The atheists best argument?

[Peter_Plato]

Do you believe that burning a heretic at the stake is against the will of God?

Do you believe that someone who is angry with his brother and calls him a fool makes liable to be burned in the “hell of fire?”

If you do, you should read the papal encyclical Exsurge Domine.

If you don’t, you should read the words of Jesus in Matthew.

Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. (Matt 5:21-22)

How would you say that Judas enters into the discussion when reading this encyclical?

Not sure how Judas is involved, but there are records of saints being burned at the stake in Roman times who were untouched by the flames.

In fact, probably the best interpretation of the fire which will consume sinners is that it is the same fire of God’s love which did not consume the burning bush when God appeared to Moses, but ought to be far more of a concern than it is for we who hold onto our sins when the absolutely purifying fire of God’s love engulfs our deeds, our desires, our wills and our selves.

I have faith that those who died at the hands of mistaken human judgement, by fire or any other means, will also be subject to the refining fire of God’s absolute love, which ought to be far more of a concern for any wise human being than the temporary flare-up you seem fixated over.

In fact, I would suggest that burning at the stake should be understood as a far greater problem for those who took it upon themselves to burn others than it is for those who were burned. I mean presuming that those who were burned were innocent to begin with.

Now you might claim that Jesus’ statement with regard to the treatment of unrepentant sinners proves that Hinduism or some other religion is in some sense “better” than Christianity and that Krishna is more to be revered than Jesus because of it.

That would depend entirely upon whether Jesus is correct or not in his statement. I mean what would be the good of dismissing Jesus’ words as “unkind” or “unmerciful,” if they are indeed a true depiction of what our unrepented thoughts, words and deeds will garner for us? Just because Krishna offends our self-righteousness less, or flatters our egos more, does not mean Krishna’s way is the correct one, does it?

Your presumption is that a good God out of love will simply turn a blind eye to all evil that has been done by us. Personally, I don’t think that kind of God is absolutely good. The matter is not so simplistic as you might want it to be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wasn’t saying any of those things. I was saying that Christianity has no features that satisfy:

Where “distinguish” here is meant in an epistemic sense. The claims should be much more obviously true than those of primitive mythologizing.

They are, in fact, much more obviously true than those of “primitive mythologizing.” If they weren’t, then pagan religions would have preoccupied departments of philosophy in universities in the same way as monotheism has.

You don’t see continued debates or arguments over the existence of Zeus or Thor as you do for the God of classic theism, do you? If there was no distinction “in an epistemic sense,” that wouldn’t be true. Most of the great philosophers of the past were theists. It has only been in modern and post modern times that atheism has had some influence. Even there, atheists don’t even bother discussing their disbelief in the gods of paganism. It isn’t even an epistemic issue in the sense that theism is for them. Which is why they devote so much time and energy arguing against theism, but not against mythological beings. Despite what they (and you) claim is an equivalence.

I was pointing out that the ideas in Christianity do not look dramatically more reliable than other ancient mythologies.

Well, on this you are just plain wrong. The evidence for Christian claims is qualitatively and quantitatively far more reliable than any evidence for “other ancient mythologies.” There are nothing like the historical precision of the Gospels, Acts and Epistles in any other religion.

Add to that the prophetic literature from the Old Testament, specifically in Daniel, Isaiah, the Psalms, Wisdom and the minor prophets which points directly at Jesus as the Messiah and you get a 3000-4000 year long sequential and historical narrative which is unlike anything found in “other ancient mythologies.”

I’m am not sure what you mean by “do not look dramatically more reliable” except that you appear to be oblivious to the drama because you haven’t looked into it.

You might want to look into The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre, found here:

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMp6rMU0-TTItIr0FM6-8p7zSiXy6J5NT

He breaks down the connections between Jesus’ use of words like “Son of Man,” “Kingdom of God,” and “I AM,” and the significance of his actions in the Gospels. It is pretty dramatic stuff, but like all drama it isn’t striking when eyes are closed and ears muffled. Eyes to see, ears to hear and all that.

There were other monotheistic religions with creator-gods. There were other religions that predicted divine messiahs. There were other religions whose one God had multiple personalities. There were other religions with heaven, hell, and individual judgements. There were other religions with sons of gods and resurrections.

I suppose you haven’t read CS Lewis on the role of myth in human history. I mean by presumption you read the evidence as mere copying of ideas by different religions. The other possibility is that God has influenced all myths by hinting at the coming of the real Messiah. The mythologies of groups in North America which bear striking similarities to those of the Middle East but which were not influenced, in any obvious way, by contact with those groups, hints that something other than copying or influence was occurring.

