Atheists, can Christianity be debunked fully?

[ananda]

Well, that evidence never brought me to belief. Since I believed at a young age, I didn't come across any of these resources until later in my life.

I know about them because they exist, but I never said any of these brought me to faith, because it did not.

I also believed at a young age, brought up in the Christian faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When I mentioned "reading between the lines" the inspiration came from another book by a different scholar "From Gods to God" ( From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends by Avigdor Shinan ). Here is somebody's summary of the book. So by reading between the lines I mean digging through the layers of changes to find the earliest forms of the text. The author compared this to an archaeologist digging layers of an ancient city. At least for me, the earliest form of these texts is important. That is what I mean by reading between the lines.

I agree that "reading between the lines" includes taking into account various aspects of the Textual Criticism of the Bible and other religiously inclined literature. It also includes taking into account the cultural thought forms that are inherent within the writings, as well as the Historical Development of both Jewish and Christian religious doctrines and traditions. Of course, I'm sure it would be interesting for me to read Shinan's book as a part of all of this, and to do to it what I do to every other book I read--critically examine and evaluate its proposals of fact and theory, maybe even deconstructing it in the process.

With that said, I like to remind myself that "reading between the lines" in an objective manner doesn't mean reading just one critical book which we think is 'key' at the expense of considering all the other positions and viewpoints too; it means applying the Hermeneutical Circle in an ongoing way.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You never mentioned evolution in your post or any specific thing that you were referring to as proven, so maybe you thought your post was more complete or included thoughts it did not.

I mentioned that Christians disavow reality, and I'm correct. I figured it was common knowledge - and it should be - and so I didn't feel the need to justify it.

Also, I don't think that evolution denounces a creator, if anything I think evolution proves that a Creator intended for life to strive to survive even among changing conditions on earth.

Unabashed ad hoc reasoning.

What is interesting is the use of the word 'evolution' because it is used to represent a wide and vast area of beliefs, which I think causes confusion because people are not specific as to the scope and context in which they are using the word.

I think that Darwin's theory of evolution is obviously the thing that Christians deny.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mentioned that Christians disavow reality, and I'm correct. I figured it was common knowledge - and it should be - and so I didn't feel the need to justify it.

Unabashed ad hoc reasoning.

I think that Darwin's theory of evolution is obviously the thing that Christians deny.

I don't. BioLogos anyone? No?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Each person will have different standards for a debunking.

I never expected you to speak for anyone else.

Sometimes I ask myself if I might be overlooking some way of understanding Jesus and Christianity that would make them more plausible. So I think "what are the minimal facts for some type of Christianity to be real?" and "can I find some problem with believing this facts?"

It's a matter of whether or not you're convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, or if you find this to even be plausible.

See I do have some evidence that Christianity is true. I explain that evidence as psychosis, because I don't see any way for Christianity to be true. Therefore my evidence must be illusion. The only way I can believe my evidence is to imagine a generic chameleon God who likes to play sock puppets with our human deities.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[cloudyday2]

@2PhiloVoid , one more thing I wanted to mention. When I read the gospels or other information on Christianity, I am searching for the teachings of the historical Jesus, but that is only one layer of the "archaeological dig" of the text (call it "Christianity level 0"). A historian is interested in every layer of the dig - "Christianity level 3", "Christianity level 7A", etc. The edits made at various levels give insights into the religious politics at different time periods and so on.

But for me, I mostly only care about "Christianity level 0". I want to know what Jesus believed, so I can evaluate Jesus. I believe Christianity passes or fails in the person of the historical Jesus.

So if I tend to mention a few specific books frequently, this might be why. I am trying to answer specific questions about the historical Jesus. A lot of the books I have read are not helpful and I throw them in the trash after a brief skimming. The books that have given insights into my specific questions tend to be on the tip of my tongue and I put them in a place of honor. But I try to read as many books as I can (given my slower reading speed). And I try to only read books that were written by respected authors.

