Atheism (3)

[TScott]

It sounded to me like you think that if the scholars come to a consensus on the issue (for instance, concluding a historical Jesus), I am obligated to conclude the same. I may have misunderstood you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yeah. You're not obligated to believe anything.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Seeing we Christians are not, in your opinion, doing a satisfactory job trying to explain that Jesus did live, that he was and is our Messiah, and that the gospels are true then I need for you to tell me and prove to me that there wasn't a Jesus, that the gospels are fairy tales, prove it to me.

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

I'm not asserting that Jesus definitely didn't exist. All I've said is that there's no contemporary evidence, so I have no reason to assume he existed.

I'm completely open to the idea that there was a first century preacher that the stories are based on. But I certainly don't think the miracle claims or stories of his divinity are true.

I compare it to Robin Hood. He may have been based on a real person as well, but we really don't know. However, the stories attributed to him are certainly inflated and mythical as well.

But I would like you to use the bible to prove it. Surely you can find enough discrepencies and false and erroneous stuff in the bible to prove it is just not a book that stands on its own merits.

The bible is not a historically reliable document, Biblical Scholars agree that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. They were likely stories passed around by word of mouth for a few decades before people started to write them down. The problem is, that makes them extremely prone to exaggeration and distortion (like a decades long game of telephone).

There's no way to show that anything in the Gospels actually happened. We don't even know if they were based on a real person.

The discussions we all have been having are proving to go nowhere. If we, all of us, just use one book. If you atheists are truly here to learn and discuss scripture and not here just to put down everything a Christian says then you should be up to the challenge.

Right, however you need to show your book is valid first. You can't disprove Alice in Wonderland using Alice in Wonderland, but we can write it off based on what we know about the real world.

If you can show compelling evidence that the Bible is actually a valid manuscript, we can use it. Until you can do that, we have no reason to take it seriously.

 

[trientje]

That's encouraging news! Hopefully the trend will continue.

By the way, I don't have a desire to see a "godless" nation. I have a desire for religious freedom, and continuing to allow anyone to believe in whatever religion, or God they want to.

I hope they abandon their religious beliefs through research and rational thought. I do not support the government pushing any kind of religious, or anti-religious agenda. The government should stay religiously neutral, and completely out of the religious matters.

I knew you would like that article. Just be glad you don't have faith in God. Im glad I'm a believer but God has some stern words to say to us believers.For in 2 Cor 4:4 it says The God who rules this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, they cannot see the light and in Rev 21:8 it says but I will tell you what will happen to cowards and to everyone who is unfaithful or dirty-minded or who murders or is sexually immoral or uses witchcraft or worships idols or tells lies. They will be thrown into the lake of fire and burning sulphur. Knowing that we are all sinners I relish that fact that I'm saved but know my heart has to be right for my God holds us believers to high standards. But it also says Rev 1:7 every eye will see him and Phil 2:10 every knee shall bow. So as a believer I have much to look forward to.

I agree with you about religious freedom that is why it is so awful that the gov tried to take liberties away from the Catholic church. The first amendment is supposed to have a wall of separation between the church and state. And it is equally abhorrent that certain organizations are suing Christians to take crosses down and such. Yes, government should stay neutral and people who believe differently should leave others alone and respect their right to worship as they want.

 

[trientje]

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

I'm not asserting that Jesus definitely didn't exist. All I've said is that there's no contemporary evidence, so I have no reason to assume he existed.
Yep, I'm shifting the burden but not entirely. We could all do it together . If you study the bible as a piece of literature, examine the contradictions, then you give that piece of literature a fair trial. By examining it then even a lay person can ascertain whether it is full of contradictions. Go to the "thinking atheist" there are lists of contradictions of the bible and atrocities of the bible. Choose whichever parts you want and we can do research on it. that would show the validity of the book as far as the consistency.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I knew you would like that article. Just be glad you don't have faith in God. Im glad I'm a believer but God has some stern words to say to us believers.For in 2 Cor 4:4 it says The God who rules this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, they cannot see the light and in Rev 21:8 it says but I will tell you what will happen to cowards and to everyone who is unfaithful or dirty-minded or who murders or is sexually immoral or uses witchcraft or worships idols or tells lies. They will be thrown into the lake of fire and burning sulphur. Knowing that we are all sinners I relish that fact that I'm saved but know my heart has to be right for my God holds us believers to high standards. But it also says Rev 1:7 every eye will see him and Phil 2:10 every knee shall bow. So as a believer I have much to look forward to.