 

[goout]

You’re right, I meant distinguishing which of them is valid. That we don’t have a good epistemic method for choosing one revelation over another.

Faith is relational.
When we look at the various expressions of faith we see common themes. The most basic of themes is the search itself, the search for being, meaning, identity, and purpose. This searching and believing is a response to revelation, not an attempt to prove something by math and evidence and “gotchas”.

The various expressions do not cancel one another. You are looking at it as either/or rather than both/and. If various cultures are looking in the same direction for the same being, there will be similarities in expression. Why would that surprise you?

Aquinas said something like “the Revealer reveals himself to the receiver in the manner the receiver is able to receive”.
The “writer” of Genesis has no knowledge of science whatsoever. No big bang, no physics. His expression of what is revealed is expressed in the manner that his full humanity is capable of receiving it. No more no less. His expression of the underlying truth of being, meaning, identity, and purpose is no less profound than yours. He does not speak with scientific accuracy because he does not have science.

You see a dead end in the tension between one person and another and from age to age, and the contradictions that arise.
Faith allows you to see this tension not as a dead end but as the starting point of a relationship.
Fundamentalism robs us of the flowering of that relationship.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, this is your opinion and your welcome to it, of course.
But when I see people help the sick and poor, donate their money to helpful causes, help a friend or family member in need, give love and care to children, and live lives of honesty and generosity among their fellow human beings…and they happen to be atheists…it doesn’t seem negative and empty to me.

That is because they are living according to moral and spiritual values and principles which are intangible and beyond the scope of science - which is restricted to physical causes and cannot give reasons for what we should do. It tells us nothing about the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love…
Surely.
And the values and principles also tell us nothing about Gods.

They tell us that we are rational, moral beings for whom science has no adequate explanation - which is not surprising because we created science!

 

[tonyrey]

Then I take it you agree with Tony that God “intervenes very often to prevent such atrocities” [child abuse]. So unless you’re expressing an uninformed opinion, you must have evidence that God “intervenes very often”. Please let’s see it.

And if you agree with Tony, then God very often intervenes but sometimes doesn’t. Why does God sometimes not intervene? Is being raped good for some children? Does the occasional child abuse make the world a better place? Or is it a big mystery? In your informed opinion.

There is plenty of evidence throughout history that there have been inexplicable cures in answer to prayer. To reject them on principle is a sign of dogmatic materialism which is self-destructive, self-contradictory and contrary to belief in spiritual reality…

 

[tonyrey]

In other words morality is replaced by expediency, a charter for criminals! It’s not wrong if you can get away with it…

Please explain how morality is explained without expediency in your scheme of things. I don’t think you’re going to enjoy that…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you believe that burning a heretic at the stake is against the will of God?
If you do, you should read the papal encyclical Exsurge Domine.
How would you say that Judas enters into the discussion when reading this encyclical?

Well, you must have read it, right?

So please provide the passage to which you refer. Or the link where it can be located and the specific passage that applies to our discussion.

I don’t go reading whole encyclicals on your say-so, but if you really want to be convincing to me and others, that passage would be very helpful.

Then we can talk about whether encyclicals have a permanent and absolute obligation to be obeyed. Pope Leo XIII, for example, in the encyclical AETERNI PATRIS preached that Thomas Aquinas should be studied in all Catholic Colleges. Today you can barely find a Catholic College that teaches Aquinas.

(Incidentally, when the popes preach on dogma they have a lot more authority than when they preach on policy.)

 

[JapaneseKappa]

They are, in fact, much more obviously true than those of “primitive mythologizing.” If they weren’t, then pagan religions would have preoccupied departments of philosophy in universities in the same way as monotheism has.

You don’t see continued debates or arguments over the existence of Zeus or Thor as you do for the God of classic theism, do you? If there was no distinction “in an epistemic sense,” that wouldn’t be true. Most of the great philosophers of the past were theists. It has only been in modern and post modern times that atheism has had some influence. Even there, atheists don’t even bother discussing their disbelief in the gods of paganism. It isn’t even an epistemic issue in the sense that theism is for them. Which is why they devote so much time and energy arguing against theism, but not against mythological beings. Despite what they (and you) claim is an equivalence.

There are plenty of non-epistemic reasons why certain religions will dominate others. I bet that if you gave Catholics around the world a test about the historical accuracy of the old testament books, a wide majority (>90%) of them would fail. In other words, the popularity of Catholicism is NOT because people have performed some sophisticated epistemic evaluation of Catholicism’s claims.

