Atheists debates - is it worth it?

[2PhiloVoid]

In other words those biblical stories about gods and talking snakes and talking bushes have no more credibility than the Dreamtime stories about the Rainbow Serpent.

You keep spurting out this same cyclic regurgitation. See an epistemological doctor!

Why would you doubt the veracity of the bible if gods physically showed up all the time? Or do you only believe in fantasies and not empirical evidence?

For starters, the statement attributed to Jesus offered by the writer of John's Gospel at John 1:18 indicates an epistemic starting point for us. Of course, if you think the writer is incorrect, then I'm going to assume you'll be consistent and say that you don't believe anything else he wrote in the rest of his gospel, correct? I'd hate to see an atheist backtrack and be inconsistent in his use and affirmation of biblical statements; we wouldn't want to have to surmise that an atheist, like yourself, is just trying to play both sides of the semantic and cognitive field when dealing with issues involving in our attempt to understand the biblical writings.

By the way, if you need a good primer on the rudiments of ancient Jewish cultural idiom which plays a part in the language of the New Testament, I'd suggest you check out the book by Lois Tverberg, Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus: How a Jewish Perspective Can Transform Your Understanding (2017).

 

[Mitty]

Of course I can't show you the kind of empirical evidence you'd like that the God of the Bible exist. You are familiar with the field of epistemology and of biblical epistemology, aren't you? Showing "empirical" evidence, other than the love of Christ, isn't and hasn't been on the Christian menu since the Apostles died off.

Which is why less than 10% ever bother to go to church now, and why more than 30% said they had no religious beliefs on the recent national census compared to 22% for the previous census

What kind of scientist were you?

Plant physiologist.

As for your derogatory comments, I can only say that you've obviously confused me for another sort of Christian in another sort of theological framework. Are you only familiar with money-grubbing false teachers who pander and frolic around with women?

Again, with this fragment of a statement, you've disqualified yourself from showing that you have any theological qualification. Of course Jesus claimed to be without sin and to be 'from/in/of' God the Father. I don't know what bible you've been reading, but I'm wondering if we're reading the same book, or if it's just that despite your acumen in science, you've failed to take a course on Hermeneutics.

Why would I bother to do that, given that I'm familiar with the English language? And afterall one of my father's cousins was an Anglican Archbishop for Melbourne, although i understand his surviving children no longer believe.

Again, you apparently don't yet "get" the prophetic structure of the bible. If what we have from the New Testament writers about Jesus and His words is anywhere accurate, Jesus knew ahead of time that He was going to go to the cross and die. But of course, you knew this already, right? And you already knew what theological titles like "the Son of Man" means in ancient Jewish prophetic terms, right?

But why did he want to be executed for sedition and claiming to have an inherited right to be the Jewish king, and why did he curse his god when he unsuccessfully appealed for help (Matt 27:46)?

 

[Mitty]

You keep spurting out this same cyclic regurgitation. See an epistemological doctor!

For starters, the statement attributed to Jesus offered by the writer of John's Gospel at John 1:18 indicates an epistemic starting point for us. Of course, if you think the writer is incorrect, then I'm going to assume you'll be consistent and say that you don't believe anything else he wrote in the rest of his gospel, correct? I'd hate to see an atheist backtrack and be inconsistent in his use and affirmation of biblical statements; we wouldn't want to have to surmise that an atheist, like yourself, is just trying to play both sides of the semantic and cognitive field when dealing with issues involving in our attempt to understand the biblical writings.

By the way, if you need a good primer on the rudiments of ancient Jewish cultural idiom which plays a part in the language of the New Testament, I'd suggest you check out the book by Lois Tverberg, Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus: How a Jewish Perspective Can Transform Your Understanding (2017).

So why should I believe the biblical stories about talking snakes and talking bushes or that the universe was created about 6000 years ago, given the unequivocal evidence that the universe is billions of years old?

And why do you just attack the messenger and not the message?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which is why less than 10% ever bother to go to church now, and why more than 30% said they had no religious beliefs on the recent national census compared to 22% for the previous census

Yes, I'm familiar with the stats, Mitty. But it's not my fault that a whole host of folks misinterpret and also misrepresent the biblical message in asserting that God is somehow a Genie-in-a-Bottle just ready to take our orders. It's not surprising that when people falsely form this expectation in their God-given brains that they're setting themselves up (and perhaps others) for massive disappointment. The truth of the matter is, though, that Jesus never said we could write blank checks on faith. When people interpret Jesus to have meant this kind of thing, that's just wishful thinking a a lack of the application of proper, more educated Hermeneutics.

Plant physiologist.

Well great. Come over and help me plant a garden then!

Why would I bother to do that, given that I'm familiar with the English language? And afterall one of my father's cousins was an Anglican Archbishop for Melbourne, although i understand his surviving children no longer believe.