And why should I care at all about any of that? As far as I'm concerned, it's a book of fiction written almost two millenia ago. If you actually think you're proving a point, you're not. You may as well be quoting The Koran, or Captain Kirk.

I agree with you about religious freedom that is why it is so awful that the gov tried to take liberties away from the Catholic church. The first amendment is supposed to have a wall of separation between the church and state. And it is equally abhorrent that certain organizations are suing Christians to take crosses down and such. Yes, government should stay neutral and people who believe differently should leave others alone and respect their right to worship as they want.

Which liberties did they try to take away from the Catholic Church? (I don't think I'm familiar with this particular story).

Likewise, as far as lawsuits to take down crosses and whatnot, it depends where it is. If the crosses are present in a public space, or government funded institution (i.e. Schools, Courthouses), the crosses should come down.

If it's on private land, or in a private business, they have every right to display crosses, or whatever other religious symbolism they want to.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

I'm not asserting that Jesus definitely didn't exist. All I've said is that there's no contemporary evidence, so I have no reason to assume he existed.

Yep, I'm shifting the burden but not entirely. We could all do it together . If you study the bible as a piece of literature, examine the contradictions, then you give that piece of literature a fair trial. By examining it then even a lay person can ascertain whether it is full of contradictions. Go to the "thinking atheist" there are lists of contradictions of the bible and atrocities of the bible. Choose whichever parts you want and we can do research on it. that would show the validity of the book as far as the consistency.

I've already read the bible, and many sites detailing biblical contradictions. Personally, I don't feel they are particularly strong arguments which is why I'm not going to argue down that line.

Don't get me wrong, there's all kinds of contradictions in the bible, and gospels.... However, many of them can be written off as differing opinions of the authors, rather than disproving something as far as the Gospels are concerned.

Contradictions are more compelling in other sections of the Bible, when they try to detail what God wants, and what is apparently God's divine message. You'd figure those wouldn't contradict themselves at all. But the Gospels are purported to be eyewitness accounts, so I could expect there to be some inconsistency.

The validity of the texts themselves is far more important.... and either way, until we can establish that the texts are valid, arguing their internal consistency is pointless.

 

[trientje]

I seriously doubt that this will happen, even with the rising number of young people without religious affiliation.



It isn't foretold when that will happen, so even if one accepts Biblical prophesy, the numbers could just as easily go to near 100% Christian for thousands of years.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your right, we don't know when. 100% Christian minus what or who? I'm not worried about it either way. I have a free ticket.

 

[Elioenai26]

Mr. Ellis, if God existed, do you think He would be able to reveal Himself to us?

When I say reveal, I mean disclose Himself and make Himself known in any way?

Do you think if God existed that He would be able to do this?

 

[TScott]

Yes, however if the Jesus story is true, that means he was identified at birth as the messiah by the three wise men.

Don't you think that if he was identified as the messiah, that the Jewish authorities would have a number of people chronicling everything he said, and everything about him? If he was genuinely carrying out miracles as well, it's also very likely the Roman records would indicate this as well.

In this case, the absence of evidence, is evidence for absence. It's absurd to think nobody would write anything down at all during the lifetime of the messiah. The total lack of any contemporary writings sheds severe doubt on the reliability of the story.

Let me ask you.

Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed?

Do you believe he was born of a virgin mother?

How about Davey Crockett? Did he exist? Did he kill a timber bear when he was only 3 years old?

How about Bill Clinton? Did he exist? Do you believe he didn't inhale?

The mythology surrounding people is not proof of their non-existence. It's only proof that they have become surrounded by mythology.

It's very difficult sometimes to seperate fact from fiction regarding figures that lived thousands of years ago.

It's possible that the Jesus figure was completely made of whole cloth, but it doesn't seem logical nor likely. It seems that there must have been someone who these people were following before people started writing about it, and as I said before, the parables, the story lessons that people memorized creating this oral tradition of sayings that we find in writings by different authors of different backgrounds living in different regions that are similar is good evidence that someone existed to spark this movement.

Maybe there was confusion on the name. Maybe they are confusing different people, this is a possibility. In the oldest manuscripts of Matthew Barabbas is called by his full name: Jesus Barabbas. The name Barabbas translated from Aramic is Son of the Father, or Son of God, Abba being a sort of endearing nickname for God in Aramic. Talk about confusion, imagine the people in the Crucifixion story in Matthew when Pilate gives them the choice between Jesus, King of the Jews, or Jesus, Son of God!