Second, the people who decided which philosophers got “greatest of all time” trophies and which ones got their works burned as heretical were also monotheistic. For example, the reason only three books survived from the entire Mayan civilization is because the Catholics burned the rest. Therefore, the “success” of monotheism to me seems double-edged. Sure, it might be because monotheism is inherently epistemically better than atheism and polytheism. But it also looks a lot like monotheism was successful because the monotheistic civilizations and political institutions were successful.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you believe that someone who is angry with his brother and calls him a fool makes liable to be burned in the “hell of fire?”

If you don’t, you should read the words of Jesus in Matthew.

Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. (Matt 5:21-22)

Not sure how Judas is involved, but there are records of saints being burned at the stake in Roman times who were untouched by the flames.

In fact, probably the best interpretation of the fire which will consume sinners is that it is the same fire of God’s love which did not consume the burning bush when God appeared to Moses, but ought to be far more of a concern than it is for we who hold onto our sins when the absolutely purifying fire of God’s love engulfs our deeds, our desires, our wills and our selves.

I have faith that those who died at the hands of mistaken human judgement, by fire or any other means, will also be subject to the refining fire of God’s absolute love, which ought to be far more of a concern for any wise human being than the temporary flare-up you seem fixated over.

In fact, I would suggest that burning at the stake should be understood as a far greater problem for those who took it upon themselves to burn others than it is for those who were burned. I mean presuming that those who were burned were innocent to begin with.

Now you might claim that Jesus’ statement with regard to the treatment of unrepentant sinners proves that Hinduism or some other religion is in some sense “better” than Christianity and that Krishna is more to be revered than Jesus because of it.

That would depend entirely upon whether Jesus is correct or not in his statement. I mean what would be the good of dismissing Jesus’ words as “unkind” or “unmerciful,” if they are indeed a true depiction of what our unrepented thoughts, words and deeds will garner for us? Just because Krishna offends our self-righteousness less, or flatters our egos more, does not mean Krishna’s way is the correct one, does it?

Your presumption is that a good God out of love will simply turn a blind eye to all evil that has been done by us. Personally, I don’t think that kind of God is absolutely good. The matter is not so simplistic as you might want it to be.

Do you believe that burning a heretic at the stake is against the will of God? Some Roman Catholics do, others don’t.

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t go reading whole encyclicals on your say-so

Exsurge Domine condemned the teachings of Martin Luther. One of the condemned teachings was:
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

 

[Bradski]

He breaks down the connections between Jesus’ use of words like “Son of Man,” “Kingdom of God,” and “I AM,” and the significance of his actions in the Gospels.

It would be more accurate in situations like this to say something along the lines of: ‘the words that Jesus was reported to have said’ as opposed to 'what Jesus said.

I find that it adds a little clarity that otherwise is missing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It would be more accurate in situations like this to say something along the lines of: ‘the words that Jesus was reported to have said’ as opposed to 'what Jesus said.

I find that it adds a little clarity that otherwise is missing.

It would ONLY be MORE accurate if Jesus didn’t actually speak those words. If he did, then it is more accurate to say “what Jesus said.”

I have no reason to think they weren’t his words and you won’t likely have anything like a strong case to convince me otherwise.

Feel free to make that case and then I will take your proposition more seriously.

The Gospel writers lived at or very near the time Jesus did. You, on the other hand, are 2000 years removed. I find their claim to be reporting the actual words of Jesus to be more compelling than your claim that his words may not have been accurately reported.

The Gospel writers don’t, for example, say, “These words were the ones Jesus is reported to have said.” They simply state, “Jesus said, ‘…’”

I’ll take these statements as true on their face, until you provide at least a compelling reason why they ought not be.

 

[Bradski]

It would ONLY be MORE accurate if Jesus didn’t actually speak those words. If he did, then it is more accurate to say “what Jesus said.”

I have no reason to think they weren’t his words and you won’t likely have anything like a strong case to convince me otherwise.

Feel free to make that case and then I will take your proposition more seriously.

I think that it is safe to say that someone is either reported to have said something verbatim, in which case we are seeing a direct quote from that person written by someone who was actually in attendence, or what is reported is not verbatim. In which case I would expect to see something along these lines:

Jesus is reported to have said…
Someone who claims to have been a witness says that Jesus said…
It is claimed that Jesus made a comment to the effect…
It is accepted by some that…

Otherwise you are asking everyone to accept that anyone who heard Jesus talk at any given time, immediately transcribed what he or she heard or committed it accurately to memory in order to be able to repeat it days, weeks or even many years later with perfect accuracy (and perhaps have it passed from person to person many times over long periods of time) before someone decided to sit down and write a letter to the Philippians.

