The atheists best argument?

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

My point was made in reference to someone bringing up the “divine absence” argument. I argued that Christianity’s roots and beliefs do not look to be obviously different from other ancient mythologizing, and therefore it is difficult to argue that the Christian accounts of divine revelation constitute an argument against divine absence. PP was arguing that Christianity has some unique elements (more detailed ancient texts, worldwide popularity, extensive theological refinement) which I claimed had entirely non-magical explanations (e.g. geopolitics, deliberate destruction of other ancient texts by Christians.)

However, since this thread was originally about the problem of evil, I won’t pursue the absence argument any further.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…I claimed had entirely non-magical explanations (e.g. geopolitics, deliberate destruction of other ancient texts by Christians.)

Where and when did that occur?

Monastaries in Europe contributed greatly to conserving ancient texts after barbarian groups brought down the Roman Empire.

You will have to cite documented case of where “deliberate destruction of ancient texts” was done.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Thanks for identifying #33 as the matter under dispute. I have to limit my reading activities because of eye strain.

An encyclical does not represent an infallible teaching of the Church unless it declares itself to be infallible (ex cathedra). There are many problems with this encyclicals as Catholic critics have pointed out.

So far as I know, there is no pope or council that taught a dogma that heretics should be burned. But defending such an action amounts to defending a policy (a misguided one at that) not an official dogma. As I pointed out to you earlier, it is easy to confuse dogmas with policy, which it looks like you are doing here.

 

[tonyrey]

My point was made in reference to someone bringing up the “divine absence” argument. I argued that Christianity’s roots and beliefs do not look to be obviously different from other ancient mythologizing, and therefore it is difficult to argue that the Christian accounts of divine revelation constitute an argument against divine absence. PP was arguing that Christianity has some unique elements (more detailed ancient texts, worldwide popularity, extensive theological refinement) which I claimed had entirely non-magical explanations (e.g. geopolitics, deliberate destruction of other ancient texts by Christians.)

The Jews were unique in their monotheistic belief in “He Who Is”, the Supreme Being who would send the Messiah to liberate the Chosen People and all those who listen to his message of hope and love, a prophecy that has been fulfilled to the ends of the earth…

 

[Tomdstone]

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?

I read that many things were passed on orally.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Jews were unique in their monotheistic belief in “He Who Is”, the Supreme Being who would send the Messiah to liberate the Chosen People and all those who listen to his message of hope and love, a prophecy that has been fulfilled to the ends of the earth…

Jews don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[Tomdstone]

So far as I know, there is no pope or council that taught a dogma that heretics should be burned. But defending such an action amounts to defending a policy (a misguided one at that) not an official dogma. As I pointed out to you earlier, it is easy to confuse dogmas with policy, which it looks like you are doing here.

The encyclical states:
“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
Seems to be pretty strong if it is only policy.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The Jews were unique in their monotheistic belief in “He Who Is”, the Supreme Being who would send the Messiah to liberate the Chosen People and all those who listen to his message of hope and love, a prophecy that has been fulfilled to the ends of the earth…

That is really not true. Zoroastrianism was also monotheistic, with a creator god, and had a strong messianic belief, which included virgin births. Indeed, the messianic Book of Isaiah was being composed and assembled around the same time that Zoroaster lived (~600BC).

 

[goout]

The encyclical states:
“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
Seems to be pretty strong if it is only policy.

What do you object to? Strong and committed language?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The encyclical states:
“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
Seems to be pretty strong if it is only policy.

Yes, it certainly is. But it is still policy rather than dogma, and it was not ex cathedra.

Whichever Church authorities advocated the burning of heretics would very possibly have to face another kind of burning themselves, though as Pope Francis likes to say, “Who am I to judge?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is really not true. Zoroastrianism was also monotheistic, with a creator god, and had a strong messianic belief, which included virgin births. Indeed, the messianic Book of Isaiah was being composed and assembled around the same time that Zoroaster lived (~600BC).

A bit more complex than that.

jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XLVII/4/557.abstract

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is really not true. Zoroastrianism was also monotheistic, with a creator god, and had a strong messianic belief, which included virgin births. Indeed, the messianic Book of Isaiah was being composed and assembled around the same time that Zoroaster lived (~600BC).

