Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    (a) there would be less diversity of religions within the world and it would be more obvious that a particular religion was right rather than them all having a roughly equal lack of evidence for them
    Baseless speculation. You provide no arguments for why this should be the case.

    (b) there would be obvious miracles that occurred in the world, and the invention of everyone having cellphones and video cameras should mean that youtube should have a hundred thousand compelling videos of miracles happening, and the international media would be able to provide video footage of a person's leg growing back as the shaman prayed over the person.
    See above.

    (c) Religious people who felt they had been 'given a message from God' would be right more often and agree with each other more.
    See above.

    (d) there would be less naturally occurring suffering in the world (disease, earthquakes, etc).
    See above.

    (e) a deity could create the world and the life on it instantly, but everything we know about astronomy and biology tells us that naturalistic processes over billions of years were what formed our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, and evolved life on it.
    See above.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Says a gospel account that most skeptics would doubt the accuracy of.

      Says a gospel account that most skeptics would doubt the accuracy of.

      Says accounts by religious people that most skeptics would doubt the accuracy of.

      Says a gospel account that most skeptics would doubt the accuracy of.

      Says a gospel account that most skeptics would doubt the accuracy of.
      The reasons skeptics doubt the accuracy of the gospels with a hyper-skepticism they don't submit other historical works to, has more to do with their own dogmatic commitments than with genuine rational inquiry.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        OK. That is the distinction you are making.
        Yes I make that distinction. I don’t see any reason why either –let alone both- of the following are true:
        a) something that may or may not exist always depends on something else for its existence.
        b) something that depends on something else may but need not exist.

        You need explain how anything can exist without existence [to exist]?
        No don’t, because I don’t make the claim that something can exist without existence [to exist], whatever that may mean, nor do I claim something came from nothing. Those are your strawmen.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          The reasons skeptics doubt the accuracy of the gospels with a hyper-skepticism they don't submit other historical works to, has more to do with their own dogmatic commitments than with genuine rational inquiry.
          The historical-critical methodology of modern historians doesn't accept miracles (the core component of the Jesus story) on the basis that they can't be shown to be true, NOT because of their "own dogmatic commitments".

          To quote Ehrman in Jesus, Interrupted:

          "I am decidedly not saying that Jesus was not raised from the dead. I’m not saying the tomb was not empty. I’m not saying that he did not appear to his disciples and ascend into heaven. Believers believe that all these things are true. But they do not believe them because of historical evidence. They take the Christian claims on faith, not on the basis of proof. There can be no proof."
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            Baseless speculation. You provide no arguments for why this should be the case.
            I'm sure you've seen the points argued through 100 times like I have. I'm not in a position to add any special insight on those points you won't have seen elsewhere.

            The reasons skeptics doubt the accuracy of the gospels with a hyper-skepticism they don't submit other historical works to, has more to do with their own dogmatic commitments than with genuine rational inquiry.
            Baseless speculation. You provide no arguments for why this should be the case.

            FWIW, I completely disagree with you. I'm a skeptic and I think the gospels are mostly true and portray Jesus mostly accurately:
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            I think that Jesus existed and was a MLK Jr / Sathya Sai Baba / Elijah type social-reformer movement-building religious-teacher and that he was viewed as a prophet and his followers thought he'd done miracles like the prophets of old and they expected God to restore the fortunes of Israel though Jesus' movement, and that the gospels likely for the most part record his general teachings (which focus primarily on poverty) fairly accurately.
            The gospels are like the kinds of accounts that the followers of Sathya Sai Baba (a recently deceased Indian guru who's followers were convinced he did all sorts of miracles, and who claimed to be a reincarnation of a famous Indian guru) would write about him. The general teachings are going to be fairly faithful to the kinds of things that were taught, and the believers are going to include all the juiciest stories about the best miracles he did that they can lay their hands on, and there's a little bit of spin put on the theology by the writer to explain to the reader the writer's understanding of what the person's life being described really meant and why it was important.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              The historical-critical methodology of modern historians doesn't accept miracles (the core component of the Jesus story) on the basis that they can't be shown to be true, NOT because of their "own dogmatic commitments".
              People in different religious groups everywhere through history have believed in all sorts of weird and wacky miracles... the sun being hit with a magic jawbone to make it slow down, the sun moving backward in the sky, the sun 'dancing' in the sky, the dead rising from their graves en masse, talking animals, magical gold tablets, boxes that strike you dead if you touch them, doing a dance to make it rain, etc. Basically religious people are bonkers and have believed in all sorts of crazy, and there's not actually a single convincing example of a miracle ever occurring in the entirety of human history.

              So when a historical source documents a 'miracle', I would say the source is 'true' if the source depicts the beliefs observers of the event. e.g. if there are gullible religious people who believe they have seen Jesus miraculously heal a person, then the source is correct to report the miracle. Obviously the miracle didn't actually occur, because duh, but the source is thus accurately giving us insight about the events and the beliefs of the people there about those events, and essentially is telling us that if those people had had facebook they would be posting "OMG, I saw a miracle occur today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And in that sense, I think the gospels contain both 'true' and 'false' miracles - some that do tie back to real events where the people there thought a miracle occurred, and others that are later inventions and rumors where the gospel author heard it from a person who heard it from a person and it doesn't tie back to any historical event (good candidates for false miracles include the angelic visits in the birth narratives, and the mass resurrection at the end of Matthew).
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
                Yes I make that distinction. I don’t see any reason why either –let alone both- of the following are true:
                a) something that may or may not exist always depends on something else for its existence.
                b) something that depends on something else may but need not exist.
                OK. But there is [uncaused] existence prior to all things, is there not?

