Atheists debates - is it worth it?

RBPerry · Mar 10, 2020

jacks said:
Hmmm... I didn't say it only applies to Atheists. I never even used the word atheist and certainly didn't mean to imply that. As to the remainder of your questions on the inerrancy of the Bible, I addressed that in previous posts, though obviously not to your satisfaction.
Also out of respect to the original OP, I think we are running pretty far afield. My response to that is yes, atheist debates are worthwhile as long as they remain respectful. In fact I'd say they are essential. What do you think?

I once thought that, but as stated I personally think they have become a waste of time. Mainly because most that dispute the validity of Christianity wouldn't evaluate the overwhelming information that is easily available today. Most do not realize that the bible was written in three different languages and translations to English are difficult at times, example there are five words the Greeks used to express love. Books like "New Evidence that demands a verdict", and a "Case for Christ" I'm sure haven't been read and evaluated. Those wanting scientific support should look into "Reasons to believe". Want to know if there is a God, try "Near death experiences". Whatever evidence you supply most of the time will be rejected without even evaluating it.

In defense of the non-believers, agnostics, and atheists when I look at the theological divisions with in the various churches, the mud slinging that goes on it makes me sick, and some of the stupid rules some adhere to I can understand why it may not be too appealing to them. I have chosen to love all people. But I just listened to a pastor screaming hate towards homosexuals, that is wrong, hate has no place in the Christian life. So if we want people to come to Christ, we also need to clean up our act and display the love of Christ to all people.

Christianity isn't about particular church club, it is about a relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Relationship take time to build and a commitment.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 10, 2020

RBPerry said:
Books like "New Evidence that demands a verdict", and a "Case for Christ" I'm sure haven't been read and evaluated.

You are mistaken. Books like these have been read thoroughly, taken apart and debunked.
And honestly, it's not that difficult, because they all tend to recycle the same flawed apologetics arguments.
Does Josh McDowell have Evidence That Demands a Verdict? • Skeptical Science
The Jury Is In: The Ruling on Josh McDowell's "Evidence"
Response to Lee Strobel’s “Five E’s of Evidence”
The Case for a Creator - Daylight Atheism
Review of Lee Strobel THE CASE FOR CHRIST
Alpha Course: Reviewed

Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel and the Alpha Course and all the others aren't really writing to convince atheists. They're really writing to reassure the faithful.

RBPerry · Mar 10, 2020

Interested atheist, you just proved my point.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 10, 2020

RBPerry said:
Interested atheist, you just disproved my point.

(fixed that for you)

BigV · Mar 11, 2020

RBPerry said:
Books like "New Evidence that demands a verdict", and a "Case for Christ" I'm sure haven't been read and evaluated.

The Christian evidence is nothing more than what is written down in the New Testament. Since Gospels are anonymous, Christianity is built on anonymous sources. This works for Christians, apparently, but not for the Atheists.

IF we are seeking the truth, why would we trust anonymous sources who do not tell us how and where they have received their information from? Just look at our current times. How many times are anonymous sources wrong or simply misleading?

At the end of the day, Christianity requires faith, but faith is the least reliable method/way to arrive at truth, because by faith, you can believe anything as true.

RBPerry said:
Christianity isn't about particular church club, it is about a relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Relationship take time to build and a commitment.

There is no relationship. Christianity is a faith based religion, that requires one to believe they have a relationship with Jesus. If humans had relationships with each other the way Jesus has a relationship with humans, those people would be lonely to the core. It would be as if there would be no relationship.

RBPerry · Mar 11, 2020

BigV said:
The Christian evidence is nothing more than what is written down in the New Testament. Since Gospels are anonymous, Christianity is built on anonymous sources. This works for Christians, apparently, but not for the Atheists.

It's obvious you haven't studied the available evidence, you are just regurgitating what you have heard from someone else. You need to be a Christian to understand the relationship, if I didn't have it, and hadn't experienced it, I would most likely be an atheist as well.
What I find amusing is that most non-believers come up with blanket statements that are unsupported, instead of attempting to prove specific evidence is wrong. What happens is these debates become circular non productive chatter. Find specific areas you believe are problematic and present a valid argument, or you accomplish nothing.

BigV · Mar 11, 2020

RBPerry said:
What I find amusing is that most non-believers come up with blanket statements that are unsupported, instead of attempting to prove specific evidence is wrong.

So, you've moved on from false promises of Jesus, discussed on this very thread yesterday? It's as if that point hasn't been made.

drich0150 · Mar 11, 2020

BigV said:
Don't be so sure. It will be modified and revised before it will be abandoned. I think it depends on the initial commitment. In some cases, the belief will become even stronger.

When Prophecy Fails - Wikipedia

Festinger stated that five conditions must be present if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation:

bs.
I said when faith can not longer be defended it fails. name one world spanning religion that multiple people still believe but also is known by their practitioners, that their Gods are not real.

A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he or she behaves.
The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief.

