The Atheist's dilemma

[Deidre32]

So the book of the Acts of the Apostles is not based on fact? How did you come to that conclusion?

How about the Gospel according to Luke?

What evidence do you have that these accounts are not historically accurate?

Because objectively, the NT hasn't been thought to be factual. Some places and events are accurate, but the claims dealing with the religious aspects are just that...claims. Claims that if you have faith, you will construe as factual.

What causes you to believe the NT as factual?

 

[Aldebaran]

Hello

Um, not so much that I need proof of a god's existence, as much as it would be nice if religious people would admit that what they believe isn't based on facts or evidence. Objective evidence I mean, where anyone ...anywhere...at any time, could agree upon it.

A feeling, a 'revelation,' supposed prayers being answers, are not evidence. Those things all stem from one's faith. I once had that faith. But, perhaps what happened for me, is that faith was not enough for me to continue on. I needed more.

Ok. How about a new approach?
Let's talk about the nation of Israel. We know that the bible is centered on the nation of Israel in how God dealt with them, blessed them when they followed him, punished them for rebellion, but never forsake them. He made them an example of how we should live. They would follow him for awhile sometimes, and then they'd rebel at other times. He promised them a savior, who they ended up rejecting. Not long after that, the Israeli people were scattered over the world, and their land was taken by others. This lasted for thousands of years, but God promised to bring them back together again in their own land. It was a prophecy made in the bible.

Now, for a people to be scattered over the entire world for thousands of years, it would probably take a miracle to bring them back together in their own land to be reunited as a nation, especially since that land was now occupied by another people, right? Let's not forget having gone through the holocaust. Well, it happened, and Israel was recognized as a country for the first time in thousands of years, starting in 1948. Shortly after that, Israel recaptured Jerusalem, which was their original capitol.

Israel is now surrounded on all sides by enemies, which was another thing predicted in the bible. They are being threatened with extermination. Yet they prevail, even though they are such a tiny country.

This is just one area of predictions made that came true--in modern times. There's more I could tell you, if you're interested.

 

[Deidre32]

I see your point, halfsaved. But I don't see it as proof of a god. Does God only favor Israel? That is what we are to believe relying on the Bible. What to make of all the starving children across the globe? Who may very well pray every day to "God."

It is hard to imagine that if a god exists, he plays favorites. That is how the Bible portrays him, anyway. :/

 

[Aldebaran]

I see your point, halfsaved. But I don't see it as proof of a god. Does God only favor Israel? That is what we are to believe relying on the Bible. What to make of all the starving children across the globe? Who may very well pray every day to "God."

It is hard to imagine that if a god exists, he plays favorites. That is how the Bible portrays him, anyway. :/

No, no, no. Not "favor". Israel was the people he had chosen as an example for other nations to follow. I guess you could say he was using them as a model. Maybe someone could help me explain it better....

Yes, there are starving children around the world and other bad things. It is due to various things, such as war, or drug cartels taking over certain areas, or maybe certain areas of the earth aren't getting enough rain at a certain point. One thing to remember is that things weren't created this way from the beginning. Sin entered the world, and things changed. Many people ask why God allows bad things to happen to good people. We could even ask why he allows good things to happen to bad people.

In the bible, the book of Job is a good example of bad things happening to a good person. In that case, it was to test Job's faithfulness. He passed the test, and was blessed by God for it, but not everyone would pass.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, no, no. Not "favor". Israel was the people he had chosen as an example for other nations to follow. I guess you could say he was using them as a model. Maybe someone could help me explain it better....

Yes, there are starving children around the world and other bad things. It is due to various things, such as war, or drug cartels taking over certain areas, or maybe certain areas of the earth aren't getting enough rain at a certain point. One thing to remember is that things weren't created this way from the beginning. Sin entered the world, and things changed. Many people ask why God allows bad things to happen to good people. We could even ask why he allows good things to happen to bad people.

In the bible, the book of Job is a good example of bad things happening to a good person. In that case, it was to test Job's faithfulness. He passed the test, and was blessed by God for it, but not everyone would pass.

Sin only entered the world because god allowed it to. The tree of knowledge was not a necessary addition to the garden of Eden, neither was the serpent. To expect people with no knowledge of evil to defend themselves against trickery and other evils is unrealistic. For all intents and purposes, god set up humanity to fail its unrealistic test.

 

[Deidre32]

Sin only entered the world because god allowed it to. The tree of knowledge was not a necessary addition to the garden of Eden, neither was the serpent. To expect people with no knowledge of evil to defend themselves against trickery and other evils is unrealistic. For all intents and purposes, god set up humanity to fail its unrealistic test.

In most denominations, the story of Adam & Eve is taught to be viewed as a metaphor but not to be taken literally. So, Jesus therefore died for a metaphor?
Original sin being a non truth?

As you start to break the entire book down, it is like a house of cards. I disbelieve in the story of the NT, because once the Christian church by and large starting teaching that it was ok to view Genesis as not literal, the rest of the story doesn't make any sense. A god wants to send cryptic riddles that are not to be taken literally, to teach his creation to trust him?

Yea, it just all seems too far fetched for that leap of faith.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sin only entered the world because god allowed it to. The tree of knowledge was not a necessary addition to the garden of Eden, neither was the serpent. To expect people with no knowledge of evil to defend themselves against trickery and other evils is unrealistic. For all intents and purposes, god set up humanity to fail its unrealistic test.

God gave them specific instructions not to eat of the fruit of just one tree, and informed them that they would die if they did. They had freedom of choice to either obey or not obey.

If you had a child and told them not to do something, along with the consequences if they disobey, and they go ahead and do it anyway, are you setting them up to fail an unrealistic test?

 

[Aldebaran]

In most denominations, the story of Adam & Eve is taught to be viewed as a metaphor but not to be taken literally. So, Jesus therefore died for a metaphor?
Original sin being a non truth?

As you start to break the entire book down, it is like a house of cards. I disbelieve in the story of the NT, because once the Christian church by and large starting teaching that it was ok to view Genesis as not literal, the rest of the story doesn't make any sense. A god wants to send cryptic riddles that are not to be taken literally, to teach his creation to trust him?

Yea, it just all seems too far fetched for that leap of faith.

But Deidre, you can't go by what "most denominations" say. It's the bible itself that you have to use to find out what the bible actually says and means. Sure, if you view it as a metaphor (garden of Eden), then other parts start breaking down. But that's like saying if you start removing parts of the foundation of a house, the rest of the house starts falling apart.

One needs to take it as a whole. Basically, like looking at a forest rather than standing too close to one tree and expecting to see everything as they relate to each other.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God gave them specific instructions not to eat of the fruit of just one tree, and informed them that they would die if they did. They had freedom of choice to either obey or not obey.

If you had a child and told them not to do something, along with the consequences if they disobey, and they go ahead and do it anyway, are you setting them up to fail an unrealistic test?

Yes, I'd say more than half the time those kids would be even more tempted to do that action if they perceived me as not watching, especially with outside peer pressure.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, I'd say more than half the time those kids would be even more tempted to do that action if they perceived me as not watching, especially with outside peer pressure.

So would it be ok for them to give into the temptations of doing something you don't want them to do, and instructed them not to do, just because they think you're not looking?

Let's even put this on an adult level. Do you think it's ok to shoplift if no store employees are looking? How about vandalizing the property of someone you don't like if you knew you wouldn't get caught?

 

[Deidre32]

But Deidre, you can't go by what "most denominations" say. It's the bible itself that you have to use to find out what the bible actually says and means. Sure, if you view it as a metaphor (garden of Eden), then other parts start breaking down. But that's like saying if you start removing parts of the foundation of a house, the rest of the house starts falling apart.

One needs to take it as a whole. Basically, like looking at a forest rather than standing too close to one tree and expecting to see everything as they relate to each other.