                No don’t, because I don’t make the claim that something can exist without existence [to exist], whatever that may mean, nor do I claim something came from nothing. Those are your strawmen.
                What do you mean, "No don’t, because I don’t make the claim that something can exist without existence [to exist], whatever that may mean, . . ?" How can you object to what you seem to not understand? And how can you even say it is a straw man argument, if you admit that the argument does not make sense to you?

                Now you admit not anything can come from nothing. So there was always something ultimately uncaused. Right?
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  People in different religious groups everywhere through history have believed in all sorts of weird and wacky miracles... the sun being hit with a magic jawbone to make it slow down, the sun moving backward in the sky, the sun 'dancing' in the sky, the dead rising from their graves en masse, talking animals, magical gold tablets, boxes that strike you dead if you touch them, doing a dance to make it rain, etc. Basically religious people are bonkers and have believed in all sorts of crazy, and there's not actually a single convincing example of a miracle ever occurring in the entirety of human history.

                  So when a historical source documents a 'miracle', I would say the source is 'true' if the source depicts the beliefs observers of the event. e.g. if there are gullible religious people who believe they have seen Jesus miraculously heal a person, then the source is correct to report the miracle. Obviously the miracle didn't actually occur, because duh, but the source is thus accurately giving us insight about the events and the beliefs of the people there about those events, and essentially is telling us that if those people had had facebook they would be posting "OMG, I saw a miracle occur today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And in that sense, I think the gospels contain both 'true' and 'false' miracles - some that do tie back to real events where the people there thought a miracle occurred, and others that are later inventions and rumors where the gospel author heard it from a person who heard it from a person and it doesn't tie back to any historical event (good candidates for false miracles include the angelic visits in the birth narratives, and the mass resurrection at the end of Matthew).
                  I think you’re agreeing with me here. Yes, it’s reasonable to say that those “healed” by say, Benny Hinn or Sai Baba can honestly believe that they experienced a miracle. But a future historian will see it differently. As Ehrman says modern historians will acknowledge that believers believe that all these things are true, but based upon faith, not on the basis of proof. There can be no proof."
                  Last edited by Tassman; 05-29-2017, 02:11 AM.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    OK. But there is [uncaused] existence prior to all things, is there not?
                    Not sure what you mean by [uncaused] existence. Is it a thing that exists uncaused, or existence itself? (or yet something else?). Either way, if it exists it seems to me [uncaused] existence can not be prior to all things, for then it would also be prior to itself, which is, well, problematic.

                    What do you mean, "No don’t, because I don’t make the claim that something can exist without existence [to exist], whatever that may mean, . . ?" How can you object to what you seem to not understand?

                    And how can you even say it is a straw man argument, if you admit that the argument does not make sense to you?
                    It’s a strawman if it means what I think it means, namely that something can exist if existence itself doesn’t exist. If you meant something else, feel free to clarify.

                    Now you admit not anything can come from nothing. So there was always something ultimately uncaused. Right?
                    Not quite. I'm objecting to the unwarranted always bit; after all it may no longer exist.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      OK. But there is [uncaused] existence prior to all things, is there not?

                      What do you mean, "No don’t, because I don’t make the claim that something can exist without existence [to exist], whatever that may mean, . . ?" How can you object to what you seem to not understand? And how can you even say it is a straw man argument, if you admit that the argument does not make sense to you?

                      Now you admit not anything can come from nothing. So there was always something ultimately uncaused. Right?
                      You obviously believe the bolded above, correct? I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you tell me why you believe that?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The Creation account of the Bible, though meant to be literally true, is known to be literally false. The authors were obviously ignorant of millions of years of life on earth prior to Adam and Eve, prior even to human existence.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          The Creation account of the Bible, though meant to be literally true, is known to be literally false. The authors were obviously ignorant of millions of years of life on earth prior to Adam and Eve, prior even to human existence.
                          assuming something for which there is no evidence here JimL. just because some folks take it in a wooden literal sense doesnt' mean it is supposed to be taken that way.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            No.
                            Yes.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                              assuming something for which there is no evidence here JimL. just because some folks take it in a wooden literal sense doesnt' mean it is supposed to be taken that way.
                              The authors of the NT and/or most of the church fathers believed Genesis was literal, and that was the standard for Christianity up until the 19th and 20th century, and remains the standard for many Christians today.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                                assuming something for which there is no evidence here JimL. just because some folks take it in a wooden literal sense doesnt' mean it is supposed to be taken that way.
                                The Genesis Creation narratives have been accepted as literally true for most of Judeo/Christian history...and still are in some benighted instances. They were clearly written as a literal explanation of the origins of the world, as were ALL Creation myths.
                                Last edited by Tassman; 05-29-2017, 10:54 PM.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                168 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,509 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X