But anyway, the story doesn't have to be true, word for word, for there to be an Historical Jesus, but for the followers to accept this, the aspects of Jesus in their oral tradition had to be included in the written version. This concept is not unprecidented in religious writings, that is why the mythological parts of Genesis are so similar to earlier Babylonian and Sumerian myths: they needed to be accepted by the potential followers. The myths that were passed down through the ages had to be included.

 

[trientje]

I've already read the bible, and many sites detailing biblical contradictions. Personally, I don't feel they are particularly strong arguments which is why I'm not going to argue down that line.

Don't get me wrong, there's all kinds of contradictions in the bible, and gospels.... However, many of them can be written off as differing opinions of the authors, rather than disproving something as far as the Gospels are concerned.

Contradictions are more compelling in other sections of the Bible, when they try to detail what God wants, and what is apparently God's divine message. You'd figure those wouldn't contradict themselves at all. But the Gospels are purported to be eyewitness accounts, so I could expect there to be some inconsistency.

The validity of the texts themselves is far more important.... and either way, until we can establish that the texts are valid, arguing their internal consistency is pointless.

How do you ascertain the validity of a piece of literature? You examine it and how do you do that? by examining the internal consistency which tells much about the validity. You prefer to hold to the same rhetoric and mindset? For your rhetoric is not all that valid or interesting anymore.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Mr. Ellis, if God existed, do you think He would be able to reveal Himself to us?

When I say reveal, I mean disclose Himself and make Himself known in any way?

Do you think if God existed that He would be able to do this?

Going by the standard definition of God.... He'd absolutely be able to do that. By definition, he's capable of doing anything.

He should be able to appear directly in front of everyone at the same time, and do something that proves he is God.

 

[Danyc]

How do you ascertain the validity of a piece of literature? You examine it and how do you do that? by examining the internal consistency which tells much about the validity. You prefer to hold to the same rhetoric and mindset? For your rhetoric is not all that valid or interesting anymore.

Anyone could write an entire book, nay, volumes worth of original material that was 100% internally consistent. It means nothing unless the work as a whole is given validity.

 

[trientje]

Anyone could write an entire book, nay, volumes worth of original material that was 100% internally consistent. It means nothing unless the work as a whole is given validity.

no, I don't agree. Why don't you just be honest and say you don't want to?

 

[Danyc]

no, I don't agree. Why don't you just be honest and say you don't want to?

You don't agree with what? And I don't want to what?

 

[Elioenai26]

Going by the standard definition of God.... He'd absolutely be able to do that. By definition, he's capable of doing anything.

I need to correct you on one thing. God, by definition is NOT capable of doing "anything".

Omnipotence is the ability to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible. Here the specific qualifier is: "logically possible."

So God cannot create a round square, or a stone too heavy for Him to lift. etc. etc.

He should be able to appear directly in front of everyone at the same time, and do something that proves he is God.

This is true, God has the ability to appear directly in front of everyone at the same time. He also has the ability to do signs and wonders, so on this we agree.

Now, we have established that God could reveal Himself to us through signs and wonders. We have also established that He can reveal Himself in whatever ways are logically possible and not contradictory to His nature. Would you agree?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Let me ask you.

Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed?

Yes

Do you believe he was born of a virgin mother?

No

How about Davey Crockett? Did he exist?

Yes

Did he kill a timber bear when he was only 3 years old?

No

How about Bill Clinton? Did he exist?

Yes

Do you believe he didn't inhale?

Probably not.

The mythology surrounding people is not proof of their non-existence. It's only proof that they have become surrounded by mythology.

Right, and that's what I've said all along. I said I'm not against the idea that there was a first century preacher named Jesus.... but I don't accept any of the divinity or miracle claims about him if he did exist. However, in his case, we can't even prove he existed at all.

It's very difficult sometimes to separate fact from fiction regarding figures that lived thousands of years ago.

Depends on the fiction. If it's something believable attributed to someone, it can be difficult. If it's a claim they turned water into wine, that's pretty easy to write off.

It's possible that the Jesus figure was completely made of whole cloth, but it doesn't seem logical nor likely. It seems that there must have been someone who these people were following before people started writing about it, and as I said before, the parables, the story lessons that people memorized creating this oral tradition of sayings that we find in writings by different authors of different backgrounds living in different regions that are similar is good evidence that someone existed to spark this movement.