Ok let's pretend there are no denominations and we take the Bible literally, beginning to its end. How does Genesis make sense in light of the theory of evolution having substantial evidence to support it? If we look at Genesis as a real story of creation, the time table is way off. The Bible would have us believe that man has been around for about 7,000 or so years. We know that's false.

The Bible implies that mankind was made in its present form, and didn't evolve. That is a fact and no amount of faith can change that the theory of evolution conflicts with Genesis, the creation story.

Faith shouldn't trump facts. At least I don't think so.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ok let's pretend there are no denominations and we take the Bible literally, beginning to its end. How does Genesis make sense in light of the theory of evolution having substantial evidence to support it? If we look at Genesis as a real story of creation, the time table is way off. The Bible would have us believe that man has been around for about 7,000 or so years. We know that's false.

The Bible implies that mankind was made in its present form, and didn't evolve. That is a fact and no amount of faith can change that the theory of evolution conflicts with Genesis, the creation story.

Faith shouldn't trump facts. At least I don't think so.

I'm not sure first of all what you exactly mean by taking the bible literally. There are obviously some things in the bible that are parables, analogies, and "figures of speech".

As for the "theory" of evolution being an assumed "fact", I'm not sure that can be established. Man being made in his present form could possibly be disputed since man used to live for hundreds of years before the flood, and then the lifespan gradually began to decline. That could be due to either the degradation of man, or environmental changes that would be obvious post-flood.

I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, and I've heard others explain things better than I can. If you want to do some reading, here's something that I believe supports creation vs. evolution pretty well. Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

 

[Freodin]

halfsaved, I have asked you that two times before, and I do so now for the third time.

Considering that you obviously do not have the slightest idea of how to deal with atheist's questions and objections... just what kind of atheist have you been (as you claim to have been)?

 

[quatona]

Wasn't there anything other than feelings to rely on? Weren't there any events that happened in your life that indicated God was there and watching over you?

Snowflakes?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wasn't there anything other than feelings to rely on? Weren't there any events that happened in your life that indicated God was there and watching over you?

No, none whatsoever. What sort of events do you mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Because objectively, the NT hasn't been thought to be factual.

You've said nothing new. I know you do not think the NT is factual. I asked you what evidence you have for maintaining that.

All you have said is that you think the NT is not factual because, objectively the NT hasn't been thought to be factual.

To illustrate why this is not really a good answer I give you the following:

If you were to ask me: "Jeremy, what evidence do you have that the NT is factual?"

And I responded by saying:

"Because objectively, the NT has been thought to be factual."

You would be like: "Huh?"

You would be like: "Uhh...yea...I kinda got that you think that but you have not really told me anything new."

See my point?

Some places and events are accurate, but the claims dealing with the religious aspects are just that...claims. Claims that if you have faith, you will construe as factual.

You have made a distinction here. You are saying:

"Yea yea yea, I know that some things in the NT are historically accurate. I get that. But when the NT talks about miracles, and about Jesus rising from the dead or walking on water, well, you know, there are no reasons to think for example, that Jesus actually rose from the dead. That is just silly. Miracles are impossible didn't ya know?"

To which I would respond:

Why do you think there are no good reasons to think that Jesus rose from the dead?

Why are miracles impossible?

What causes you to believe the NT as factual?

Two things:

1. Evidence that is subject to scrutiny and investigation
2. Revelation

I see your point, halfsaved. But I don't see it as proof of a god. Does God only favor Israel? That is what we are to believe relying on the Bible. What to make of all the starving children across the globe? Who may very well pray every day to "God."

It is hard to imagine that if a god exists, he plays favorites. That is how the Bible portrays him, anyway. :/

You did not even address what he wrote. He talked about Israel's preservation as a unique people group for literally thousands of years despite them having been virtually under continual attack from their surrounding neighbors and dispersed for literally centuries.

Instead you brought up the fact that there are starving children in the world. How does that negate the argument that Israel's preservation is evidence for the existence of God?

Sin only entered the world because god allowed it to.

Absolutely correct!

The tree of knowledge was not a necessary addition to the garden of Eden, neither was the serpent. To expect people with no knowledge of evil to defend themselves against trickery and other evils is unrealistic. For all intents and purposes, god set up humanity to fail its unrealistic test.

