Why are you an atheist/Agnostic

[Warcraft3]

We can conclude that there was a gap of time between the events and the recording of the events. That provides a window during which any number of things could have happened. Memories could have been affected. Stories could have been altered in the relating. Theological debates could have caused a re-interpretation of the events in question.

It is also possible that there was a perfectly kept written record that was perfectly transcribed from hand to hand without error. However, we have no such documents. We have differences in the documents we DO have.

Put all of that together and what we have is weakened confidence about the accuracy of the claims. And when you factor in the NATURE of the claims...

Michel

But isn't it quite normal for there to be a gap of time between events and when they are recorded? Especially thousands of years ago.....

When we find a fossil of some animal we usually assume that the fossil is not the first appearance of the animal.....Morton claims they add something like 30% (I could be remembering that incorrectly so if I am wrong please correct me) to the age for that animal.

Could we not say something similar about written documents? Why assume the documents we have are really the original or first written accounts? There could have been many more lost in history....

I just don't see this argument or thinking to be very effective against Theists.....

[Carpedm9587]

But isn't it quite normal for there to be a gap of time between events and when they are recorded? Especially thousands of years ago.....

By definition - yes - although the length may vary. But in general, I think it's safe to sayt that events tend to be recorded after they happen.

When we find a fossil of some animal we usually assume that the fossil is not the first appearance of the animal.....Morton claims they add something like 30% (I could be remembering that incorrectly so if I am wrong please correct me) to the age for that animal.

Also true. When we find an animal fossil, presumably we are not finding the fossil of the first member of that species. Indeed, the idea of the "first member" of any species is kind of like trying to figure out the "first word" a child ever spoke. As a father, I quickly discovered the myth of the "first word." You spend months trying to figure out if the child is using words as they make sounds that more and more closely approximate english until you finally seize on one and say "that was it!"

Could we not say something similar about written documents? Why assume the documents we have are really the original or first written accounts? There could have been many more lost in history....

Most certainly, it is possible.

I just don't see this argument or thinking to be very effective against Theists.....

I'd be curious to know what you think "this argument" actually is. Unless I miss my guess, you are thinking I am saying something I am actually not. Most of the time, that's what happens with this subject.

Michel

[SteveF]

okay.

So why are you an atheist?

Personal reasons.

[LGM]

Personal reasons.

That statement is vapid and false and meaningless and probably a bunch of other stuff too.

Why not come clean and just admit you hate Jesus?

[Warcraft3]

By definition - yes - although the length may vary. But in general, I think it's safe to sayt that events tend to be recorded after they happen.

Very funny..

I'd be curious to know what you think "this argument" actually is. Unless I miss my guess, you are thinking I am saying something I am actually not. Most of the time, that's what happens with this subject.

Michel

The argument is usually along the lines that the records we have a re unreliable as eyewitness testimony because of the gap in time.......I find that argument to be a weak one among skeptics arguments....

So maybe I was attributing something to you that you weren't implying...if I did then I'm sorry.

[LGM]

The argument is usually along the lines that the records we have a re unreliable as eyewitness testimony because of the gap in time.......I find that argument to be a weak one among skeptics arguments....

There's little evidence or consensus as to who exactly the authors of the gospel stories were, and what their sources were. That's why there is a huge cottage industry writing books that speculate about it.

The other glaring problem is that intricate details about the earthly ministry, and passion story of Jesus of Galilee, don't show up in any of the earliest first century Christian correspondence. Especially all the letters written by Saul.

Perhaps the next time one of god's offspring comes to earth, he might take some time between being cruicifed, rising from his tomb, having a bite of fish, and flying up into the sky, to author his own 'good news'? To wordsmith his own message, that makes it clear what brand of theology, what inane rituals, and what silly creeds need to be recited in mind numbing unison to gain his gift of eternal life candy?

That way, we skeptics, would have something more than the stories written by some unknown authors we now call Mark or Luke, who even Christian scholars don't claim were eyewitnesses to these alleged events.

[SteveF]

That statement is vapid and false and meaningless and probably a bunch of other stuff too.