Click to expand...

psyco babble.
dude it taking the example of someone who has experience and is unwavering because they know what they know to be true and assigning it to a person with strong faith. this is a false positive.

The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.

Click to expand...

again citation/real world example needed. he is conflating two different types of believers.

The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.

Click to expand...

now we are moving from a believer in God to a occult. dude is intentionally blurring lines that have and been true for 1000s of years.

BigV · Mar 11, 2020

drich0150 said:
bs.
I said when faith can not longer be defended it fails. name one world spanning religion that multiple people still believe but also is known by their practitioners, that their Gods are not real.

Remember a thread about Santa Claus a few months ago and how nobody could prove Santa Claus is not real? You can't prove a negative.

Also, people have different reactions to the falsities in their faith. Some Christians become non-Christians when they find out there are contradictions in the Bible. Other Christians change their religious view (i.e. become accepting of errors while retaining the core beliefs). And there are Christians such as John Shelby Spong that are pretty close to Atheists. Had John Shelby Spong registered here, I doubt he would abe allowed to access "Christians Only" forums.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia

And Christians tend to muddy the waters of what is true Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Baptists, etc.. would identify as Christians within their own groups, but they would be considered non-believers to the members of the outside Christian groups. So, the faith that can no longer be defended changes more often than it dies.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 11, 2020

BigV said:
Remember a thread about Santa Claus a few months ago and how nobody could prove Santa Claus is not real? You can't prove a negative.

I remember that thread very fondly. None of the Christians were able to prove that Santa wasn't real, no matter how hard they tried. Feelings got hurt, unfortunately, and the thread was shut down.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 11, 2020

RBPerry said:
It's obvious you haven't studied the available evidence, you are just regurgitating what you have heard from someone else. You need to be a Christian to understand the relationship, if I didn't have it, and hadn't experienced it, I would most likely be an atheist as well.
What I find amusing is that most non-believers come up with blanket statements that are unsupported, instead of attempting to prove specific evidence is wrong. What happens is these debates become circular non productive chatter. Find specific areas you believe are problematic and present a valid argument, or you accomplish nothing.

This isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You have a full-blown case of the black pot calling the silver teapot black.
It's obvious that it's you who hasn't studied the available evidence - if you can dignify McDowell and Strobel's writings with that word. If you had, you'd be able to summarise and explain it. Would you like me to do it for you?
I find it amusing the way you pivot from talking about evidence to saying that you have to be a Christian to understand.
As for "blanket assertions" - sorry, all I've seen here is questions that Christians can't answer here.

RBPerry · Mar 12, 2020

Ok, let's begin with a simple one, Christianity foundation is the empty tomb. Please don't come up with something like, "I don't believe the bible, or someone hid the body". Come up with verifiable evidence that Christ did not raise from the dead, so let's start off with the easy ones. Remember, the Jews and Romans attempted to find Christ body.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 12, 2020

RBPerry said:
Ok, let's begin with a simple one, Christianity foundation is the empty tomb. Please don't come up with something like, "I don't believe the bible, or someone hid the body". Come up with verifiable evidence that Christ did not raise from the dead, so let's start off with the easy ones. Remember, the Jews and Romans attempted to find Christ body.

Hang on a minute. "Don't come up with something like, "I don't believe the bible?" Whyever not?
Your evidence that there was an empty tomb is 100% from the Bible. So why should we trust it? Some Christians write a story in which a man comes back to life, and that's your evidence that a man actually came back to life?

RBPerry · Mar 12, 2020

This is funny, I told my wife exactly what you would say. The bible is also a book of history, study a little about Jewish culture and how important is was for the Jewish people to have reliable historical facts. What you fail to realize if the Jewish leadership at the time of Christ had an ounce of evidence that Christ had not risen, they would have printed volumes, disputing the resurrection, and they didn't, they only attempted to quite those who witnessed the empty tomb and had encounters with Christ after His resurrection. If they could have they would have displayed the body throughout the area for all to see, they didn't have a body.
Would you care to look at scientific evidence of intelligent design. Yes I used well known books that support the Christian faith, but you gave no evidence of the errors of their arguments. I would guess you most likely hadn't even read either of them, I can also suggest some others but I'm afraid they may be over your head, I don't mean that in a mean sense, I mean it in the simplest terms, if you can't understand easily understood information you would have difficulty with deeper studies.

BigV · Mar 12, 2020

RBPerry said:
Christianity foundation is the empty tomb.

Nope. Christianity's foundation is hallucinating Apostles (er.. sorry, Apostles who started receiving revelations while in a trance).

As for the resurrections, the New Testament is conflicting on the resurrection accounts. Even Christian Apologists (such as WLC, and probably Licona) admit that Matthew 27:52 is likely not a historical account.

And none of the Apologists, as far as I'm aware, are willing to touch John the Baptist's resurrection accounts.

Mark 6:14 And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.”

So, Jesus starts doing miracles and the people say... he is a risen John the Baptist! This is evidence that the 1st Cent Jews could believe in a resurrection even while none actually happened! So, you tell me HOW was it possible for a belief in risen John the Baptist to arise, and I'll tell you how Jesus' "resurrection" happened!