Given the total lack of evidence, we can't say what's logical or likely at all. There's a lot of stories about Robin Hood, and we have no idea if he was based on a real person or not

As I said, I have no idea if the myths are based on a real man. I was only pointing out we have no contemporary evidence that shows he existed. That doesn't mean he didn't, we just can't positively assert that he did.

Maybe there was confusion on the name. Maybe they are confusing different people, this is a possibility. In the oldest manuscripts of Matthew Barabbas is called by his full name: Jesus Barabbas. The name Barabbas translated from Aramic is Son of the Father, or Son of God, Abba being a sort of endearing nickname for God in Aramic. Talk about confusion, imagine the people in the Crucifixion story in Matthew when Pilate gives them the choice between Jesus, King of the Jews, or Jesus, Son of God!

I've read similar articles... If memory serves me right, the Roman records show at one point they had up to 15 guys detained claiming they were the messiah, and some even had some combination of the names Jesus or Barabbas. It's been a while since I read that piece though... so my memory could be sketchy on that one.

But anyway, the story doesn't have to be true, word for word, for there to be an Historical Jesus, but for the followers to accept this, the aspects of Jesus in their oral tradition had to be included in the written version. This concept is not unprecidented in religious writings, that is why the mythological parts of Genesis are so similar to earlier Babylonian and Sumerian myths: they needed to be accepted by the potential followers. The myths that were passed down through the ages had to be included.

Absolutely, I fully agree with you. There's plenty of evidence to show this happened as well. My only point was that there is no actual contemporary evidence that shows that the Jesus as described in the Bible existed. He may have been based on a real guy, or he may not have been.... that point isn't really relevant though. If it's shown Jesus was actually just a simple preacher without any divine qualities, then the foundations of Christianity crumble. He would not have been the son of God, or a saviour... he would have merely been a preacher and philosopher.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How do you ascertain the validity of a piece of literature? You examine it and how do you do that? by examining the internal consistency which tells much about the validity. You prefer to hold to the same rhetoric and mindset? For your rhetoric is not all that valid or interesting anymore.

Right, but the problem with the Gospels is, they are written down versions of stories that were passed along by word of mouth for decades previously. They are not eyewitness accounts, or anything approaching an eyewitness account.

Alice in Wonderland is perfectly consistent internally, but that doesn't make it true.

Witness statements in a car crash often have differing views and some consistency problems.

False things can be internally consistent, and descriptions of true events can have some errors. That's why I don't argue the Gospels from an internal consistency/contradiction view. It's clear there are some contradictions, but that doesn't really disprove anything. Likewise, even if they were perfectly consistent, that doesn't make it any more real than Alice in Wonderland.

What matters is did these things actually happen. We have no evidence that shows they did.

 

[Dave Ellis]

no, I don't agree. Why don't you just be honest and say you don't want to?

The Lord of the Rings is perfectly internally consistent. As are most fairy tales, and many fictional novels.

We have countless examples of internally consistent, but fictional stories. You may not agree, but that's just simple reality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I need to correct you on one thing. God, by definition is NOT capable of doing "anything".

Omnipotence is the ability to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible. Here the specific qualifier is: "logically possible."

So God cannot create a round square, or a stone too heavy for Him to lift. etc. etc.

According to some Christians, yes. According to others, no.

Either way, it's irrelevant. It's not logically impossible that God can't materialize in front of us.

This is true, God has the ability to appear directly in front of everyone at the same time. He also has the ability to do signs and wonders, so on this we agree.

As you have defined him, yes, we can agree on that.

Now, we have established that God could reveal Himself to us through signs and wonders. We have also established that He can reveal Himself in whatever ways are logically possible and not contradictory to His nature. Would you agree?

Sure, however signs and wonders don't necessarily confirm God did them. We'd need some evidence to confirm that God actually did those things in order for us to believe it.

 

[Elioenai26]

According to some Christians, yes. According to others, no.

Either way, it's irrelevant. It's not logically impossible that God can't materialize in front of us.




As you have defined him, yes, we can agree on that.



Sure, however signs and wonders don't necessarily confirm God did them. We'd need some evidence to confirm that God actually did those things in order for us to believe it.

Alright, moving along smoothly...

So we see that God can reveal Himself to us if He so desired, good.

Now, this revealing of Himself could be said to be Him "communicating" to us, would you agree?