I get your point. It is based on the understanding that God created them and just threw them into the Garden without any provision or guidance or direction.

This is completely inaccurate. God gave Adam clear guidance, and followed it with a warning. He told Adam you may freely eat of any of the trees in the Garden, but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.

He said,

YOU SHALL NOT eat.

and that if you decide to go ahead and disobey...

YOU SHALL SURELY DIE.

This is clear, concise, and to the point. Death results from disobedience.

You would have us think that God just threw the man out into a jungle without any guidance or any provision whatsoever.

But noooooooo! Adam and Eve had all that they could have ever needed at their fingertips, but chose to do the ONE THING God told them not to do!

God set Adam and Eve in the position where they could choose to use the freedom He gave them. They chose freely to rebel.

Humans are still making that choice even as we speak.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In most denominations, the story of Adam & Eve is taught to be viewed as a metaphor but not to be taken literally.

Were you taught this?

So, Jesus therefore died for a metaphor?
Original sin being a non truth?

So you went from Christianity, to atheism because some people argue about whether or not the doctrine of original sin is biblical?

Seems like a huge leap to me....!

As you start to break the entire book down, it is like a house of cards. I disbelieve in the story of the NT, because once the Christian church by and large starting teaching that it was ok to view Genesis as not literal, the rest of the story doesn't make any sense.

Did you ever ask anyone teaching you these things what reasons they had for doing so? Did you ever bother to research the issues yourself?

A god wants to send cryptic riddles that are not to be taken literally, to teach his creation to trust him?

What is cryptic about God loving the world so much that He gave His One and Only Son to die for us?

Yea, it just all seems too far fetched for that leap of faith.

You talk about faith being too far fetched a leap, but from what you have stated, you jumped from being a witnessing Christian, to an atheist all because some people in the church have disagreements on whether or not Genesis should be read strictly literally!!!!

How is that not a leap?

The first couple of chapters of Genesis can be interpreted several ways. The rest of the Book is clear cut Deidre. It is a history of the beginning of the nation of Israel.

Studying Hermeneutics and Hebrew and studying the various cultural practices of the Ancient Near East will be greatly advantageous to you.

 

[Deidre32]

I've studied the Abrahamic faiths in great detail. I couldn't possibly share my entire "journey" here as to what led me from theism to atheism. Without putting everyone to sleep, of course. ;-)

I view the Bible as a story. I once viewed it as a true story of potentially who or what a god is. How a group of people came to believe such a story. But it is only a story. The Qur'an, another story. Mormons have their story and on and on it goes.

Why so many conflicting stories talking a about the same "god?"

What caused me to start my journey is the fact that Genesis isn't a literal story. Since it isn't, this means there is no original sin. If there was no original sin, the entire "story" changes. The world doesn't "need" a Savior. And should Jesus have existed, there was no reason for him to be born "without sin," since original sin doesn't exist in the first place.

It was at that moment, a few years ago, I started digging deeper and it was a sad realization when I realized that I would have to keep excusing away all the glaring gaps and conflicts that exist in the Bible, in order to stay a Christian.

There is no original sin. This becomes a huge dilemma for a Christian to explain to non Christians in terms of why the world "needed" a Savior.

It is your burden to prove, not mine.

 

[Deidre32]

Forgive typos, using my phone! Blah! :-/

 

[Aldebaran]

halfsaved, I have asked you that two times before, and I do so now for the third time.

Considering that you obviously do not have the slightest idea of how to deal with atheist's questions and objections... just what kind of atheist have you been (as you claim to have been)?

I don't know what kind of atheists there are. All I know is that I didn't take the idea of God as all that credible when I was younger. Then, as people showed me things in the bible that are relevant to real life, and predictions made that there's no way could have made accurately made without divine influence--which have come to pass, I started to look into it more, started taking it more seriously, gave my life to Christ, and the rest is history.

No, none whatsoever. What sort of events do you mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

My question was directed to Diedre32.