And, keep in mind, this belief persisted (allegedly) as noted by the Gospelers.

Luke 9:18 And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, “Who do the people say that I am?” 19 They answered and said, “John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again.”

Hm... apparently resurrections were a dime a dozen back then.

RBPerry · Mar 12, 2020

Read all of Mathew 27, not just one sentence, might give you a little better insight into what was really going on.
Just because the people didn't understand who Jesus was prior to his resurrection means little or nothing, they were speculating.
Sure Herod had heard of Jesus and the miracles he had been performing, he was listening to uninformed peoples opinions
Why don't you try reading Luke 9 and then come back and tell us what Peter said. Your attempt to distort what was written is very flawed to say the least.
There are alleged apologist that float around the academic circles that spew what they feel will keep them employed by whatever university they are employed by. One Methodist theologian is now spewing that the resurrection was a spiritual not physical, of course he has no evidence to support his beliefs.

I've had enough of you distortion of scripture and remarks so I'll be bowing out now.
Have a good day.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 12, 2020

RBPerry said:
This is funny, I told my wife exactly what you would say.

It's not that funny. You planned to say something wrong, and correctly predicted that your mistake would be pointed out.

RBPerry said:
The bible is also a book of history, study a little about Jewish culture and how important is was for the Jewish people to have reliable historical facts.

So because the Bible happened to reference some people, events and places that really existed, that means we can trust its word on everything?

RBPerry said:
What you fail to realize if the Jewish leadership at the time of Christ had an ounce of evidence that Christ had not risen, they would have printed volumes, disputing the resurrection, and they didn't, they only attempted to quite those who witnessed the empty tomb and had encounters with Christ after His resurrection.

RBPerry said:
If they could have they would have displayed the body throughout the area for all to see, they didn't have a body.

Oh yes? Would you like to prove that the story in the Bible actually happened? Simplest explanation: over the seven decades between Jesus' preaching career and the Bible being written down, the story was simply made up.

RBPerry said:
Would you care to look at scientific evidence of intelligent design.

The Dover trial already did. They found that there wasn't any. ID is now ancient history.

RBPerry said:
Yes I used well known books that support the Christian faith, but you gave no evidence of the errors of their arguments.

You said "hey, look at these books! I bet no atheist has ever bothered to read them!" and then I showed you that atheists have read them most thoroughly, and debunked them as well. If you want to address any specific claim, I'd be happy to correct you, but I'm not going to do your reading for you.

RBPerry said:
I would guess you most likely hadn't even read either of them, I can also suggest some others but I'm afraid they may be over your head, I don't mean that in a mean sense, I mean it in the simplest terms, if you can't understand easily understood information you would have difficulty with deeper studies.

Read, them, been bored by them and seen through them. Strobel and McDowell are easy to debunk, and it speaks poorly of you that you're impressed by them.
But if you're not going to read the articles I posted explaining their errors, why should I bother explaining them to you?

BigV · Mar 13, 2020

RBPerry said:
Why don't you try reading Luke 9 and then come back and tell us what Peter said. Your attempt to distort what was written is very flawed to say the least.

I didn’t attempt to distort anything. You may have missed my point, which was that the people of Jesus’s day believed that he was a risen John the Baptist or one of the prophets of old risen. Peter’s understanding is not the point. Peter just conveys the people’s views.

The point stands! Namely that the people started to believe in John’s resurrection even when it didn’t actually happen.

RBPerry said:
Sure Herod had heard of Jesus and the miracles he had been performing, he was listening to uninformed peoples opinions

But where did these people get their bad opinions from? And how sure are you that Christian’s opinions were better informed? Remember how many times Jesus has to explain things to his own disciples?

BigV · Mar 13, 2020

RBPerry said:
Read all of Mathew 27, not just one sentence, might give you a little better insight into what was really going on.

Here is WLC admitting Matthew 27 can be legendary, if you skip to the 4:32 mark.

2PhiloVoid · Mar 13, 2020

BigV said:
I didn’t attempt to distort anything. You may have missed my point, which was that the people of Jesus’s day believed that he was a risen John the Baptist or one of the prophets of old risen. Peter’s understanding is not the point. Peter just conveys the people’s views.

The point stands! Namely that the people started to believe in John’s resurrection even when it didn’t actually happen.

But where did these people get their bad opinions from? And how sure are you that Christian’s opinions were better informed? Remember how many times Jesus has to explain things to his own disciples?

So, what books on hermeneutics have you studied to arrive at the interpretive conclusions that you currently have?

Atheists debates - is it worth it?

Christian Baby Boomer

Veteran

Christian Baby Boomer

Veteran

Junior Member

Christian Baby Boomer

Junior Member

Regular Member

Junior Member

Veteran

Veteran

Christian Baby Boomer

Veteran

Christian Baby Boomer

Junior Member

Christian Baby Boomer

Veteran

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads