Friendly question for all athiests (and those that are having a tough time believing)

You'll have to offer some proof on this one...who supposedly kept up with the statistics? What's the actual score after all these years?

 

they never happened

 

Maybe I wasn't making myself clear David ole buddy. The Christian religious movement in this country has a rather sneaky trick that it uses quite often in any of these debates. So sneaky that it goes right over most peoples heads if they are not paying attention. Once you are clued into it, you see it used all the time.

It goes something like this: If you are attacking, play the victim. If you are trying to convert others, complain that atheists are trying to convince believers that they are stupid and wrong. If you are trying to convince people that the founding fathers intended that religion and politics be intertwined, complain that your adversaries are trying to take God out of the system. And then there is the old tried and true, “If we say it enough times, it must be true ploy”.

Don’t even try to tell me that Christian religious leaders in this country haven’t been on the offensive for years now. They play the victim very well while making inroads into politics, public schools, private lives, medical decisions, and any number of other areas they don’t belong. I have yet to see one atheist group flex its muscles in any debate so far. If it has happened, it was undoubtedly small and only in response to the onslaught of religious zealots.

You have bought into the deception and championed it without even being aware of your own role or even scarier maybe you are. I just hope that others become aware of the tactics your group is wielding and call them out for what they are….Evil.

 

CHRIST DIED FOR YOU!
the least you can do is pay for school vouches

 

Glad to see you posting again Andy, you are still the best.
ROFL

 

Thanks, I got your e-mails and decided to return for awhile since I'm back states-side again.

 

I think that's a pretty big statement to make, as not everyone is like that. I agree though, there are a lot like that, but not everyone is. I believe it's wrong to call someone stupid and wrong, just because they disagree with you? How do you help people like that IMO??

Phoenix

 

Religion is an insult to human dignity.

Without it we would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

But for good people to do evil things it takes religion.

Religion is the root of all evil. People with weak analytical minds find truth in fables and parables. No matter how much you bible huggers want your faith to be true..it is NOT. There has never been a GOD, and never will be a GOD. You are IT. You are in control of your destiny and your life. You believers live in fear and ignorance. Athiests and people of reason and intelligence are our only hope for the future. Faith is the end of intelligent reasoning. No questions worth answering has an answer that ends in "Faith". Faith is the result of poor intellectual brain power. The world needs to loose these primitive notions of Gods. We have forgotten all the other Gods people have worshiped just as fevered as you, ie Zeus, Odin, Apollo, etc. Think about your religious arguments if they were put towards one of these old forgotten Gods and you get an idea how ridiculous your argument truly is. There is ZERO proof of anything divine besides anecdotal evidence. No matter how much you stroke your Bible. Reality is based on what is observable and quantifiable. Not dreams and delusions. Nothing unreal exists.

Look you can believe whatever you want, belief does NOT make reality. Just ask any schizophrenic .

 

see what I mean? This is a point I have tried to make in the past and this fella illustrates it perfectly. An atheist can be just as closed minded and tyrannical in what they believe as any Christian... This person has done exactly what many religious people do...he has drawn a concrete, empirical conclusion on something he could not, and probably never will know. He does the exact same thing many religious people do, he has completely placed his belief in a concept, and now not only insists is completely true without any possibility of him being wrong, but he vilifies a huge swath of people and the concept of God as a whole, calling it 'evil'.... I am also pretty sure he probably has quite a bit of disdain for people who believe so strongly in god. His only reason given is that there is no proof of Gods existence...and of course if there is no proof to something existing, it doesnt exist right?...period...end of discussion.

Good thing the people who thought all matter was made up of atoms didnt just say 'there is no proof so it doesn't exist and people who think there are atoms are evil'...a stance like that as it pertains to unproven theories and concepts would certainly keep humanity from advancing

I would say he knows nothing about the matters of the divine, about as much as anyone else...and his antagonistic stance, and the fact that he is positive his beliefs are right, and his disdain for anyone who believes anything other than what he believes is quite typical with people on both sides of the endless debate.

 

Yes and No! I see his opinion as just as valid as those that build churches, evangelize on TV, convert or kill other believers, and do everything in their power to prove that their belief is superior. In his case though, he hasn't erected statues, fought wars, divided societies, and created dynasties that rule through fear and intimidation. I understand his anger if not his rhetoric. You can only have mysticism thrown in your face for so long before you get angry and lash out against those that believe without proof and commit such amazing atrocities in the name of their belief.
BTW At least those that searched for atoms kept looking and that is the major difference between faith and science. Questi0ons are allowed in science. I don't know the truth but I know ignorance when I see it.

 

I would say you have a point about his righteous anger save for the fact that I also do not believe in God and have, in fact, been effected negatively by SOME who have showed intolerance towards me....and I do not believe those who choose to worship a god are evil, wrong, nor do I look at them with disdain. Then again I have decided not to simply do as some of them have done and be tyrannical in the insistence of what I believe is truth...as I recognize I could be wrong. Nor would I make the mistake in thinking what I believe is superior to any others...this so called anger, which is, lets face it, righteous intolerant indignation, disdain and a false assumption that he knows something others do not, is not the way to put an end to intolerance, it just feeds it and makes him no better, and lets face it, he doesn't have the answer any more than anyone else and he would probably be no better than any intolerant religious person if given half a chance to impose his beliefs on others...

This is coming from a person who, because of his beliefs, has pretty much eliminated himself from any position of power as people with my beliefs have been shown in polls to be the least trusted demographic in the US (and the world)...non-believers. Ranting and striking out is no way to change that, of that I have no doubt...its just a case of doing what he most likely sees as wrong with the religious, he is judging all Christians by the actions of others...

My mother is a Christian and not once have I seen her bash non-believers or try to impose her personal religious beliefs on anyone. I see him for what he is...no different than that religious nut, striking out at all those who might not fall in line with what he is sure he knows is correct. Like the religious who do such things, I think such behavior gives us non-believers a bad rap...we aren't all ranting tyrannical, intolerant, people who think they have some greater insight than the great unwashed masses. If he is so damn sure he is right, more power to him, but dont try to pass off his personal beliefs on the rest of us as fact...because then he is no better...regardless of what others have done in the past, or today...if you go down that path, you are no better.

If he were a true skeptic he could never be so sure he is right regarding such a subject if you ask me.

 

[QUOTE=Moen1305;269870 erected statues, fought wars, divided societies, and created dynasties that rule through fear and intimidation....commit such amazing atrocities in the name of their belief.

sounds like National Socialist/Communist beliefs of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Lenin/Stalin/Georgy Malenkov/Nikita Khrushchev/etc in Soviet Union past, and Hitler in Germany.

 

As you read the following post, please keep an open mind, or open your mind and atleast read and think about what's been typed. Thank you.

Except, your saying you don't believe what the New Testament says (I could be reading too much into your posts, so correct me if I'm wrong ), but you're saying that Jesus was a good man, and his teaching were good advice.

Apart from the New Testament, we have nothing that tells us about Jesus, other than He was charged with sedition outside of Jerusalem, and crucified by Pilate. Apart from that, we know nothing about Jesus, except what is said in the Historical Documents of the New Testament. And if you only accept bits and pieces of it, what are you saying? That this part is okay, but this other part I disagree with, so it can't be true. We need to accept all that is said in there. The New Testament actually is more Historically Reliable than many Contempory Writings that are taught as fact (and are fact.) The New Testament doesn't talk about something happened once upon a time, in a far away place, with some guy with a funny name? No, it talks like many other historical documents of History, that are taken as fact. If you look at Luke 3:1-2:

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, 2 while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests,[a] the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

If that's not descriptive, then I'd like you to show me what is, lol. That is a piece of evidence that the New Testament is Historically reliable (I'm not saying that it is in entirety, but it is a piece of it IMHO.) It talks about Historical people, and even gives a date! And it is entirely true. It doesn't contradict itself. If that's not a piece of History right there, then I'd like to see what qualifies.

And, if you look at it, the New Testament is more reliable then many other writings of history. Take for example Caesar's Gallic Wars, originally written in 58 to 50 B.C. There are 9 or 10 good manuscripts (there are no originals of course). The oldest we have is from the ninth century. There's a distance of 800 years, but we accept that as historically reliable.

Then there is The History of Herodotus, written about 480 to 425 B.C. There are eight manuscripts that we know of, and the one that is the earliest was written around 900 A.D. That is a a good 1,300 year gap.

Now what this all has to do with the NT. If we can take these as historically reliable, why can't we the New Testament? There are at the moment 5,000 copies of the Greek New Testament in it's entirety, and in part. None of them contradict each other. That is a far greater amount than we have of the two historical documents mentioned above. Some of the most important are:

The Codex Sinaiticus: This dates about 350 A.D.! This has the entire bible, as well as many other books. The gap, only a mere 250 or so years.

The Codex Alexandrinus: copied about the middle of the 5th century. This is only removed from the originals by about 400 years.

"The New Testament comes from a manuscript attestation that is far great to the classical histories" Taken from the Historical Christian Evidences Workbook. F.F. Bruce observes in his book The New Testament Documents-Are they Reliable? says "Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their work which are of any use to us are 1,300 years later than the originals." IMO, the New Testament historicity is much stronger than that of other historical documents. That's all I have to say for now.

