Why Do Unbelievers Come Here?

[2PhiloVoid]

First of all, so what? Richard Dawkins has always been quite open about his admiration for and enjoment of Christian religion. Christmas carols, beautiful buildings, sermons of love and peace. Sounds quite sensible to me.
Second, what if Richard Dawkins did experience a conversion and became an evangelical Christian? Again, so what? Enjoyable as he is to read and listen to, it's his arguments that are important to atheists. Saying "You shouldn't be an atheist because Richard Dawkins isn't" would simple be an argument from authority, and as such a logical fallacy.

(edited to add):
Is this what you're talking about?
Richard Dawkins admits he is a 'cultural Anglican'
It's not, I think, what you think it is.

And I'm wondering why atheists might tend to listen to Dawkins over someone like Eugenie Scott?

 

[cvanwey]

The fact that the Christ rose was the reason that the New Testament exists. Without the resurrection; Christianity itself would not exist.

You can bet on the resurrection and win.

Please allow me to rephrase my question, as it was not addressed:

Start by giving us your BEST piece of evidence, in which you feel supports a claimed resurrection?

Thank you in advance

 

[klutedavid]

It's quite clear, klutedavid, that you did not read the article I mentioned at all. Because most of the things you said were answered in it, if your points had not already refuted themselves by their nonsensical nature.

Here is the article again. Please take the time to read it. Until you do, I'm afraid we won't be able to have a productive conversation.
500 Eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ? 9 Reasons Why It's Not Likely.

I read the article (patheos.com) but it was not an academic article or even an accurate article.

Here I will keep it simple for you. How about I answer the first point the author raised.

1. What does “appeared” mean? Jesus “appeared” to Paul as a vision (Acts 9:3–9), but Paul uses the same verb to refer the appearance of Jesus to Peter, James, and the 500 as well as to Paul. Could Paul think that the appearance to everyone was as a vision?

In that passage (Acts 9:3-9) there is no mention of the word, 'appeared', and the author of this article needs to go back and read the text again.

Within that passage (Acts 9:7) any idea of a subjective vision by Paul is discounted, as the text actually confirms that Paul was not receiving a subjective vision. Here is the verse below that tells us that the men with Paul, also had the same encounter.

Acts 9:7
The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

The men travelling with Paul heard Jesus speaking but could not see Him.

 

[klutedavid]

Please allow me to rephrase my question, as it was not addressed:

Start by giving us your BEST piece of evidence, in which you feel supports a claimed resurrection?

Thank you in advance

I have already stated that the New Testament itself, is the first part of the evidence for the resurrection.

I have answered your question both strongly and directly.

The onus is on you to provide the evidence, that the New Testament cannot be used as evidence to support the resurrection account.

 

[Silmarien]

First of all, so what? Richard Dawkins has always been quite open about his admiration for and enjoment of Christian religion. Christmas carols, beautiful buildings, sermons of love and peace. Sounds quite sensible to me.
Second, what if Richard Dawkins did experience a conversion and became an evangelical Christian? Again, so what? Enjoyable as he is to read and listen to, it's his arguments that are important to atheists. Saying "You shouldn't be an atheist because Richard Dawkins isn't" would simple be an argument from authority, and as such a logical fallacy.

(edited to add):
Is this what you're talking about?
Richard Dawkins admits he is a 'cultural Anglican'
It's not, I think, what you think it is.

What on earth sort of reply is this? I didn't say that Richard Dawkins was an Evangelical Christian, and therefore you ought to abandon atheism. I said that he had dialed down the rhetoric and was actually saying nice things about Christianity instead of viciously mocking it at every opportunity.

Cultural Anglicanism is absolutely how I would describe it. My suspicion is that he's realized that as a public figure, maybe he shouldn't try to further alienate people away from modern science by constantly attacking religion. Because this sort of behavior has consequences.

Silmarien, it seems to me that this is something that bothers you very much. If you think that being told you are wrong, having your arguments contested and failing to impress people with what you say constitutes "hateful mockery" then I wonder if you should seek psychological help.
And yes, I think it is a bad outcome for you to start hating atheists. I don't think it's their fault, if I am a typical specimen of the kind of atheist you are thinking of. I think it's to do with how you take comments. You should rethink the way in which you act and react towards people.

Do you remember that time when you admitted that you couldn't defeat the arguments for classical theism, declared that they had to be wrong anyway because theism was obviously false, and then ran away from the argument, all the while bemoaning the poor, irrational theists who refused to accept the reasoning you had failed to present? That was super fun, we should try it again someday.

I don't hate atheists. I've just come to think that Saint Paul had it right after all due to the witness a number of them have provided. So... congratulations.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I read the article (patheos.com) but it was not an academic article or even an accurate article.

Here I will keep it simple for you. How about I answer the first point the author raised.

1. What does “appeared” mean? Jesus “appeared” to Paul as a vision (Acts 9:3–9), but Paul uses the same verb to refer the appearance of Jesus to Peter, James, and the 500 as well as to Paul. Could Paul think that the appearance to everyone was as a vision?

In that passage (Acts 9:3-9) there is no mention of the word, 'appeared', and the author of this article needs to go back and read the text again.

Within that passage (Acts 9:7) any idea of a subjective vision by Paul is discounted, as the text actually confirms that Paul was not receiving a subjective vision. Here is the verse below that tells us that the men with Paul, also had the same encounter.

Acts 9:7
The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

The men travelling with Paul heard Jesus speaking but could not see Him.

"Not academic"? So what?
"Not accurate"? Perhaps you would like to back up your claim by showing its mistakes.

Your first point is irrelevant. What Paul experienced was still a vision. All that we now know is that a story in the Bible says that other people beside Paul can vouch for his experience. But this doesn't address the point. When Paul says Jesus "appeared" to five hundred people, does it mean he walked up to them and shook their hands, or that a glowing light "appeared" in the sky and spoke to them, or a voice in their heads, or even a dream? We have no way of knowing.

Your thoughts on the other eight criticisms? Please do make sure you read the article before responding to them. I have trouble believing that you did on the first occasion.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And I'm wondering why atheists might tend to listen to Dawkins over someone like Eugenie Scott?

I've heard of Eugenie Scott, but not read much of her work. She worked with the NCSE, I believe, and helped defeat the latest iteration of Creationism in the Dover trials. Good for her!
I think, though, that you're experiencing the same problem as Silmarien: mistaking criticism for persecution.

 

[mama2one]

The number of atheists around the world has skyrocketed

actually atheism is declining in the world and a good part of that is because of China


Global Study: Atheists in Decline, Only 1.8% of World Population by 2020

^^^
"the current growth of a variety of religions in China in particular (where the vast majority of the non-religious live today) suggests continued future demographic growth of religion.”

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've heard of Eugenie Scott, but not read much of her work. She worked with the NCSE, I believe, and helped defeat the latest iteration of Creationism in the Dover trials. Good for her!
I think, though, that you're experiencing the same problem as Silmarien: mistaking criticism for persecution.

No, what I'm insinuating on an epistemological level by referring to Eugenie Scott is that she, as an atheist, advocates for Methodological Naturalism and does so in disagreement with fellow atheist, Richard Dawkins who remains stolid in his support of Philosophical Naturalism. Of course, this isn't to say that I can't learn about biology from the latter of these two. In fact, I'm sure I can.

So, I'm pitting one atheist against another and that's what I'm trying to imply. But by doing so, I open the epistemic gate FOR MYSELF in then advocating for Methodological Naturalism on the side of my faith since it also allows for compartmentalization between epistemic issues of Science on the one hand and those of Religion and Faith on the other hand.

See what I'm doing there? In fact, I'm not 'just' doing it, I'm insisting on it! And if it all fits nice and snug with Pascal and Kierkegaard [~kind of], well then, so much the better.

 

[mama2one]

wouldn't be surprised if many of the Chinese children adopted over the years from China were adopted by Christians and have become Christians themselves

The Christian and Adoption - BJUtoday


before we adopted our daughter from China, we attended a Christian church whose Pastor openly promoted adoption & many, many families adopted just from that one church

we know one Christian family that has adopted 5 girls from China
as I stated before, we were led by God to adopt

wonder if any atheists adopt?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

actually atheism is declining in the world and a good part of that is because of China


Global Study: Atheists in Decline, Only 1.8% of World Population by 2020

^^^
"the current growth of a variety of religions in China in particular (where the vast majority of the non-religious live today) suggests continued future demographic growth of religion.”

A good point! And I accept the correction. But not, I think, helpful to Christians in the USA or the UK.
This article makes a good point:
The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion
There have long been predictions that religion would fade from relevancy as the world modernizes, but all the recent surveys are finding that it’s happening startlingly fast. France will have a majority secular population soon. So will the Netherlands and New Zealand. The United Kingdom and Australia will soon lose Christian majorities. Religion is rapidly becoming less important than it’s ever been, even to people who live in countries where faith has affected everything from rulers to borders to architecture.


But nones aren’t inheriting the Earth just yet. In many parts of the world—sub-Saharan Africa in particular—religion is growing so fast that nones’ share of the global population will actually shrink in 25 years as the world turns into what one researcher has described as “the secularizing West and the rapidly growing rest.” (The other highly secular part of the world is China, where the Cultural Revolution tamped down religion for decades, while in some former Communist countries, religion is on the increase.)

It seems that the places where religion is growing are the poorer and less educated countries. China is a rather complicated factor; as the article indicates, artificial suppression may plays a role.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

wouldn't be surprised if many of the Chinese children adopted over the years from China were adopted by Christians and have become Christians themselves

The Christian and Adoption - BJUtoday


before we adopted our daughter from China, we attended a Christian church whose Pastor openly promoted adoption & many, many families adopted just from that one church

we know one Christian family that has adopted 5 girls from China
as I stated before, we were led by God to adopt

wonder if any atheists adopt?

Atheists are adoptive parents, too! Why agencies must stop discriminating

During our home-study process, when adoption agencies can assess whether we would make good adoptive parents, we were asked about our religious upbringing, the church we currently attended and how we would respect the foster child’s culture and potential decision to attend a church different from our own. We never volunteered our atheism, nor were we asked; the social worker did, however, assume that we attended church. I suppose she had no reason to think otherwise — parents always adopt because of their faith, right? At least, both private and state agencies always wanted to know that information. I understand the need for thoroughly vetting a prospective family, but it’s not like they ever asked us about our political affiliations …

We eventually decided the best option would be to avoid mentioning our lack of religious beliefs if at all possible. As a “waiting-to-adopt” family, our atheism was setting us up for a wide range of discrimination and intolerance. While many adoption agencies target all kinds of different parents these days — including single, older, interfaith, gay, lesbian, transgender and interracial ones — they still tend to ignore secular families. We’re just not on their radar. Since most agencies are funded and run by churches and religious foundations, it is assumed by many staffers, case workers and social workers that the religious faith of the adoptive family alone means they are worthy of parenting children. Most social workers who came to speak with us (as part of a background check) assumed we attended church. We were firm in telling them that we didn’t, but that we respected the children’s right to make that decision for themselves when the time was right. I worried that our atheism would raise some sort of red flag in these agencies, forever marking us as Unfit to Adopt.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A good point! And I accept the correction. But not, I think, helpful to Christians in the USA or the UK.
This article makes a good point:
The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion
There have long been predictions that religion would fade from relevancy as the world modernizes, but all the recent surveys are finding that it’s happening startlingly fast. France will have a majority secular population soon. So will the Netherlands and New Zealand. The United Kingdom and Australia will soon lose Christian majorities. Religion is rapidly becoming less important than it’s ever been, even to people who live in countries where faith has affected everything from rulers to borders to architecture.


But nones aren’t inheriting the Earth just yet. In many parts of the world—sub-Saharan Africa in particular—religion is growing so fast that nones’ share of the global population will actually shrink in 25 years as the world turns into what one researcher has described as “the secularizing West and the rapidly growing rest.” (The other highly secular part of the world is China, where the Cultural Revolution tamped down religion for decades, while in some former Communist countries, religion is on the increase.)

It seems that the places where religion is growing are the poorer and less educated countries. China is a rather complicated factor; as the article indicates, artificial suppression may plays a role.

... the amazing thing is that this kind of report is treated as if it's "new" news, but I think it's been in the works and known about among a select group of folks for nearly---oh, I don't know---2,000 years, even if not with exactly the spin that the Modern Press gives to it all!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

as I stated before, we were led by God to adopt

That's either:
1. As I stated before, we believe we were led by God to adopt.
or
2. As I asserted before, we were led by God to adopt.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

... the amazing thing is that this kind of report is treated as if it's "new" news, but I think it's been in the works and known about among a select group of folks for nearly---oh, I don't know---2,000 years, even if not with exactly the spin that the Modern Press gives to it all!

What do you mean?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you mean?

It's the idea of a mass Falling Away (or Drawing Away) by the spirit of anti-christ. You've read the Bible, cover to cover, right?

 

[mama2one]

ot

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It's the idea of a mass Falling Away (or Drawing Away) by the spirit of anti-christ. You've read the Bible, cover to cover, right?

Goodness me, you're talking about Bible quotes applied to the modern world situation? Very funny.

And while I have a passing familiarity with most of the Bible, I've never read it cover to cover. I've never met a Christian who could make a case for it being worthwhile.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

is this a Chinese thing?
my daughter who didn't start learning English until 27 mos old, also corrects my English

Awww, bless!

No, I'm not Chinese, thought I live in China. I'm just pointing out that if you say "God led you to do something," I don't think he did, because I don't think there is a God. It's nitpicking, but I think it's a point worth making.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Goodness me, you're talking about Bible quotes applied to the modern world situation? Very funny.

And while I have a passing familiarity with most of the Bible, I've never read it cover to cover. I've never met a Christian who could make a case for it being worthwhile.

Have you even read the New Testament in full, at the least?