Why not come clean and just admit you hate Jesus?

Ahhh you got me there.

[Carpedm9587]

The argument is usually along the lines that the records we have a re unreliable as eyewitness testimony because of the gap in time.......I find that argument to be a weak one among skeptics arguments....

So maybe I was attributing something to you that you weren't implying...if I did then I'm sorry.

OK - I was wrong, You do have it basically right. I was expecting you to say that the records are wrong because of the gap in time.

That is what MM and Crystal typically infer and respond to, which is not the argument in the least.

Our problem here is about confidence. When a document is separated in time from the events it reports, it is not necessarily wrong. It does, however, create some questions. So we find ourselves asking things like:

- Who were the authors?
- What was their purpose in writing?
- What information did they draw on to create their story?
- What is the nature of their claims and does it align with their evidentiary basis?
- Is there any external supporting evidence for the claims?

When we turn those questions (and others) to the Christian texts, we find that we can't answer the first one in most instances. The letters are something of an exception, given their nature, and we are reasonably sure Act was written by the author of Luke and Revelation by the author of John. But the precise identity of the authors is unknown - speculated on but lost to history. Their purpose can only be inferred from the texts themselves since we have no access to who they were or any other information about their purpose. We have very little idea what information they drew on. We have one claim of "researching," and we have evidence that three of the gospels drew form one or more common sources - but we have no access to those sources or any other information. And the nature of some of their claims is spectacular. They are claims that are rejected in essentially every other context, and are not in any way a part of the common human experience.

So we are left with enormous uncertainty. it is not JUST the separation in time that is a problem. It is the separation in this context with the surrounding issues.

Michel

[wolper]

Why are you an atheist/Agnostic?

Here's just two reasons:
- the world is not perfect, therefore it was not created by a perfect being
- we do not have have proof that even one religion is right, but we do have proof that many must be wrong, since many religions contradict each other -that is, they can't all be right.

All you are saying when you claim an absence of "convincing" evidence is "there is no evidence that I am willing to accept".

What is the reason you think Santa Claus doesn't exist?

Unless you possess the one thing that no one possesses - a truly open mind, free of prejudice - your criteria of what is evidence is no better than anyone else's

I think this is true. That is why I do not tell other people to stop believing in God. But judging from your post I do have a feeling that you on the other hand want me to change my worldview based on your criteria of convincing evidence.....

Perhaps the best way to start to answer this question is to see if you can answer the following question:

Why did the followers of Jesus of Nazareth claim that He had resurrected?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because the tomb had been found empty?

[Warcraft3]

There's little evidence or consensus as to who exactly the authors of the gospel stories were, and what their sources were. That's why there is a huge cottage industry writing books that speculate about it.

If there is little outside evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew then what evidence is there that he didn't write it?

The other glaring problem is that intricate details about the earthly ministry, and passion story of Jesus of Galilee, don't show up in any of the earliest first century Christian correspondence. Especially all the letters written by Saul.

But the letters of Paul are written to the church.....so they already know and accept as true the events in the gospels.....why would Paul need to recount these things?

Each letter of Paul addresses what he sees as spiritual and/or theological problems that existed in the various churches. His letters are not intended to be a gospel account.....

Perhaps the next time one of god's offspring comes to earth, he might take some time between being cruicifed, rising from his tomb, having a bite of fish, and flying up into the sky, to author his own 'good news'? To wordsmith his own message, that makes it clear what brand of theology, what inane rituals, and what silly creeds need to be recited in mind numbing unison to gain his gift of eternal life candy?

That way, we skeptics, would have something more than the stories written by some unknown authors we now call Mark or Luke, who even Christian scholars don't claim were eyewitnesses to these alleged events.

Just because the author is not an eyewitness does not mean the source information for the account did not come from eyewitnesses.



Russ

[Warcraft3]

OK - I was wrong, You do have it basically right. I was expecting you to say that the records are wrong because of the gap in time.

That is what MM and Crystal typically infer and respond to, which is not the argument in the least.