Phoenix

 

If you want to be objective, Herod was not jewish by tribal allegance and real religious ties by any extent nor were the high priests of the temple. It was common policy of Roman to replace tradional leaders with people from tribes that are tradional foes of those people. Herod's family convert to judaism as was requested by Roman and then followed the roman gods as well, I could go on forever about translations, different gospels, etc but the bottom line is why can someone just follow in overall jist of Jesus without having to believe in the magic tricks.
If you really want to research look up the egyptian gods and roman gods and you will have the story of jesus, not the preachings but the miracles,etc.

 

I see what you are getting at Phoenix. A few thoughts if you don't mind. If I wrote a journal and in my journal I said I got up, brushed my teeth, got dressed and then rode my magic carpet through my home city of Houston to work this morning. Do you believe everything I wrote? Or do you you only find parts of what I wrote believable? One does not have to accept all of what is said or written as true to accept other aspects of what is written even in the same sentence.

Like an earlier reference I made to the death of Augustus. There is a lot written about him from many different sources, I indeed believe he existed and I believe he did much of what these sources say he did. These sources also say that when he died his spirit was seen by many, rising to the heavens, which is the basis for him being proclaimed a god...I do not believe this happened and I do not think he was a god even though I do accept many other facts written about him by the same author. This kind of thing was VERY common in ancient times, to mix fantastic tales with bits, or even quite a lot, of real history, using real names and places. Both the Greeks and the Romans did this as well as most other ancient societies.

So in essence I would say no, I do not have to accept the whole simply because I accept parts.

Thus to clarify my statement about Jesus and the bible...I was saying that even if the WHOLE BIBLE is just myths, fables, and fictional stories...Much of what Jesus seems to stand for, much of the advice given and the ideas he stood for, is good whether he is the son of god or not. If Joe Blow down the block said 'do unto others...', its still good advice. Maybe at one time just being Joe Blow with some good ideas wasn't enough to get people to listen, maybe if he was the son of god his words would reach more ears and carry more weight.

From just my personal research I believe it is very possible that the character of Jesus probably had some basis in fact. Much like some kings and historical figures I would file him under semi-legendary, like Siddhartha the Buddha and Mohammed. I do not believe he was the son of God any more than I believe Hercules was the son of a god, or Augustus WAS a god. I believe that it is characteristic of ancient writers to intermingle aspects of the divine and more fantastic things with historical, semi-historical and factual names and places. I also think the bible is a religious text with moral lessons that assembles many different texts from difference sources deemed acceptable by early leaders of the church to be included and there is probably, in this somewhat large book, facts, names, places, kings, battles that are real or based on real events.

Now I also have to say that although I do not believe Jesus was the son of god, that he rose from the dead, walked on water, turned wine to water, etc...I am not saying it isn't true...I cannot know that, I dont have what I feel is sufficient proof to break my skepticism regarding the very fantastic concepts and acts put forth in the bible. I am not just skeptical of the bible, I am skeptical of a lot of what was written in ancient times when they refer to matter of the divine (and medicine, science, etc..for that matter)

Let me ask you a quick question. Mohammed came some time after Jesus and in fact Islam holds Jesus as a holy prophet. There is much written about Mohammed...there is little doubt in my mind that he not only existed, but did much of what they say he did. His life is rather well recorded by many contemporary sources. Many of these sources that tell of his life and times, battles he fought, what he said and did, where he lived, etc...they also say that he was a prophet of god, that he received revelations directly from god (some deny this is true). The Quran is considered the words of god which he received until his death. Now do you believe Mohammed was a real person? Do you believe he lived and did much of what is ascribe to him by MANY contemporary writers aside from him being a prophet? IF you do...do you also believe that he was a messenger from god, a holy prophet? That god spoke to us through him? Can you accept that he lived and did much of what they said but deny the part about him being a prophet?

sorry its a bit wordy.

 

Good point, and no I don't mind at all. I like the discussion. I had to think about it for awhile. I see your point to except (you had to predict there would be an except ). Except, say the whole Bible, like your journal, was written by Drusus. Drusus' letter to Corinth, Drusus' letter to the Hebrews, etc. There is only one writer, and say you weren't even there when the events that happened in the Gospels, but you still talk about them, and write about them.

You are the only one writing it, and of course, there is going to be quite a bit of bias, as, well, you're the only one that wrote it, lol! But with the Bible, it's different. Let's not look at the entire Bible right now, but rather the New Testaments. Not every book is written by one person, or even just 3. There are quite a few. Also, there are no contradictions.

Nothing contradicts itself in the NT (or the OT either, but we're focusing on the NT right now.) That's pretty impressive IMHO, considering what I've mentioned. Also, all these people, not some, but all of these people were willing to die for what they believe. Now you might say "Oh, but same is for the Muslims!" Except, here, it is different.

Here, these people wrote from eye-witness testimony. Either they were there when these events happened, or like tradition tells us Mark wrote down some of Peter's accounts, like a reporter. (I could be wrong on this.) But the fact is that Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, etc, they were there when these things happened. They were willing to go through rejection, beatings, being thrown in prison, and be shoved in the face of death. History tells us that Peter was crucified upside down, John was sent to be imprisoned Patmos, etc.

