Atheism (3)

[Dave Ellis]

so if a manuscript is found a thousand years later it's fake, unless it has other supporting evidence that you personally like and fits your world view? Sounds like we are not applying even your basic rules fairly. Try again.

That's also not what I said.

I said if the Manuscript talks about something we are already aware happened, we have reason to believe the newly discovered manuscript has some historical value.

If the manuscript backs up what's written in other manuscripts, or there's some physical evidence to go along with what's in the manuscript, that's further reason to assume it's relatively accurate.

If the manuscript talks about a historical event we were not aware of previously.... then it really depends what kind of claim the manuscript is making. If it doesn't speak of anything all that incredible, then it may or may not be accurate... We really have no way of knowing. However if it talks about things we know are impossible (i.e. men walking on water, dragons attacking the town, etc), we are justified in assuming it's not historically accurate until further evidence shows otherwise.

 

[Dave Ellis]

it's still circular reasoning.

You ask for history of a miracle, then reject the history that contains the miracle on the basis it has a miracle.

I can't believe you don't see it. Your not following your rules!

No... that is not what I am doing. I am requiring further evidence to accept an unbelievable story.

As Hitchens said, Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence... That's the rule I am following here.

I am saying we are justified in rejecting things we know are impossible, until we have evidence that shows otherwise.

 

[createdtoworship]

No... that is not what I am doing. I am requiring further evidence to accept an unbelievable story.

As Hitchens said, Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence... That's the rule I am following here.

I am saying we are justified in rejecting things we know are impossible, until we have evidence that shows otherwise.

okay let me illustrate:

you ask for proof that Jesus rose from the dead miraculously, I offer the gospels then you say the Bible is not historic because it contains miracles.

thats not circular reasoning to you?

 

[Dave Ellis]

okay let me illustrate:

you ask for proof that Jesus rose from the dead miraculously, I offer the gospels then you say the Bible is not historic because it contains miracles.

thats not circular reasoning to you?

I say the Gospels are not historically accurate because they are the assertion of the Jesus story.... Not the evidence.

The evidence is what would confirm the Gospel stories as true.

We know they were written 65-90 years after the fact, eliminating the idea that they were written by eyewitnesses. Furthermore, we have no idea who actually wrote the Gospels. Likewise, there is no mutually supporting evidence for them, or any miracle claim. There's no Roman records of Jesus, his miracles, his execution, the zombie invasion, etc.

On top of that, there are many areas in the Gospels that directly contradict what we do know about that area of the world in that time period. This shows them to be very unreliable.

On top of that, assuming Jesus was a real figure.... it's simply not realistic to assume nobody wrote anything down about him during his lifetime. If he was identified as the Messiah at birth (which the story says he was), it's silly to think that the Jewish authorities at the time wouldn't have documented everything about him from birth to death. Instead they had no interest at all.

We simply have no reason to accept the Gospels as any more truthful than any other holy book.

 

[createdtoworship]

We know they were written 65-90 years after the fact, eliminating the idea that they were written by eyewitnesses.

but many histories have manuscripts that were dated 500 years to 1600 years after the fact. So you are willing too to throw those out? Or are your rules only for the miraculous?

 

[Dave Ellis]

but many histories have manuscripts that were dated 500 years to 1600 years after the fact. So you are willing too to throw those out? Or are your rules only for the miraculous?

If we had a document recorded 500-1600 years after the fact, with no previous recordings of the said event and no evidence, no, we wouldn't consider that accurate.

And I've said, things that we know are impossible must undergo a stronger test than a mundane, common occurrence.

It's not unbelievable that Nero was crowned emperor in 54AD because:

A) We have multiple sources of documentation from reliable sources
B) The crowning of an emperor is not an extraordinary occurrence, it happens quite often in history.

As for the Biblical stories, we have no extra-biblical sources that confirm anything supernatural that happened in the Bible. Likewise, we know the Gospels contradict some things we do know about history, which points to them being unreliable.

Some of the claims made in the book are things we know to be impossible. So, we would not be justified in accepting things we know are impossible without very good reason. We don't have any such reason to do that,

 

[createdtoworship]

If we had a document recorded 500-1600 years after the fact, with no previous recordings of the said event and no evidence, no, we wouldn't consider that accurate.

Lets address one thing at a time, right now we are suggesting that if it's 500 years or more, then it's not historical. Well we have lets see....

Herodotus histories: 480-425b.c. is the date written, and the first copy we have in existence is dated A.D. 900 which makes it not history according to you because of the 1,350 year gap.

secondly we have,

plato written 400 B.C. and the first copy we have is dated A.D. 900 which makes it 1,300 year gap between the first copy and the copy we actually possess.

so now you are willing to throw out plato and herodotus simply because the copies that we possess are dated at 1000 years or more after the fact?

Silly.

There is a lot more where that came from too.



above figures from Josh McDowells evidence that demands a verdict.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No... that is not what I am doing. I am requiring further evidence to accept an unbelievable story.

As Hitchens said, Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence... That's the rule I am following here.