This bit of response from you doesn't even make sense given what I said and to which you're attempting to respond here.

But why did he want to be executed for sedition and claiming to have an inherited right to be the Jewish king,

... what do the New Testament writers say? Surely you've read their work, right?

and why did he curse his god when he unsuccessfully appealed for help (Matt 27:46)?

With this kind of question, I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read the New Testament yourself, or you're just picking out bits and pieces from some particular Skeptic's book. Obviously, Jesus never cursed God, His Father. But you know this already. And you know already how ancient Jews would cite their sacred scriptures, right?

Here's what you might do. You might read Matt 27:46 and ask yourself, where in the Old Testament might we find these exact words? And then, you might crack open that book by Lois Tverberg I just mentioned earlier.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So why should I believe the biblical stories about talking snakes and talking bushes or that the universe was created about 6000 years ago, given the unequivocal evidence that the universe is billions of years old?

You don't. Who said you had to? I don't, and furthermore, I'm more or less a fan of the BioLogos group, although as a philosopher myself, I'm probably just a bit more liberal on the front where science and the bible meet than even those at BioLogos are.

And why do you just attack the messenger and not the message?

... because Your message is wrong, and I don't think you're being honest. But, see here! I'm not placing you on ignore because I have a policy of grace which prohibits me from doing that to anyone. But I will and often do counter atheistic smugness with sheer candor if the need arises, and in your case, the need is arising. Then again, you could chose to allow for education, and being that you're a former scientist, I'm under the impression that you value learning. Or am I wrong in your case?

 

[Mitty]

Yes, I'm familiar with the stats, Mitty. But it's not my fault that a whole host of folks misinterpret and also misrepresent the biblical message in asserting that God is somehow a Genie-in-a-Bottle just ready to take our orders. It's not surprising that when people falsely form this expectation in their God-given brains that they're setting themselves up (and perhaps others) for massive disappointment. The truth of the matter is, though, that Jesus never said we could write blank checks on faith. When people interpret Jesus to have meant this kind of thing, that's just wishful thinking a a lack of the application of proper, more educated Hermeneutics.

That's your choice if you want to believe in talking snakes and talking bushes, or just use a cherry picker to ignore all the numerous biblical contradictions and inconsistencies and scientific untruths.

This bit of response from you doesn't even make sense given what I said and to which you're attempting to respond here.

... what do the New Testament writers say? Surely you've read their work, right?

With this kind of question, I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read the New Testament yourself, or you're just picking out bits and pieces from some particular Skeptic's book. Obviously, Jesus never cursed God, His Father. But you know this already. And you know already how ancient Jews would cite their sacred scriptures, right?

Here's what you might do. You might read Matt 27:46 and ask yourself, where in the Old Testament might we find these exact words? And then, you might crack open that book by Lois Tverberg I just mentioned earlier.

So how do you know that Jesus didn't curse his god when he was being executed for sedition and claiming to be the Jewish king as described in Matt 27:46 before the rotting corpses crawled out of their graves and wandered around down-town Jerusalem (Matt 27:52-53)?
And how do you know that Jesus even existed?
And either way, what relevance is it to the 21st century anyway?

 

[Francis Drake]

Atheist come in many varieties just as Christians do. What so many theists do in their attempt to debate with atheist is to convince them of the accuracy of the bible, and that is generally a waste of time. Many atheists are well versed in the bible, they may have been raised in the Christian home and taught Christian principles and then walked away. The issue isn’t why they are atheists but understanding that since they believe there is no god, they generally believe that there is no existence outside of the physical existence that we the living are part of.

It is like attempting to tell someone what clean air looks like, you can not debate spiritual issues with physical examples it normally doesn’t work unless they are on their death bed, then at times they become receptive to the idea of a spiritual existence outside of the physical body.

Those of us that have been around a lot of death can tell when the spirit leaves the body, and many times it does before the physical body is clinically dead. What do I mean by clinically dead, a flat line EEG, meaning the brain is dead. Personally, I believe once the frontal lobe has ceased to function that is normally physical death. The first thing you will hear from the skeptical side of this is the dying brain theory and that has been debunked in my opinion.

Almost every Christian I know has had a come to Jesus experience in their lives, it may not have been traumatic or earth shaking, but the Holy Spirit gave them the spiritual insight and the faith to believe in God. Many have had that experience and still walked away for whatever reason.

Some of the most profound experiences is commonly referred to as near death experiences. Some truly are near death, but many were clinically dead long enough to dispel the dying brain theory. Along with many of these testimonies are subjective, meaning the individuals testimony can’t be substantiated, they may be true, but the lack of scientific or medical evidence to support their stories leave them questionable.