It may not be as fancy as your hermeneutics, but I feel like I'm pursuing my evaluation of the historical Jesus as intelligently as possible given my limitations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid , one more thing I wanted to mention. When I read the gospels or other information on Christianity, I am searching for the teachings of the historical Jesus, but that is only one layer of the "archaeological dig" of the text (call it "Christianity level 0"). A historian is interested in every layer of the dig - "Christianity level 3", "Christianity level 7A", etc. The edits made at various levels give insights into the religious politics at different time periods and so on.

But for me, I mostly only care about "Christianity level 0". I want to know what Jesus believed, so I can evaluate Jesus. I believe Christianity passes or fails in the person of the historical Jesus.

So if I tend to mention a few specific books frequently, this might be why. I am trying to answer specific questions about the historical Jesus. A lot of the books I have read are not helpful and I throw them in the trash after a brief skimming. The books that have given insights into my specific questions tend to be on the tip of my tongue and I put them in a place of honor. But I try to read as many books as I can (given my slower reading speed). And I try to only read books that were written by respected authors.

It may not be as fancy as your hermeneutics, but I feel like I'm pursuing my evaluation of the historical Jesus as intelligently as possible given my limitations.

I understand what you're saying, Cloudy. And I don't discount your studiousness or your intelligence. Generally speaking, I think you have a good sense of the kinds of sources we need to study to get at the "nitty-gritty" of the more important issues involved with coming to a place where we feel confident that the Bible either is or is not true.

I for one would love to have a brief list of some of the books you've thrown into the trash, just to see if any of those are the kind of books that I have. (I doubt they are, but one never knows unless one asks ... )

As for myself, I may end up getting Shinan and Zakovitch's book because I like to read various Jewish scholarship in addition to various Christian (and skeptical) scholarship. Right now, I'm looking at Dickson's book and reading again the introduction to Shinan and Zakovitch's book (i.e. the part that is available in a link on scholar.google).

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm not like many atheists who can simply say "show me the evidence". I have seen some weird things that make me less able to say "there is no evidence".

There is little doubt that I have been mildly psychotic at times. For example, in 2009 I remember seeing a guy on an electrical pole down the alley from my window, and I was 100% certain that he was installing a surveillance camera to watch me. There was something wrong with my brain at that time and I really haven't felt quite back to normal until the last couple of years.

Anyway, after being in the twilight zone of psychosis, I tend to be suspicious of every experience in my life. The mental problems that became mildly psychotic in 2009 have probably been present throughout my entire life and make all my experiences suspect.

But I do have evidence - sort of LOL

 

[ToBeLoved]

I mentioned that Christians disavow reality, and I'm correct. I figured it was common knowledge - and it should be - and so I didn't feel the need to justify it.
.

Ok, cool. Then we can stop talking at this point. If you feel ok saying that, then I feel ok saying let's end our discussion. If you think I disavow reality, then I'm sure you feel your wasting your time talking to me overall.

Have a great weekend

 

[cloudyday2]

I for one would love to have a brief list of some of the books you've thrown into the trash, just to see if any of those are the kind of books that I have. (I doubt they are, but one never knows unless one asks ... )

I bet some of them are the same. When I throw a book in the trash it is simply that I don't think I am likely to read it or refer to it again. I never buy a book unless it is written by somebody reputable. So Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Michael Coogan, and lots of other good books go into the trash can after one reading (or skimming if it isn't interesting to me). I suppose I have read or skimmed at least 50 books on the historical Jesus over the past 5 years, and I've only kept 2 or 3. I read so slowly that it isn't practical to read books a second time (unless it is Lord of the Rings of course LOL)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't. BioLogos anyone? No?

In my conversation with her I made it clear that I said half of American Christians deny evolution. I didn't feel the need to state that again in the same conversation. For some reason, she was greatly offended by my statement of the facts and cut the conversation off.