I am saying we are justified in rejecting things we know are impossible, until we have evidence that shows otherwise.

[aside]
Carl Sagan said that. Carl Sagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I usually think of Hitchens as saying is, "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
[/aside]

 

[trientje]

Did you read the page you linked me? It says Nazareth was not written about in Jewish texts until the 3rd century.

Nazareth was never spoken of in the Old Testament, Talmud, Apocrypha or anywhere else.

It was not included in the list of towns and settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (In Joshua 19:10-16). Likewise, In 60AD, Josephus wrote down all 45 towns and cities in Galilee, Nazareth was not mentioned.

Likewise Nazareth is not mentioned in any of the earliest New Testament books. The earliest New Testament books mention Jesus over 200 times, but doesn't mention Nazareth once. The city is only talked about in the Gospels and Acts, which were written in the very late 1st century, and early second century.

Here's a bit that James Randi did on Nazareth: James Randi Speaks: Questioning the Bible - YouTube

I know I have said goodbye to you because of your nonsensical circular arguments but I have been reading the posts here. I have to respond to your nonsense. First of all lets, for right now, lets talk about reason. Did the gospel writers invent the existence of a town in upper Galilee and then, later, by coincidence, a town with the exact same name did in fact come into existence, in the approximate place that the Gospel writers had invented its existence? That would truly be quite a coincidence. You, having once been a Christian must have been taught the scriptures. You have been taught the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. You have read about Jesus of Nazareth. So these people were liars? Have you studied the 12 tribes and looked at the maps of the twelve tribes? Have you been to Israel? Have you read anything other than claims the atheists have made on this subject? the day you told God he doesn't exist did your information about God and the bible just turn to what the atheists have written? Now before you respond with "why are you attacking me" and "you are not showing Christian love" Let me tell you this, there comes a time when enough is enough and it is time to call you out on some things.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I know I have said goodbye to you because of your nonsensical circular arguments but I have been reading the posts here. I have to respond to your nonsense. First of all lets, for right now, lets talk about reason. Did the gospel writers invent the existence of a town in upper Galilee and then, later, by coincidence, a town with the exact same name did in fact come into existence, in the approximate place that the Gospel writers had invented its existence? That would truly be quite a coincidence.

If you had any knowledge regarding Biblical history, you would be aware that "Jesus of Nazareth" is a mistranslation of the Greek "Jesous o Nazoraios", which means "Jesus the Nazarene"

The Nazarene translates into English as "The One of the Truth", and does not refer to any place name whatsoever.

When the original New Testament manuscripts were written, Nazareth did not exist. There's no archaeological evidence that shows a 1st century settlement there. When it was translated long after, they mistranslated Jesus the Nazarene into Jesus of Nazareth. At this point in history, Nazareth had been founded.

You, having once been a Christian must have been taught the scriptures. You have been taught the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. You have read about Jesus of Nazareth. So these people were liars?

Yeah, pretty much. The same way that Muhammad, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard were liars too. None of them had any problems building religions with millions of followers either.

Have you studied the 12 tribes and looked at the maps of the twelve tribes? Have you been to Israel?

I have studied the 12 tribes, however I have not been to Israel

Have you read anything other than claims the atheists have made on this subject?

Absolutely, I've read both sides of the argument. The side which says Nazareth didn't exist in the early 1st century is backed up by both archaeological evidence, and the fact it was not mentioned by any historian (when talking about towns and cities in the area) at any point until long after the time period that matters.

the day you told God he doesn't exist did your information about God and the bible just turn to what the atheists have written?

I didn't ever tell God he didn't exist.... You can't tell something you don't believe exists that he doesn't exist. Did you one day tell Santa Claus that he didn't exist, or did you merely stop believing?

I still read up on not only the Christian, and Atheistic side of the argument, I'm taking a lot of time to learn about the views of many other religions as well.

Now before you respond with "why are you attacking me" and "you are not showing Christian love" Let me tell you this, there comes a time when enough is enough and it is time to call you out on some things.

I was never going to make that claim... unlike most Christians I can take criticism of my beliefs, because I have evidence to back them.

Feel free to keep firing away!

 

[Dave Ellis]

[aside]
Carl Sagan said that. Carl Sagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I usually think of Hitchens as saying is, "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
[/aside]

My apologies, you are absolutely correct! Thanks for pointing out my error, it was indeed Sagan who made that quote.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Lets address one thing at a time, right now we are suggesting that if it's 500 years or more, then it's not historical. Well we have lets see....

Herodotus histories: 480-425b.c. is the date written, and the first copy we have in existence is dated A.D. 900 which makes it not history according to you because of the 1,350 year gap.

secondly we have,

plato written 400 B.C. and the first copy we have is dated A.D. 900 which makes it 1,300 year gap between the first copy and the copy we actually possess.

so now you are willing to throw out plato and herodotus simply because the copies that we possess are dated at 1000 years or more after the fact?

Silly.

There is a lot more where that came from too.



above figures from Josh McDowells evidence that demands a verdict.