At one time I would waste considerable time attempting to debate atheists and finally realized it was a waste of time. If a person is closed minded to any subject, then there is no room for debate or evaluation of evidence or beliefs.

If a person is an agnostic and willing to make an honest evaluation of Christianity, then you have someone you can have a meaningful dialog with. Again, they must first understand that the spirit and the physical body are separate, the spirit is who you really are, and your body is just the shell that the spirit functions through while the body is alive.

I had one very meaningful relationship with an atheist and as stated above, all my arguments were a waste of time. I left him with this, “If you ever want to know if there is a God, ask Him to reveal himself to you, give a come to Jesus moment. Two years later he looked me up, his comment was interesting, “You made me so angry, I didn’t want to even consider a god, but I had a come to Jesus moment, and I now know the truth.”

The other side is I gave a friend the book “Evidence that demands a verdict”, and “A case for Christ”. He read both and a few weeks later we had lunch, I asked him about both books. His comment was “Very compelling evidence that I find very difficult to dispute, however I still don’t believe.” He is a law professor, and we remained friends until his death a few years ago. That convinced me that with some people no matter the evidence, they will refuse to believe. I think with some people it is a sin they hold onto and will refuse to let go of that blinds them to the reality of God, but that is just my opinion.

It is interesting that many atheists that had death experiences and returned are no longer atheists and were given another chance in life. Obviously, God seen some redeeming qualities in the person, and that is understandable because I know many non-believers that are wonderful people.

Remember Jesus instructions to the disciples, they were told to go into a town, share the gospel, if it was rejected wipe the dust off their feet and move on. My point to all of is why waste a great deal of time with someone that is just looking for an argument, with little or no desire to know the truth?

The atheist's argument is not with you, but with the Holy Spirit. That's what Paul says in Romans1.

It is the Holy Spirit that convicts men of the creator God, not intellectual arguments for the existence of God. Despite all his arguments, the atheist is arguing against the God he knows to be true in his heart because God reveals himself to all men including that atheist!

That's why I don't waste time on them.

Romans1v18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
To suppress truth, you must first possess it, so who gave it to them?

19because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
There it is, God gives every man sufficient truth to know him.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
So the invisible God is made visible in every man's heart, leaving the choice of acceptance or rejection up to each man.
At the judgement, no excuses will hide a man's rejection of God.

 

[Mitty]

You don't. Who said you had to? I don't, and furthermore, I'm more or less a fan of the BioLogos group, although as a philosopher myself, I'm probably just a bit more liberal on the front where science and the bible meet than even those at BioLogos are.

... because Your message is wrong, and I don't think you're being honest. But, see here! I'm not placing you on ignore because I have a policy of grace which prohibits me from doing that to anyone. But I will and often do counter atheistic smugness with sheer candor if the need arises, and in your case, the need is arising. Then again, you could chose to allow for education, and being that you're a former scientist, I'm under the impression that you value learning. Or am I wrong in your case?

That's just your personal opinion and just another example of attacking the messenger and not the message.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's your choice if you want to believe in talking snakes and talking bushes

... I didn't say I 'believe' in talking snakes, now did I? Of course, the writers of the bible didn't believe in that either, nor did they believe in talking bushes or talking donkeys. We both know from basic biology that these various organisms don't talk, now don't we? So, what are we ACTUALLY reading in the bible, with hermeneutics applied and contexts considered?

So how do you know that Jesus didn't curse his god when he was being executed for sedition and claiming to be the Jewish king as described in Matt 27?

Psalm 22, which is what Jesus was referring to on the cross in Matthew 27, wasn't a curse upon God. Of course, you knew this already, I'm guessing. If not, you better read that book by Lois Tverberg.

And how do you know that Jesus even existed?

I don't, but I'll take the reasoning of Bart Ehrman over that of Richard Carrier on this basic point ...

And either way, what relevance is it to the 21st century anyway?

.... oh, if anything, I'd surmise it has something to do with ... this!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's just your personal opinion and just another example of attacking the messenger and not the message.

I like to attack both message AND messenger, when the circumstances necessitate it. Besides, sometimes criticism of a messenger is suiting and appropriate, especially if the the 'messaging' interlocutor is being belligerent and not really rational or sociable. And no, this ISN'T just my opinion.

Y'know, on one level, Massimo Piggluici agrees with me, or rather, I agree with him.

 

[Mitty]

... I didn't say I 'believe' in talking snakes, now did I? Of course, the writers of the bible didn't believe in that either, nor did they believe in talking bushes or talking donkeys. We both know from basic biology that these various organisms don't talk, now don't we? So, what are we ACTUALLY reading in the bible, with hermeneutics applied and contexts considered?

In other words those biblical stories about gods are just imaginative fantasies with no more credibility than the Dreamtime stories about the Rainbow serpent.

Psalm 22, which is what Jesus was referring to on the cross in Matthew 27, wasn't a curse upon God. Of course, you knew this already, I'm guessing. If not, you better read that book by Lois Tverberg.

Which is just a plagiarism by the gospel writers of the stories about David who was his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:7) even though David was an adulterous murderer who said that Jonathon's love was more wonderful than with any of his wives and concubines (2Sam 1:26).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In other words those biblical stories about gods are just imaginative fantasies with no more credibility than the Dreamtime stories about the Rainbow serpent.

Perhaps, but a wise man said not so very long ago,"That's just your opinion!"

Which is just a plagiarism by the gospel writers of the stories about David who was his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:7) even though David was an adulterous murderer who said that Jonathon's love was more wonderful than with any of his wives and concubines (2Sam 1:26).

Whatever. I can see I'm going to go nowhere with you and your peanut gallery commentary ...

Best Wishes, then! Read that book by Lois Tverberg, if for no other reason than to see what another biologist might think about the nature of the writings of the Bible. Of course, you probably could also read something from Francis Collins for that as well.

 

[Mitty]

Perhaps, but a wise man said not so very long ago,"That's just your opinion!"

Whatever. I can see I'm going to go nowhere with you and your peanut gallery commentary ...

That's your choice if you don't want to be enlightened and believe that the bible is just a peanut gallery.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That your choice if you don't want to be enlightened and believe that the bible is just a peanut gallery.

 

[Mitty]

Perhaps you could actually read the bible instead of those biblical apology books.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps you could actually read the bible instead of those biblical apology books.

I'm not sure I understand this statement of yours ... it seems to beg for a special application of hermeneutics, especially if you were to be known to give a damn about the context of the person you're talking to. Obviously, you don't.

 

[Mitty]

I'm not sure I understand this statement of yours ... it seems to beg for a special application of hermeneutics, especially if you were to be known to give a damn about the context of the person you're talking to. Obviously, you don't.

Nope, it just means actually reading the bible and not exigesic hermeneutic apologies for all the numerous biblical contradictions and inconsistencies and scientific untruths.

 

[jacks]

Discussions/debates between atheists and theists is good. Arguing is counter productive for everyone.

 

[BigV]

What????!! How do you 'know' this?

Not only is this 'anti-christ' speech, it's something I know you can't and haven't validated one way or another.

Are you seriously not getting it? Jesus in the Old Testament gives NO second chances to people working on a Saturday (See Numbers 15). And then, Jesus comes to this earth, meek and mild. Nobody punished for sins. Forgives adulteries, doesn't care about Sabbath observance, even changes his own dietary laws! And then, goes back up and boils with wrath?

So, where is the real Jesus?

 

[RBPerry]

Are you seriously not getting it? Jesus in the Old Testament gives NO second chances to people working on a Saturday (See Numbers 15). And then, Jesus comes to this earth, meek and mild. Nobody punished for sins. Forgives adulteries, doesn't care about Sabbath observance, even changes his own dietary laws! And then, goes back up and boils with wrath?

So, where is the real Jesus?

I'm afraid your not getting it. Jesus didn't create the Mosaic law, Moses did. God gave us the ten commandments. I truly understand the confusion between the old and new testament. The Gnostic Christians believed that the God of the old testament wasn't the same as the God of the new because they couldn't rationalize the differences.
As Christian we believe we are to love all people, when you look at what Jesus taught primarily the sermon on the mount, (Mathew 5) it is pretty hard to argue against his teachings.
Christianity hangs on one main issue, the empty grave, meaning the resurrection.
The bible is a collections of writings spanning over a 1500 year period by people that had little or no scientific knowledge or understanding compared to what we have today, so yes you are going to find scientific errors. The history of the Israeli people that is documented in the old testament does seem to allow slavery, genocide, and some pretty barbaric practices that I have difficulty reconciling within myself. I have seen genocide first hand My Lai, Vietnam and it is horrible to say the least.
The bible literalist will insist that the bible is without error, coming from a literal reading they are wrong in my opinion. We must remember who gave us the original cannon, the Catholic Church and I'm sure Constantine had his fingers in the creation of the new testament, at least the early versions. Then when we look at how the Catholic Church attempted to control people by distorting what Christ taught it is no wonder there are problematic areas.

What non believers can't understand is the personal relationship, if you are touched by the Holy Spirit you may walk away, but you will never deny the existence of God because you will have felt his existence. No one can give you that, only the Holy Spirit, and if you don't seek Him, he most likely won't bother you. Some people have been given a glimpse of existence beyond the grave, and most are forever changed and many have encounters with Jesus.
I suppose the only reason I waist my time on debates like this is I do deeply care about non believers because I was there at one time.