How many people of us would be willing to go through all this, for a lie? If these men made up the what the wrote, or even just a little, they wouldn't have suffered and been persecuted as they were. And it's not like they were so desperate for a someone, that they'd make up something on the spot. Number one, the people back then wouldn't have accepted it, because they'd be able to prove it wrong, and it'd be left to die. Number two, they wouldn't have, like I said, gone through that. John said in John 19:35:

And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.

I believe he was a real person, as history tells us that he was. Now if he actually did go into a cave, and God appear to him, I doubt. As, there isn't any evidence that proves (atleast to my knowledge, I confess to being ignorant to the religion ) that he did, other than what he said. What happened with him, we can only go by what he said happened, because he was the only person there. Now, before you can say "Aha, that also goes for the New Testament writers!", lol, condsider this. Unlike Mohammed, the things that are talked about in the Gospels did not happen in private.

They were done in public, and they were also written not too long after the events took place. The people would be able to clarify what was right, and what was wrong. They (atleast to my knowledge) couldn't do that with Mohammed, because he was the only witness. But, the New Testament is full of witnesses, not only the writers, but the people at the time. Luke writes to Theophilus in Luke and Acts, because he was a Roman Official, and he had access to records and files, where he could go, look to see if this guy was full of it, or was telling the truth. IMHO, that's what sets this all apart of Mohammed, and other religions.

Also, I'm not saying this to force it down your thought, or force you to believe. I can't do that. All that I can do is present the facts and evidence to you, and everyone else here, and let you draw from them what you would like. Please don't be afraid to present your views, (as long as they are respectful, which you have been doing, and I thank you for that.)

Phoenix

 

What proof or evidence did you present?

 

Would you like the scholarly analysis of the Bible? Grammar, theology, those sorts of things.

Just as a small example, most reputable scholars say that the Gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author. Some of Paul's letters (Hebrews and Ephesians come to mind) are consistent with his theological points, but not necessarily with the grammar of those letters generally accepted as his.

Or how about this? The oldest copies of the New Testament date to the third century AD, less than 2 centuries after they were originally written. The oldest copies of Plato are from at least 5 centuries after he wrote them. Which is more likely to be real? Even the copies of Old Testament books from the Dead Sea Scrolls (dating from around the time of Jesus) are remarkably consistent with the next most recent copies (10th century AD) of the same books.

Circumstantial, according to the laws of our legal system? Sure. But the circumstances are a lot stronger than not.

 

Not sure what you are trying to prove. It certainly doesn't even begin to prove anything that is said within those writings is correct or historically accurate. Certainly some early church members muddled through a bunch of old texts in an effort to gather together a single accepted version of the of the bible (they failed as there are other versions as we all know), some versions made the cut, others didnt. They composed the new testament (and old) the way they saw fit from the many different versions of the different stories that existed. One can trace the genealogy of fables and tale tales but they are still fables and tall tales. People rising from the dead, walking on the surface of the water, healing the sick...the only people I know who heal the sick with gods powers today are the scumbag fakers on the TV who are trying to get you to believe in them as holy men...wait a minute...certainly several thousand years ago there wouldn't have been a superstitious, uneducated population much more open to such trickery (not to say there arent plenty today), or people (even groups of people) who would take advantage of such people? not in this one case it seems, JESUS was the real deal

Debating this is like a never ending circle, there is simply no way to make a scholarly study of the bible in a way that would prove Jesus was the son of God and worked miracles...It IS valuable for study as a religious text with its origins in antiquity. Otherwise you just have to take it on faith like any religion. Like every religious person who has tried to convert me, they say 'you must have faith' or 'you need to open yourself to god'

Thing is, if something is proven to exist, I don't have to somehow open myself to it, it just exists and can be proven...like a chair....its there whether I believe or not...Its not a matter of belief.

You are choosing to take as factual the bible and all the fantastic things that are put forth there in. That God created Adam and Eve (several versions of this story that didnt make the bible), they populated the world, Moses parted the seas (among other miracles), Noah built an arc and saved two of every animal, people spoke to god, etc...With Jesus you are choosing to believe the words of a man who lived in the middle east several thousand years ago who claims he was god and who is written about by his followers. Can you think of other, non-religious text that you would accept as factual from 2000+ years ago? Not to mention texts that talk of people rising from the dead and walking on the surface of water and being the offspring of a god? The Romans were pretty advance for their time but to be honest...it was a different time, it was the roman outskirts, people were much different, the vast majority of people were uneducated...etc..etc...

There is no real debate because most realize it is a matter of personal belief and debating the details of peoples personal beliefs is senseless...personal beliefs do not have to be proven or conform mundane reality.

 

Phoenix