Isaiah lived 740-681 BC. That would be about a hundred years before Zoroaster. Why are you ignoring the fact that Zoroaster could well have gained his messianic beliefs from Isaiah and other Jews? Even if we assume that your point about the Book of Isaiah being written at the time Zoroaster lived is true, that doesn’t mean the belief went from Zoroaster to the Jews. It could well have gone the other way, especially when the fact that Isaiah lived well before Zoroaster is taken into account.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, it certainly is. But it is still policy rather than dogma, and it was not ex cathedra.

Whichever Church authorities advocated the burning of heretics would very possibly have to face another kind of burning themselves, though as Pope Francis likes to say, “Who am I to judge?”

It was reported that the encyclical banning artificial birth control was not ex cathedra, but Roman Catholics are still supposed to adhere to it. AFAIK, an official encyclical of the pope is part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and as such is authoritative and requires religious submission of intellect and will, even though it may not be covered by infallibility. Since the Pope has the keys to the kingdom and the right to bind and loose, AFAIK, he has the authority to excommunicate anyone who disagrees with his official encyclical teaching, which is what he has announced in his encyclical.

 

[tonyrey]

The Jews were unique in their monotheistic belief in “He Who Is”, the Supreme Being who would send the Messiah to liberate the Chosen People and all those who listen to his message of hope and love, a prophecy that has been fulfilled to the ends of the earth…

That is really not true. Zoroastrianism was also monotheistic, with a creator god, and had a strong [messianic belief,](https://books.google.com/books?id=NqJsCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=Hushedar+Hushedarmah+Saoshyant&source=bl&ots=pI86aMR4b7&sig=9cCQLvFX_-E30raWS1Tg_3AqO8M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtw9KZqcTOAhWF4SYKHVOuCIgQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=Hushedar%20Hushedarmah%20Saoshyant&f=false)  which included virgin births. Indeed, the messianic Book of Isaiah was  being composed and assembled around the same time that Zoroaster lived  (~600BC). That is really not true.  Zoroastrianism was also monotheistic, with a creator god, and had a strong [messianic belief,](https://books.google.com/books?id=NqJsCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=Hushedar+Hushedarmah+Saoshyant&source=bl&ots=pI86aMR4b7&sig=9cCQLvFX_-E30raWS1Tg_3AqO8M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtw9KZqcTOAhWF4SYKHVOuCIgQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=Hushedar%20Hushedarmah%20Saoshyant&f=false) which included virgin births.  Indeed, the messianic Book of Isaiah was being composed and assembled around the same time that Zoroaster lived (~600BC).

The Zoroastrians didn’t have the unique insight into the nature of God as “He Who Is” nor did they have a Messiah who fulfilled the prophecies, chose to die to liberate us from the vortex of evil and with His message of love founded a Church which has survived for two thousand years, extends to the ends of the earth and whose members number one third of the world’s population.

 

[tonyrey]

It was reported that the encyclical banning artificial birth control was not ex cathedra, but Roman Catholics are still supposed to adhere to it. AFAIK, an official encyclical of the pope is part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and as such is authoritative and requires religious submission of intellect and will, even though it may not be covered by infallibility. Since the Pope has the keys to the kingdom and the right to bind and loose, AFAIK, he has the authority to excommunicate anyone who disagrees with his official encyclical teaching, which is what he has announced in his encyclical.

Whether or not we are excommunicated is less important than the Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our informed conscience.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The atheist has no “best argument” against the existence of God for the simple reason there is no proof whatever that God does not exist.

For example, the problem of evil, which bothers so many, does not prove that God does not exist. At most it raises questions about God’s tolerance of moral and natural evils. The fact that the problem of evil raises such questions does not prove anything against the existence of God, any more than the difficulties in explaining how the or why the Big Bang occurred proves there was no Big Bang.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Isaiah lived 740-681 BC. That would be about a hundred years before Zoroaster. Why are you ignoring the fact that Zoroaster could well have gained his messianic beliefs from Isaiah and other Jews? Even if we assume that your point about the Book of Isaiah being written at the time Zoroaster lived is true, that doesn’t mean the belief went from Zoroaster to the Jews. It could well have gone the other way, especially when the fact that Isaiah lived well before Zoroaster is taken into account.