What Josh McDowell is missing is that indeed, we do not have proof that any of the major Ancient Greek Philosophers actually existed as we know them. We have attributed their works to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. because that's the best evidence we have. There is no way to prove it, and we really can't say for sure.

However, the important factor to consider is that it does not matter if a man named Socrates wrote that philosophy, or a man named Bart wrote it. The work stands on it's own merit, and the name of the Author isn't all that important to the subject matter. It may have been Socrates, it might not have been... does it really matter? The work is still valid either way.


As for the Gospels, the authorship is a very important factor. They're supposed to be first hand accounts of the messiah giving detailed information about him. If we learn that the documents were written long after the events, by people who couldn't have possibly been there to see what was going on, then we can correctly label them as not reliable, and certainly not evidence for anything.

 

[createdtoworship]

What Josh McDowell is missing is that indeed, we do not have proof that any of the major Ancient Greek Philosophers actually existed as we know them. We have attributed their works to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. because that's the best evidence we have. There is no way to prove it, and we really can't say for sure.

However, the important factor to consider is that it does not matter if a man named Socrates wrote that philosophy, or a man named Bart wrote it. The work stands on it's own merit, and the name of the Author isn't all that important to the subject matter. It may have been Socrates, it might not have been... does it really matter? The work is still valid either way.


As for the Gospels, the authorship is a very important factor. They're supposed to be first hand accounts of the messiah giving detailed information about him. If we learn that the documents were written long after the events, by people who couldn't have possibly been there to see what was going on, then we can correctly label them as not reliable, and certainly not evidence for anything.

as long as you realize that plato is not a valid source of history:

plato written 400 B.C. and the first copy we have is dated A.D. 900 which makes it 1,300 year gap between the first copy and the copy we actually possess.

according to you we must throw all his works out because He was not an eye witness.

 

[Dave Ellis]

as long as you realize that plato is not a valid source of history:

plato written 400 B.C. and the first copy we have is dated A.D. 900 which makes it 1,300 year gap between the first copy and the copy we actually possess.

according to you we must throw all his works out because He was not an eye witness.

If we had no other information that backed up what Plato had to say, then his writings would be less reliable. However, that is not the case.

On top of that, what Plato had to say didn't conflict with what we know about reality.

 

[createdtoworship]

If we had no other information that backed up what Plato had to say, then his writings would be less reliable. However, that is not the case.

On top of that, what Plato had to say didn't conflict with what we know about reality.

Just because plato wasn't a "believer in miracles" doesn't assume everything He said was right.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Just because plato wasn't a "believer in miracles" doesn't assume everything He said was right.

You are correct, Just because he wasn't a believer in miracles has nothing to do with the accuracy of his work. However, making believable claims that's consistent with other sources and evidence makes his works generally reliable.

Trying to compare the biblical accounts with other generally reliable historical sources is simply ridiculous if you understood history.

There's absolutely no question we can't be 100% certain what we think happened in history actually happened. We can only go off of what we have multiple sources for, or what we have evidence for.

Your holy book has neither of those, and makes ridiculous claims that anybody who looks at it with an unbiased view would dismiss out of hand. The Bible is simply not a historically reliable book, much less a divine word of God.

 

[createdtoworship]

You are correct, Just because he wasn't a believer in miracles has nothing to do with the accuracy of his work. However, making believable claims that's consistent with other sources and evidence makes his works generally reliable.

Trying to compare the biblical accounts with other generally reliable historical sources is simply ridiculous if you understood history.

There's absolutely no question we can't be 100% certain what we think happened in history actually happened. We can only go off of what we have multiple sources for, or what we have evidence for.

Your holy book has neither of those, and makes ridiculous claims that anybody who looks at it with an unbiased view would dismiss out of hand. The Bible is simply not a historically reliable book, much less a divine word of God.

so then if I understand you correctly, it really is not a matter of time between the existence and the writing of the first available copy, it's if they are historic or not. So that argument has been debunked. Thats good enough for me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

so then if I understand you correctly, it really is not a matter of time between the existence and the writing of the first available copy, it's if they are historic or not. So that argument has been debunked. Thats good enough for me.

Wow....

How about you try addressing something I actually wrote, rather than making up a bunch of crap and trying to claim that's what I said?

Because I never made the argument which you are talking about here.... Nice straw-man though, I'm sure it has a future in a Wizard of Oz production somewhere.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow....

How about you try addressing something I actually wrote, rather than making up a bunch of crap and trying to claim that's what I said?

Because I never made the argument which you are talking about here.... Nice straw-man though, I'm sure it has a future in a Wizard of Oz production somewhere.

what did you say then? Didn't you state that the dating of the manuscripts is superceded by if the manuscript is historical or not?

 

[Dave Ellis]

what did you say then? Didn't you state that the dating of the manuscripts is superceded by if the manuscript is historical or not?

No, I said a document is considered reliably historical if confirmed by other accounts of an event, or some other form of evidence. The writings of Plato are backed by a number of other Greek historians.

However, if the original documents are not contemporary, it's simply not historic. Something written down for the first time 60-80 years after the fact can not be called reliable. That just basic common sense.