I am an atheist thread 3

[NaturalEnquirer]

Saying that these apologists are right so your case is airtight is what is called ‘argument from authority’.

In Agent Smith’s defense, I don’t think he’s making an argument from authority, so much as he’s referring to an existing argument. There is a difference.

There is evidence for much that is not true. If you want to present evidence for resurrection, you will need unusually good evidence, since it is such an unusual claim. Testimony alone would not be enough. A crew of medical professionals running tests to confirm that someone has died, then close observation of the corpse for three days, then another crew confirming the identity of the resurrected man. Make that three crews of each, checking independently. Observed by three other crews.
Would you like to provide evidence that resurrection is possible? Lets get professionals like J. Randi to help us check most carefully.

Well, since the event in question occurred two thousand years ago, obviously none of this is possible. No one is claiming that resurrection is a repeatable, testable process. The claim is that one guy was resurrected, and appeared to some eyewitnesses. Why would you expect more than testimonial evidence to exist?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

When people argue for the existence of a god, they argue that their god is all-powerful and all-loving. Most people cannot reconcile these attributes with the evil and calamity they see in the world, much of it man-made, but a lot of it not man-made, such as earthquakes and tsunamis.

 Theists argue that their god created humans with free will so that they can do evil, make a free choice. I counter, and I suppose others do also, (I don't read a lot of atheistic writings) that a god could create humans with free will and a strong desire to do good. I know a number of such people; none of them is religious.

Really? That’s a shame. The vast majority of people I know who have a strong desire to do good are religious. For that matter, the vast majority of non-religious people I know do not seem to have a strong desire to do good. They’re nice guys, but it doesn’t go any further than that.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Hear, hear, Pax! (or is it “Here,here”? Can ANYone answer this question?!)

It is “hear, hear.”

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I don’t know what the credible evidence for the existence of a god is. All of the evidence that I have seen has had its detractors over the centuries.

The fact that evidence has detractors does not mean the evidence is not credible.

The Biblical evidence is very thin, as the gospels were written in Greek, apparently for Greek readers by Greeks or others who weren’t Jews.

You’re right about the language used. How do you conclude that the writers weren’t Jews, or that the intended audience was Greeks?

The structure of Christianity appears based on Jewish and Greek models of sacrificing something or somebody (else) for one’s own sins, a concept alien to modern thought.

What does the alien-ness of the concept have to do with its credibility?

The earliest gospels are at least 30 years after Jesus’ death.

Yes, that’s true. But this is WAY earlier than any other biographical work of history. Usually, bios are written centuries after the death of the subject, and they are still considered reliable.

Note that one of Paul’s letters (Corinthians, if I remember correctly) is dated much earlier than the gospels, and contains a creed that describes the main elements of the story of Christianity. Since the creed was apparently pre-existing, it obviously must have been written earlier still.

Arguments for the existence of a god are the first cause type, unmoved mover, etc. have nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity in the usual sense. Many of these arguments are densely philosophical and I can’t follow them. Even if they persuaded me to believe in an unmoved mover, that would have nothing to do with Christianity anyway.

There’s more than that. In the past few days, I’ve come across two interesting arguments by CS Lewis:

1. Argument from reason
2. Argument from common morality

I’ll admit that they are kind of dense, but I’m sure that there are philosophically minded people on the forums who would be happy to help you understand them.

You’re right that these particular arguments don’t establish Christianity – that is a whole other step. And I don’t personally think that they are so compelling that an honest enquirer must believe. But I think they are good enough to establish belief as reasonable.

Do you agree with that?

 

[Armor_of_God]

@Armor of God

I’m not sure how I can elaborate…it just literally makes no sense. There is no logical connection that I can deduce between his self-punishment (or allowing himself to be tortured) and teaching us about holy suffering and teaching us about choosing the will of the father. What was he thinking? “Hmmmm… these uppity humans are getting a bit sinful. I know! I’ll send a part of myself down to be tortured and killed, that will solve everything.” … What? First of all, if this is his best effort at teaching everybody it is inadequate to do it once in history to be witnessed by a small proportion of the global population. Especially from my perspective two thousand years later. He could have just forgiven people, but he didn’t, he went for an extremely gruesome process. This doesn’t indicate a being worth worshipping to me.

Thanks for the further quotes from the catechism, that explains original sin as a kind of analogy.

Phooney, I would like to propose something, in the interest of understanding.

I am aware that you are a voracious reader (with several books on your “to-read” list at present). I, too, enjoy reading.

Do you have one specific book that you could recommend to me, in order for me to gain a better understanding of your viewpoints? In exchange, I will recommend a book for you to read, in order to increase your understanding of my beliefs.

What say you?

 

[_A]

]The claim is that one guy was resurrected, and appeared to some eyewitnesses. Why would you expect more than testimonial evidence to exist?

The trouble is, if the story were a complete fabrication, the evidence would look exactly the same as it does now.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

You are quite the flatterer, calm. Do you know what Dante said about flatterers?

I’d have to disagree with you that I’m much of a flatterer.

I do tend to get a bit hyperbolic, though, and rely perhaps a bit too much on using “prodding” language to “feisty-up” the discussion.

People asleep don’t make very good conversation partners.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Is this sort of thing really necessary? Is this at all helpful? We can all do better than this.

The apostle Peter tells us how to do apologetics.

He says:

1 Peter 3:15-16
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear;

Please, let us show the Christian love that we are called to.

Apparently my meaning of “gentleness”, as informed by what the recipient would expect to be “gentle treatment”, is different from what you might mean by “gentleness”.

My little jab was quite gentle, considering my conversation partner.

The Big A’s unresponsiveness, non-responsiveness, and in fact ANTI-responsiveness makes him a very bad conversation partner. I’m sure he’s a lovely person with an utterly good heart who wills no evil on anyone, but as a conversation partner, his lack of desire to talk in a real, sensible way makes “dust shaking” his presence off my sandals the most productive thing I could do.

Consider that this is supposedly the THIRD thread created by him and he’s still, at the end of over 1000 posts in THIS ONE, at the level of discussion that he demonstrates here. How is that explainable in any way other than his simply jerking-around his enemies for puerile pleasure.

Have fun being had fun with.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

The trouble is, if the story were a complete fabrication, the evidence would look exactly the same as it does now.

I’m not so sure that’s true, but I’m willing to consider it. What exactly are you proposing? Who fabricated the story? I can imagine two scenarios:

1. Apostolic conspiracy – there really were 12 apostles, who cooked up the story out of nothing.
2. One man show – Paul created the entire Christian story, including the existence of the 12 apostles, out of nothing.

I think that we’re going to find that neither of these is a historically reasonable position. But first, let me ask if you have some third hypothesis that you’d like to discuss.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Consider that this is supposedly the THIRD thread created by him and he’s still, at the end of over 1000 posts in THIS ONE, at the level of discussion that he demonstrates here. How is that explainable in any way other than his simply jerking-around his enemies for puerile pleasure.

Have fun being had fun with.

You may be right about that. I have a sinking suspicion that you are, although I’m still trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

One thing for you to keep in mind, though, is that for every poster on the forum, there are probably 10 or more lurkers, who are honestly trying to see where the evidence leads. So even if A is just jerking us around, it may still be useful to demonstrate that the Christian faith is reasonable.

 

[_A]

I’d have to disagree with you that I’m much of a flatterer.

I do tend to get a bit hyperbolic, though, and rely perhaps a bit too much on using “prodding” language to “feisty-up” the discussion.

People asleep don’t make very good conversation partners.

Nor do people who insult.

 

[_A]

I’m not so sure that’s true, but I’m willing to consider it. What exactly are you proposing? Who fabricated the story? I can imagine two scenarios:

1. Apostolic conspiracy – there really were 12 apostles, who cooked up the story out of nothing.
2. One man show – Paul created the entire Christian story, including the existence of the 12 apostles, out of nothing.

I think that we’re going to find that neither of these is a historically reasonable position. But first, let me ask if you have some third hypothesis that you’d like to discuss.

I am not sure any of these are true either, I was only commenting on the level of evidence offered.
The theory that I have is like this - if the creator of the universe made a book that all humans were supposed to understand, it would be easily understood by all humans.
There is no such book in existence, as far as I know. There are several books making the claim. The one that makes that claim well will be the one that **is **easily understood by all humans.

 

[_A]

You may be right about that. I have a sinking suspicion that you are, although I’m still trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

One thing for you to keep in mind, though, is that for every poster on the forum, there are probably 10 or more lurkers, who are honestly trying to see where the evidence leads. So even if A is just jerking us around, it may still be useful to demonstrate that the Christian faith is reasonable.

How do you know that your interpretation is correct while anothers is wrong?
Is it because some authority said so?
Calm, be who you are, say how you feel.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

How do you know that your interpretation is correct while anothers is wrong?
Is it because some authority said so?
Calm, be who you are, say how you feel.

I don’t understand this post at all.

The theory that I have is like this - if the creator of the universe made a book that all humans were supposed to understand, it would be easily understood by all humans.

That’s a nice theory. But of course it’s irrelevent. “If the creator made a book that all humans were supposed to understand…” The premise is false, so the conclusion is irrelevent. As I have told you many times, the Bible was never intended to be sufficient. The Bible even says so.

Edit - I realize that I may have jumped the gun. Maybe you weren’t talking about the Bible, since it is so well-established that the Bible doesn’t claim sufficiency. You say that many books make the claim to be written by the creator of the universe, to be understood by all humans. Which books are you talking about?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I am not sure any of these are true either, I was only commenting on the level of evidence offered.

So, where do you think Christianity came from? You’ve rejected the Christian idea (Jesus taught apostles who created the Church). You’ve implied that it was a fabrication, but you haven’t even presented a specific fabrication hypothesis that we can consider.

If there were no apostles, who wrote the books of the Bible? Who started the various early churches?

If the apostles were sincere, but duped by some hypothetical mastermind, why do their writings claim that they were eyewitnesses to the event in question?

If the apostles were in on the conspiracy, why did they all (well, except for John) go willingly to their deaths?

Who profited from this conspiracy? The early church was neither wealthy nor pleasant. You’ve heard the stories of persecution of Christians. Was it all set in motion so the Pope could have gold hubcaps in two thousand years?

How can you claim that the existing evidence would be the same if the event was a fabrication, if you won’t engage these questions?

 

[_A]

I don’t understand this post at all.

That’s a nice theory. But of course it’s irrelevent. “If the creator made a book that all humans were supposed to understand…” The premise is false, so the conclusion is irrelevent. As I have told you many times, the Bible was never intended to be sufficient. The Bible even says so.

Edit - I realize that I may have jumped the gun. Maybe you weren’t talking about the Bible, since it is so well-established that the Bible doesn’t claim sufficiency. You say that many books make the claim to be written by the creator of the universe, to be understood by all humans. Which books are you talking about?

The various versions of the bible, and you DO keep saying that it is not sufficient, but it is.
It is good enough to see that it is quite far from a ‘good book’ (think if Deuteronomy) and it is also far from perfect (it doesn’t say which parts are true and which are false)

 

[_A]

So, where do you think Christianity came from?

I think it branched off Judiasm (sp?) around 2000 years ago.

You’ve rejected the Christian idea (Jesus taught apostles who created the Church). You’ve implied that it was a fabrication, but you haven’t even presented a specific fabrication hypothesis that we can consider.

I didn’t mean to imply that it was a fabrication, I just pointed out that the evidence I have seen does not suggest that any of the fantastic tales are true. I have read many impossible tales, fun to read, but no more.

If there were no apostles, who wrote the books of the Bible? Who started the various early churches?

It looks like some people started writing these books in a language other than the language Jesus was supposed to have used. Also these stories were written decades later. I think an historian could say more clearly who started it, but I am not one of those.

If the apostles were sincere, but duped by some hypothetical mastermind, why do their writings claim that they were eyewitnesses to the event in question?

Do you think a group of people could be fooled? All at once? I do, and there are many documented cases of large groups of people being fooled. Which theory better fits reality? Talking snakes, or the story is fiction.

If the apostles were in on the conspiracy, why did they all (well, except for John) go willingly to their deaths?

Is this fact? Or more stories?
For something this important, I would not accept stories. If the question were simply “Was there a ruler names Julius Ceaser?”, I would be happy with historical evidence, and happy to accept the research of those historians.
This question seems to require a little more evidence.

Who profited from this conspiracy? The early church was neither wealthy nor pleasant. You’ve heard the stories of persecution of Christians. Was it all set in motion so the Pope could have gold hubcaps in two thousand years?

I don’t know. Does he have gold hubcaps? Wouldn’t that kind of ostentation be an offence?

How can you claim that the existing evidence would be the same if the event was a fabrication, if you won’t engage these questions?

If the church made everything up, there would be similar evidence. If the church was following a belief that was incorrect, there would be similar evidence. If the church was formed by Satan to mock Yahweh, there would be similar evidence.
Why don’t you offer something convincing as evidence? Why ask me to disprove all other possibilities before you will accept that the evidence is shoddy.
If you ask an observant Jew, he will tell you that Jesus was NOT a god, and has similar evidence to yours to back up his statement. What is wrong with his evidence?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

The various versions of the bible, and you DO keep saying that it is not sufficient, but it is.
It is good enough to see that it is quite far from a ‘good book’ (think if Deuteronomy) and it is also far from perfect (it doesn’t say which parts are true and which are false)

You claimed a few posts back that the Bible claims to be intended to be an easy-to-read guide for all people. Where does it claim this?

Answer: It doesn’t.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

IDo you think a group of people could be fooled? All at once? I do, and there are many documented cases of large groups of people being fooled. Which theory better fits reality? Talking snakes, or the story is fiction.Is this fact? Or more stories?

There are talking snakes in the gospels? Where?

For something this important, I would not accept stories. If the question were simply “Was there a ruler names Julius Ceaser?”, I would be happy with historical evidence, and happy to accept the research of those historians.
This question seems to require a little more evidence.

Why? If x amount of evidence is sufficient to establish one historical event, xshould be sufficient to establish another. The only question is whether you want to accept it.

Why don’t you offer something convincing as evidence? Why ask me to disprove all other possibilities before you will accept that the evidence is shoddy.

I’m not asking you to disprove all other possibilities. I’m just trying to figure out what you believe, so we can work together to determine if it’s a reasonable belief. You won’t tell me. You just shrug and say “I’m no historian”. What am I supposed to do with that?

If you ask an observant Jew, he will tell you that Jesus was NOT a god, and has similar evidence to yours to back up his statement. What is wrong with his evidence?

What is his evidence? Tell me that, and I’ll be happy to discuss it. But I can’t discuss it if you just say “Ehhhh, I’m sure he has evidence somewhere.”

 

[_A]

You claimed a few posts back that the Bible claims to be intended to be an easy-to-read guide for all people. Where does it claim this?

Answer: It doesn’t.

It’s quite clear - it is just a book. If you want to claim more for it, you may, but those claims will require evidence. If the claims are small (such as the date it was assembled) then a small amount of evidence will do. If the claims are enormous, then enormous evidence will be required.