Isaiah didn’t write the Book of Isaiah, so it is mostly irrelevant when he lived, unless you’ve got some concrete evidence that his teachings were accurately compiled (the compilation was completed in the 500s BC). Its true we can’t be certain which direction the borrowing went, or even if they were both borrowing from a third source. The issue isn’t “which one was the first to have the idea” the issue is that even to people contemporary to that time, the real prophecies were not obviously superior to the copycats.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The atheist has no “best argument” against the existence of God for the simple reason there is no proof whatever that God does not exist.

For example, the problem of evil, which bothers so many, does not prove that God does not exist. At most it raises questions about God’s tolerance of moral and natural evils. The fact that the problem of evil raises such questions does not prove anything against the existence of God, any more than the difficulties in explaining how the or why the Big Bang occurred proves there was no Big Bang.

Most of the atheist arguments are directed at certain conceptions of God. The issue is that this allows theists to be slippery, and change which conception they are defending any time they can’t find an answer to the atheist objection.

As you correctly observe, the problem of evil isn’t an argument against all possible gods. It is an argument against omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent ones.

 

[Wesrock]

Most of the atheist arguments are directed at certain conceptions of God. The issue is that this allows theists to be slippery, and change which conception they are defending any time they can’t find an answer to the atheist objection.

As you correctly observe, the problem of evil isn’t an argument against all possible gods. It is an argument against omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent ones.

Only if you’re thinking about this omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent one in a personal and anthropomorphic way, and that itself is pretty much an oxymoron.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Most of the atheist arguments are directed at certain conceptions of God. The issue is that this allows theists to be slippery, and change which conception they are defending any time they can’t find an answer to the atheist objection.

As you correctly observe, the problem of evil isn’t an argument against all possible gods. It is an argument against omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent ones.

It could only be an argument against "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent ones” if we human beings had the capacity to understand all of reality from the perspective of the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent” Being.

We don’t, so the argument cannot provide the most basic conditions under which we would know with certainty that it has to be true.

I would argue that it is the atheists who are being slippery by introducing “stand-in” gods into the conception of God.

Take this example:

An atheist will argue that miracles can’t happen and therefore any historical documents which include miracles cannot be used to support religious claims. So, for example, (and Bart Ehrman argues this,) the miracle claims about Jesus were made up later by the Gospel writers because miraculous claims could not have been made during the time Jesus was alive. They had to come later as Jesus became a legendary figure when no living witnesses were left to contend the miracle claims. Claims about Jesus being divine, in other words, HAD to be legendary rather than eye witness accounts because human beings don’t perform miracles. Ergo Jesus couldn’t be God Incarnate.

What Ehrman seems to be missing is that if Jesus were God Incarnate then he would have the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent “ resources available to him to perform miracles.

So the argument that Ehrman proposes is basically begging the question: Jesus couldn’t be God because humans (like Jesus) can’t perform miracles; which means any claims to that effect can simply be dismissed. But why can’t Jesus perform miracles, if Jesus is God?

This is an example of an atheist being ”slippery” and substituting his atheistic view of what God can or cannot do into the argument from the beginning.

Ehrman seems to forget completely, that if Jesus were God he could perform any miracle and likely would to instil in his followers motives of credibility. So, if Jesus were God, miracles could be expected and the Gospels could well have been accurate accounts.

Theists can only be called “slippery” if atheists are presumed to be right. If theists are right, then it is the atheists who are being slippery.

The difference, however, is that historical accounts do exist and were passed down from people (theists) who lived at the time. “Should these be taken for what they purport to be?” is the crucial question. The atheist has nada except doubt or skepticism, but those are only negative claims and not arguments, since they always stealthily slip from atheistic premises into claiming to draw atheistic conclusions, which were, in fact, only presumed to begin with. :tsktsk: