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

I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good

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

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    If they both know it to be wrong, then the believer in god is even more guilty than the unbeliever.

    Because its a silly belief. People aren't omniscient, they believe what they believe, they don't know and can't know. And to believe that a god requires one to accept what they don't know or believe in order to be forgiven is ridiculous.



    So you believe it's a sin for one to believe wrongly? You must never get anything wrong then. What if it turns out that Allah is god? Do you think it would be just of Allah to send you to hell because you got it wrong?





    So you never get it wrong? Interesting.
    Jim if I tell you that you need to take shelter because a hurricane is coming and you don't believe, you are going to have to face that hurricane all by yourself. Those who did listen to me and take shelter will be safe. Are you going to say it is ridiculous to say that your safety depends on whether you believe or not? If you never heard from me and didn't know about the hurricane or safety, is it unfair that you had to face the hurricane instead of knowing about the shelter? Is that ridiculous? What if you decided to build a shack in a hurricane prone land, and despite people warning you, you just said they were crazy. Is it ridiculous that you will be swept away because of your own dumb actions?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Christianity is. It is based on the resurrection of Jesus and the evidence provided of that fact to the witnesses. The bible is their testimony. Like reading the transcript of a trial. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain. Just prove that Jesus didn't exist or resurrect and you have destroyed Christianity.
      May I quote this citing your name of course?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Esther View Post
        May I quote this citing your name of course?
        sure. But Paul said it first in 1 Corinthians 15.
        Last edited by Sparko; 08-26-2020, 02:37 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          No, biblical faith is just trust of the evidence and God.
          No, that is just belief. Faith is belief despite a lack of evidence.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          If you can show me that Jesus didn't exist or that he didn't rise from the dead, I would stop being a Christian. I believe because I trust the evidence presented in the bible and in my own life. That is faith.
          Again, belief due to evidence is belief, not faith.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Because the only thing you can claim it is wrong about are things that CAN be explained, usually it takes the form of someone trying to claim the bible made some scientific claim and then showing it isn't true, but the bible isn't a science book.
          So it is wrong, but that's okay because it's not a science book.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          It merely speaks using methods that people at the time could comprehend. When it talks about the sun standing still for example, it is just speaking from the point of view of the people watching the event.
          How could people view the sun standing still without it standing still - or do you mean that the world actually stopped rotating?)


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          When we get into the new testament and the gospels and acts, the events there have never been shown to be wrong.
          And they've never been shown to be right, either - just like myths in any number of other religious texts. "Never shown to be false" is not a good reason for belief.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          There have been several attempts over the years but they have each failed when new archeological evidence has been found. Such as Pilate as I mentioned earlier. The authors of the gospels have proven to be honest and accurate and so I can trust their testimony as eye witnesses to the events they record. This is no different than a jury trusting witnesses in a trial, some who only appear as written testimony in many cases. It IS evidence.
          Just like the Mormons have evidence of Joseph Smith's meeting the angel. Vague, contradictory claims from anonymous people some 2,000 years ago are incredibly flimsy evidence; it is not remotely like witnesses in a trial.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          wrong. see above.
          Nope, correct. See above.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          We have no evidence there other than Joseph Smith's word and he was a known charlatan and con man.
          And we have no evidence for the gospel stories other than the anonymous authors and we have no idea whether or not they were known charlatans and con men.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          He never claimed any public evidence or visions. It was all happening to him in secret. The visit, the book which conveniently disappeared. But, the evidence AGAINST Smith and mormonism is extensive and too much to to into in a single post. You can visit our mormonism forum and read through the many threads on the topic (note they are theist only areas so don't post there). And NO archaeological evidence supports the claims of the LDS church.
          And the evidence AGAINST Christianity is extensive and too much to to into in a single post. Don't pretend that Christianity is somehow above/ beyond criticism.


          And NO archeological evidence supports the religious claims of Christianity, either.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          The difference is that Christianity DID claim to have evidence and witnesses and it occurred during a time of great persecution to anyone who did try to start a new religion. The Jews and the Romans actively tried to stamp them out. There was no benefit to start a new religion. There was no prestige, or wealth to be gained. The leaders and followers both were hunted down and stoned or killed. Why not just fade into the woodwork and go back to being good Jews and pretend it never happened? How did they get new followers if those people would have known the truth that Jesus was not resurrected? It would have fizzled at the start.
          There is no difference. Christianity CLAIMS evidence and witnesses. Just like Smith's CLAIMS, they are not sufficient to warrant belief.


