.png). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. [1]”

Again, the consensus of contemporary historians is that Jesus existed. 'Nuff said.

Are you aware of the fallacy of appealing to authority? I don’t care what they agree on, I only care WHY they agree it, i.e. what is the evidence.

The ONLY evidence I have EVER seen is… “they all agree”. Sorry but that is not evidence.
Click to expand...
Again, who do you think the people in the Johannine communities were following?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
I do not believe in sin, I do believe that there are objective morals to a degree. The bottom line is god does nothing to further our understanding of morals. Morals can only be understood though evolutionary psychology.
Click to expand...
Well, that is the crux of the problem for atheism. Subjective morality, while simultaneously claiming to seek objective truth.

It is the nature of humans to explain away sin, and build individual moralities. This can lead to discovering objective truth, but is in itself, not an objective truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top