As far as I can tell the usual skeptical argument is not about the accounts being wrong but rather being unreliable as eyewitness testimony......

Of course it makes sense for skeptics to use that argument because that is exactly what we Christians claim....that they are reliable eyewitness testimony.

Our problem here is about confidence. When a document is separated in time from the events it reports, it is not necessarily wrong. It does, however, create some questions. So we find ourselves asking things like:

- Who were the authors?
- What was their purpose in writing?
- What information did they draw on to create their story?
- What is the nature of their claims and does it align with their evidentiary basis?
- Is there any external supporting evidence for the claims?

All valid questions.....

When we turn those questions (and others) to the Christian texts, we find that we can't answer the first one in most instances. The letters are something of an exception, given their nature, and we are reasonably sure Act was written by the author of Luke and Revelation by the author of John. But the precise identity of the authors is unknown - speculated on but lost to history. Their purpose can only be inferred from the texts themselves since we have no access to who they were or any other information about their purpose. We have very little idea what information they drew on. We have one claim of "researching," and we have evidence that three of the gospels drew form one or more common sources - but we have no access to those sources or any other information. And the nature of some of their claims is spectacular. They are claims that are rejected in essentially every other context, and are not in any way a part of the common human experience.

I don't necessarily have any strong disagreements with you comments here...

I would ask though..if the other three gospels drew from a common source....why couldn't that source simply have been the eyewitness testimony?

So we are left with enormous uncertainty. it is not JUST the separation in time that is a problem. It is the separation in this context with the surrounding issues.

Michel

But doesn't that uncertainty swing in both directions? Doesn't it apply to both the Christian and the skeptic equally?

[wolper]

If there is little outside evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew then what evidence is there that he didn't write it?

Sorry for intruding here, but as far as I know there's at least two problems with Matthew the disciple being the author:

- nowhere in the gospel does the author make himself known nor does he claim to have been a witness, which, had he actually been there no doubt would have supported his message;
- the synoptic problem; that is, the apparent similarity between the NT's first three gospels indicates that either they copied from one another or they all copied from an earlier source. Since most scholars agree that the Gospel according to Mark was written before the one attributed to Matthew, that would mean Matthew relied heavily upon an other author. Now why would an actual witness have to rely on others for his version of what happened, including scenes where he himself was present?

In my opinion these problems are harder to deal with than the most often heard argument for traditional authorship - that no other author has been proposed.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Perhaps the same reason Muhammed's followers claimed he ascended, or Mormons claimed Joseph Smith had plates, or alien abductees can describe the aliens.

Actually no, this rationale does not fit with early Christian claims of a resurrected Jesus. Muhammed’s followers did not claim his ascended until well after his death and well after the success of Islam. The opposition of Christianity and Judaism to Islam and the need to counter the Christian claim of an ascended Christ and a Jewish claim of an ascended Elijah have to be considered. The claim of ascension commonly appears as a separate tradition that goes on to trump previous traditions and can be traced in history. The resurrection claim is significant for the absence of any competing claim that pre-dates it.

As to Joseph Smith, he claimed to have found the plates and provided the translation. His claim was supported by a charismatic who did exactly what one would expect of a cult movement – he took its followers out of society and into the wilderness. A firm case can be made that Joseph Smith had ulterior motives in his claim and the plates were merely the vehicle of obtaining his goal. Such a claim however, cannot be made of early Christians, who were diverse, followed different leaders and remained in society. Whatever goal that may have existed – assuming it was not the stated goal of preaching the gospel and winning converts to the Son of God – it clearly was not pursued efficiently or with purpose.

As for alien abductions – if I believe in UFO’s the odds are good that I will accept many such claims. However, if I do not, it is equally probable that I will reject such claims as bogus. To be a valid analogy to the early Christian claim of a risen Christ, it would have to established that early Jews and gentiles believed in resurrection and that the also accepted that anyone who did resurrect would automatically be the Son of God. You still have the problem however of competing evidence against it having occurred – namely a body and lack of independent witnesses.