And was the person who actually wrote it down a completely unbiased reporter of facts? Or someone who wanted to show Jesus in the best possible light?

Blessed are the cheese makers?

 

[e_c]

Happiness (in the Aristotelian sense of Eudaimonia; Greek: εὐδαιμονία) is what compels us to be moral, it isn’t, however, the grounds for morality. Morality, fundamentally, has to be grounded in the way things are – in the basic “function” of things (according to Aristotle) that exist vIs a vis all that exists. And that can only be derived from the true nature and purpose of things, the teleology or purpose built into each. He takes great pains to explain this in Nicomachean Ethics

Yes! It is the “compelling force” of morals, which is where the discussion usually breaks down. That’s why the discussion should start there… after having taken a look at what fulfillment is, which is of course based on teleology, nature, etc. Because happiness has its grounds in nature and teleology, so too does morality, which is the system of goalposts for keeping us from failing to reach a basic level of happiness.

I think that it is safe to say that someone is either reported to have said something verbatim, in which case we are seeing a direct quote from that person written by someone who was actually in attendence, or what is reported is not verbatim. In which case I would expect to see something along these lines:

Jesus is reported to have said…
Someone who claims to have been a witness says that Jesus said…
It is claimed that Jesus made a comment to the effect…
It is accepted by some that…

Otherwise you are asking everyone to accept that anyone who heard Jesus talk at any given time, immediately transcribed what he or she heard or committed it accurately to memory in order to be able to repeat it days, weeks or even many years later with perfect accuracy (and perhaps have it passed from person to person many times over long periods of time) before someone decided to sit down and write a letter to the Philippians.

And was the person who actually wrote it down a completely unbiased reporter of facts? Or someone who wanted to show Jesus in the best possible light?

Blessed are the cheese makers?

1. That would be a very bizarre literary style… unattractive, not useful, etc. I’m not aware of any such “journalism” in the ancient world.
2. It is not unreasonable to think there is some paraphrasing or shaping which still retains the essential meaning of the words. We do this all the time and think nothing of it.
3. There are some things which people remember very, very clearly even years after they take place… because what was done or said was so radically different or important or meaningful that it sticks out. This is what was occurring. It could also be corroborated.
4. Christians would also claim that these passages are protected from error by inspiration.
5. Ancient peoples were not stoopid. Sometimes we forget this.

 

[Bradski]

1. That would be a very bizarre literary style… unattractive, not useful, etc. I’m not aware of any such “journalism” in the ancient world.

I agree. But I think it’s worth bearing in mind what is actually being said and not to read it literally.

1. It is not unreasonable to think there is some paraphrasing or shaping which still retains the essential meaning of the words. We do this all the time and think nothing of it…

Agreed. We all ‘fine tune’ things that have happened to us. Have you ever told a dinner table anecdote perfectly accurately?

1. There are some things which people remember very, very clearly even years after they take place… because what was done or said was so radically different or important or meaningful that it sticks out. This is what was occurring. It could also be corroborated…

I can’t remember exactly what was said last night to my family. I’m sure I could paraphrase it and I’m sure my wife would correct me. I know people who have reminisced about events that we have attended that I know for a fact that one of us were not present.

1. Christians would also claim that these passages are protected from error by inspiration…

I’m sure they would. But which adds nothing to the veracity of the statements.

1. Ancient peoples were not stoopid. Sometimes we forget this.

No-one is making that claim.

 

[o_mlly]

Atheist - a person who thinks that man’s reason cannot determine God’s existence with certainty.

Theist - a person who thinks that man’s reason cannot determine God’s existence with certainty.

No need to argue. Both are correct. Reason has never determined anything with certainty, only with probability.

If one defines natural knowledge as only that information obtained through experience and reason then no one knows God with certainty.

If one defines faith as belief in things yet unseen then only those of faith can believe with certainty in God’s existence. Faith is* infused knowledge*.

One cannot naturally know God. One can believe in God. Faith is His gift to us.

The atheists’ best argument?

• I have no faith.
• Without faith I cannot believe.
• I only have my own experience and reason.
• Experience and reason cannot reach the conclusion that God exists with certainty.