I'm glad that you don't disavow reality - at least as much as other Christians do - but you must admit that Christianity has a way of causing its adherents to disavow reality by the millions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In my conversation with her I made it clear that I said half of American Christians deny evolution. I didn't feel the need to state that again in the same conversation. For some reason, she was greatly offended by my statement of the facts and cut the conversation off.

Ok. I may have missed that part of your previous exchange with her. That's on me.

I'm glad that you don't disavow reality - at least as much as other Christians do - but you must admit that Christianity has a way of causing its adherents to disavow reality by the millions.

I agree that in some ways and through some particular traditions of interpretation, some Christians can deny some aspects of reality. But then again, so can people who have other religious or even non-religious outlooks on life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I bet some of them are the same. When I throw a book in the trash it is simply that I don't think I am likely to read it or refer to it again. I never buy a book unless it is written by somebody reputable. So Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Michael Coogan, and lots of other good books go into the trash can after one reading (or skimming if it isn't interesting to me). I suppose I have read or skimmed at least 50 books on the historical Jesus over the past 5 years, and I've only kept 2 or 3. I read so slowly that it isn't practical to read books a second time (unless it is Lord of the Rings of course LOL)

Cloudy, you might want to just sell them at a used bookstore or maybe through Amazon...or something. Gosh!

Lord of the Rings? Yes, those are keepers, for sure!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. I may have missed that part of your previous exchange with her. That's on me.

No worries. I found it:

Half, or perhaps over half, of American Christians reject the reality of evolution. If that's not renouncing reality, then what is? If my phrasing is disrespectful, what would you recommend I say instead that gets the same point across in fewer words?

She never did tell me how to phrase it, by the way, despite being offended by the remark.

I agree that in some ways and through some particular traditions of interpretation, some Christians can deny some aspects of reality. But then again, so can people who have other religious or even non-religious outlooks on life.

True. The difference is that Christianity can easily be a factory for this ignorance issue, while non-religious people will generally not successfully propagate their false beliefs, assuming they even want to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No worries. I found it:

She never did tell me how to phrase it, by the way, despite being offended by the remark.

Alright. I can see where you're coming from here.

True. The difference is that Christianity can easily be a factory for this ignorance issue, while non-religious people will generally not successfully propagate their false beliefs, assuming they even want to.

..................well, you obviously don't live where I live. Because, where I'm at, it apparently doesn't matter whether one is religious or non-religious; either way there's a good chance a person won't attune his/her intelligence to what's really going on in the world ... which sometimes frustrates the living tar (as they used to say) out of my wife and I. Or maybe we just shop at W****** too often.

 

[Silmarien]

I agree that in some ways and through some particular traditions of interpretation, some Christians can deny some aspects of reality. But then again, so can people who have other religious or even non-religious outlooks on life.

Come on, we all know there are no mental states!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Alright. I can see where you're coming from here.

..................well, you obviously don't live where I live. Because, where I'm at, it apparently doesn't matter whether one is religious or non-religious; either way there's a good chance a person won't attune his/her intelligence to what's really going on in the world ... which sometimes frustrates the living tar (as they used to say) out of my wife and I. Or maybe we just shop at Walmart too often.

When you say "what's really going on in the world" are you referring to your mark of the beast stuff again?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When you say "what's really going on in the world" are you referring to your mark of the beast stuff again?

Well........there's always that too. But it would be nice if one could get in and out of W****** efficiently and safely, and not just in and out of the parking lot mind you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Come on, we all know there are no mental states!

And to think that I was going to share some ... "comments" ... about Aristotle from apologist David K. Clark. Now, I'm thinking twice about doing so.

 

[Silmarien]

And to think that I was going to share some ... "comments" ... about Aristotle from apologist David K. Clark. Now, I'm thinking twice about doing so.

Yeah? Feel free. I certainly don't agree with Aristotle on everything, though if Clark says something I take issue with, you'll know soon enough.