No sorry, your’s is not plausible enough.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Because they wanted their listeners to believe Jesus of Na-something had resurrected. Did they believe it themselves? Probably yes, but not necessarily in precisely the way they claimed. For example, probably Luke believed Jesus had resurrected, but not necessarily in the way Luke claimed in his Gospel.

Why did they want their listeners to believe Jesus of Nazareth had resurrected? Why did they believe it themselves? If they believed it but “not necessarily in precisely the way they claimed” why did they claim it in this way? If Luke did not believe Jesus had resurrected in the way claimed in the gospel of his name, why was it written in the way it was? Why did Luke believe?

[FirstSunday33ad]

POWELL:
Your use of "vapid" is vapid. However, excellent point about the statement being false.



POWELL:




POWELL:
That needs to be revised, otherwise how do you explain people changing their minds?

How about this?

We tend to look for evidence supporting our beliefs and tend to ignore contrary evidence and we tend to weight supporting evidence higher than evidence contrary to our beliefs.

I think most of us do this because we don't feel comfortable sitting on the fence. The result of this method of investigation is a tendency for our confidence in a new belief to rise over time unless the contrary evidence is so good that even with our biased low weighting it still overcomes our current position.



POWELL:
"False" does not equate to "meaningless."



POWELL:
On the contrary, it is much better.



POWELL:
What's wrong with that? What's wrong with being predisposed to believe what you see with your own eyes even if it's extraordinary and predisposed to believe the ordinary claims people make (because those two kinds have turned out to be reliable) but predisposed to reject extraordinary claims without extraordinarily good evidence (because that kind has turned out to be unreliable)?



POWELL:
They're wrong. Every controversial claim can be rationally refuted.



POWELL:
Almost. What their words imply is that there is no evidence which justifies anyone believing. What they should be saying is something like that there's no evidence that convinces them and they don't think anyone else should believe it either.



POWELL:
On the contrary, my criteria of what constitutes evidence surpasses that of most people. I'm highly educated and have a good mastery of the English language.



POWELL:
Because they wanted their listeners to believe Jesus of Na-something had resurrected. Did they believe it themselves? Probably yes, but not necessarily in precisely the way they claimed. For example, probably Luke believed Jesus had resurrected, but not necessarily in the way Luke claimed in his Gospel.



POWELL:
I'm an atheist because I don't believe that God is real. I'm a strong atheist because I believe that God is not real, but rather is an imaginary thing. I'm an agnostic because I don't know for sure. So, I'm an agnostic strong atheist.

Why do I believe that? Based on the evidence available to me. The evidence for a real God, in my judgment, is outweighed by the evidence against a real God. I rely on Occam's Razor and the ECREE principle (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). I learned of Occam's Razor in my science education but it didn't have any significant impact on my theism at the time because I felt like God was needed to adequately explain my life's experiences. I came across the ECREE principle while reading a book by Cark Sagan. I concluded that ECREE was good and I was not properly applying it to my worldview, which at the time was Mormon, but with lots of doubts partly due to personal tragedy and partly due to questions I had come up with that were never adequately answered.

Looking again at the basis for my worldview in light of the ECREE principle, it looked to me like I had been treating Mormon claims with a different criterion, a more gullible / less skeptical one, than how I had been educated to treat claims in general (such as claims concerning aliens and magic). I concluded that I lacked the extraordinary evidence for my extraordinary Mormon views, but had extraordinary evidence for my science views. I began to discard the extraordinary beliefs I had for which I lacked extraordinary evidence. Occam's Razor has a played a role in helping me see that I don't need God to explain my experiences or to explain the well - founded (as opposed to merely claimed) experiences of others.

If you wish to ask "So, why are you an atheist?" in response to my answer then let me say here that it will look to me like a child's game. You see, a child learns early on that to every answer to the "why?" question, it can be followed up with another "why?" Some play a game with this. If you're serious then elaborate on what you want me to explain.

John Powell

What is the definition of extraordinary and supply an example of extraordinary evidence as it applies to a natural question and an example of it as it applies to a supernatural question.