The theists’ best argument:

• We believe in one God,
• the Father, the Almighty, …

 

[Aloysium]

I believe the Quran is not to be translated from the original Arabic because the sacredness would be lost in doing so. This is one of the reasons why it rings untrue. Some people would not be happy unless Jesus had spoken in King James English and had scribes following Him in every moment. What is recorded is that He wrote nothing but in the sand, once. Fact is that we know the truth in our hearts and seek its expression and find it ordered in the words of others. Scripture constitutes a dialogue between God and mankind, the means by which He reaches us individually. The Second Person in the Trinity, the Word by which all came into existence, was incarnated to sacrifice Himself for our salvation and redemption, to demonstrate God’s love for us, making it clear that we are with Him in our suffering, to teach us about His will that we love, and basically to establish His church on earth.

 

[Aloysium]

If one defines natural knowledge as only that information obtained through experience and reason then no one knows God with certainty.

We experience the consequences of sin, the illusoriness and transience of worldly goods, the joy and happiness that comes with loving relationships. Morality, justice, beauty, truth, courage are recognized in our passage through life. One experiences one’s own existence and the awareness of the existence of others. Taking the first step towards God will lead to the next and the next. Reason and experience lead to the knowledge of God as one follows His call. I think knowledge can be certain, but not in the sense that it is comprehensive. We know the sun is not stationary; we know it moves from east to west across the sky; we know the earth revolves around it. In our relationship with God, we become ever more connected to the Divine Mystery and everything said about Him makes more and more sense.

 

[goout]

I think that it is safe to say that someone is either reported to have said something verbatim, in which case we are seeing a direct quote from that person written by someone who was actually in attendence, or what is reported is not verbatim. In which case I would expect to see something along these lines:

Jesus is reported to have said…
Someone who claims to have been a witness says that Jesus said…
It is claimed that Jesus made a comment to the effect…
It is accepted by some that…

Otherwise you are asking everyone to accept that anyone who heard Jesus talk at any given time, immediately transcribed what he or she heard or committed it accurately to memory in order to be able to repeat it days, weeks or even many years later with perfect accuracy (and perhaps have it passed from person to person many times over long periods of time) before someone decided to sit down and write a letter to the Philippians.

And was the person who actually wrote it down a completely unbiased reporter of facts? Or someone who wanted to show Jesus in the best possible light?

Blessed are the cheese makers?

Fundamentalists subscribe to the dictation model of Scripture transmission. Notice how similar the word dictation is to dictator. God’s inspiration forces itself into a person who then writes exactly and literally what God guides his pen to write. Inspiration is restricted to what the writer writes and is rigidly literal.
Most atheists also base their arguments against God on this fundamentalist idea. It makes the process of objection easier, that is for sure. But it objects to a straw man.

Catholics scholars and I would say most other Christians do not subscribe to this idea. We have the cooperative model of Scripture transmission in which God inspires a freely acting person to transmit truth. The writer or story teller is an individual who lives in a specific time and place and in a specific cultural context. That is all respected in inspiration.
Notice the Gospels have varying accounts of similar or same incidents. Some Gospels have incidents that others do not contain.
It’s all good, it’s a partnership between the divine and the human. It’s incarnational.

 

[fred_conty]

There are plenty of non-epistemic reasons why certain religions will dominate others. I bet that if you gave Catholics around the world a test about the historical accuracy of the old testament books, a wide majority (>90%) of them would fail. In other words, the popularity of Catholicism is NOT because people have performed some sophisticated epistemic evaluation of Catholicism’s claims.

Second, the people who decided which philosophers got “greatest of all time” trophies and which ones got their works burned as heretical were also monotheistic. For example, the reason only three books survived from the entire Mayan civilization is because the Catholics burned the rest. Therefore, the “success” of monotheism to me seems double-edged. Sure, it might be because monotheism is inherently epistemically better than atheism and polytheism. But it also looks a lot like monotheism was successful because the monotheistic civilizations and political institutions were successful.

It may seem that this bible is some kind of text book, or science book, or history book. That really is not what it is about at all. And when we start off with this misunderstanding about this book, then we will not really understand what the bible is…a spiritual book.

It may seem that if we determine which books or passages in the bible are true history, and what is methology, or what is fictional, or what is historical fiction, or songs, or plays, or this or that, then we will understand it. Tho in some cases this definitely helps, but the purpose is missed.

The author of each book and it’s passages, has a point to make, a spiritual/religious point. And he uses litterary forms to do this. But it isn’t in most cases the literary form that is important, but the spiritual point. This is called the literal teaching of the LITERARY form the author uses. Whether he use literary form of history, or fiction, or some other form.

So the real question should be, not whether it is fiction or fact, historical or mythical, but rather what spiritual point is the author teaching.

Some may think that if it isn’t factual/historical then it isn’t true.
But that is missing what the bible is … a teacher of spiritual true ideas, and not a teacher of history or science.