          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          The difference is that those first Christian leaders and followers would have KNOWN they were charlatans. Why would they die for something they knew was a lie?
          No, they woudln't have known. Christianity is no different to other religions in this way; it requires faith, not reasoned belief.
          America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            You don't disbelieve because of a lack of evidence. You disbelieve because you ignore the evidence. Because you want to be the lord of your own life and not answer to a God. The ironic thing is that this desire is exactly what will cause you to have to answer to God one day.
            An arrogant, conceited and most of all wrong claim. It's about as accurate as Muslim telling you that you don't believe in Allah and Muhammed because you ignore the evidence. Because you want to be the lord of your own life and not answer to a Allah. The ironic thing is that this desire is exactly what will cause you to have to answer to Allah one day.
            America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Jim if I tell you that you need to take shelter because a hurricane is coming and you don't believe, you are going to have to face that hurricane all by yourself. Those who did listen to me and take shelter will be safe. Are you going to say it is ridiculous to say that your safety depends on whether you believe or not? If you never heard from me and didn't know about the hurricane or safety, is it unfair that you had to face the hurricane instead of knowing about the shelter? Is that ridiculous? What if you decided to build a shack in a hurricane prone land, and despite people warning you, you just said they were crazy. Is it ridiculous that you will be swept away because of your own dumb actions?
              The Muslims tell you that you had better believe in Allah, so why don't you believe? Is it your fault that you are not omniscient and sometimes are in error in what it is that you believe? Should you be punished for honestly getting it wrong? The problem with your belief, amongst other thinds, is that the idea you have of god is that he is unjust and petty.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                No, that is just belief. Faith is belief despite a lack of evidence.
                No it isn't. You're an idiot. Faith is trust. And trust is built on evidence. What you are describing is BLIND Faith, and that isn't biblical faith.







                So it is wrong, but that's okay because it's not a science book.
                derp. It wasn't wrong because it wasn't trying to be scientific. If I say the sun rose at 7AM this morning, am I wrong? I know it didn't actually move, the Earth did. But I am speaking colloquially. So does the bible.




                How could people view the sun standing still without it standing still - or do you mean that the world actually stopped rotating?)
                perhaps. It was a miracle.




                And they've never been shown to be right, either - just like myths in any number of other religious texts. "Never shown to be false" is not a good reason for belief.
                I am speaking of things that can be checked. Like finding confirmations in other historic writings, finding coins with people's names on it from the time and area, finding archeological evidence that confirms the descriptions in the bible showing the authors were indeed there and so on.


                Just like the Mormons have evidence of Joseph Smith's meeting the angel. Vague, contradictory claims from anonymous people some 2,000 years ago are incredibly flimsy evidence; it is not remotely like witnesses in a trial.
                No because the people Joseph Smith fooled never saw the angel or the book or any evidence. We have their own word on that.


                Nope, correct. See above.
                No, wrong.


                And the evidence AGAINST Christianity is extensive and too much to to into in a single post. Don't pretend that Christianity is somehow above/ beyond criticism.
                Go for it. Start a thread.


                And NO archeological evidence supports the religious claims of Christianity, either.
                Archeology can just support inanimate claims like buildings, people existing (statues, coins, etc), it take writings to document events and occurances. And we have those. The archeology just supports that.




                There is no difference. Christianity CLAIMS evidence and witnesses. Just like Smith's CLAIMS, they are not sufficient to warrant belief.
                Yes, they are. We have evidence that the writers were trustworthy and told the truth about the things we can check out. Smith for example invents an entire civilization that we have never found any evidence of whatsoever. And again,


                No, they woudln't have known. Christianity is no different to other religions in this way; it requires faith, not reasoned belief.
                Yes, they would have known. It was a pretty small community. Jesus was known to everyone in the area. His death was a public spectacle. He resurrected and ran around showing himself to everyone for 40 days. Then he rose in view of everyone into the sky. If someone tried to make that all up and spread a new religion there in Jerusalem, it would never have gotten off the ground. It would be just a bunch of liars telling lies that everyone there would know was lies. And they could just go to his grave and show his body. The Sanhedron could have just stopped this cult by opening the grave and displaying Jesus' corpse in the public square. Yet instead they spent decades chasing down the believers.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  The Muslims tell you that you had better believe in Allah, so why don't you believe? Is it your fault that you are not omniscient and sometimes are in error in what it is that you believe? Should you be punished for honestly getting it wrong? The problem with your belief, amongst other thinds, is that the idea you have of god is that he is unjust and petty.
                  Because I have studied Islam and read the Koran and found it to be phony. Have you?

                  And if I am wrong about it, Islam teaches that the people of the book (Christians and Jews) who die without being Muslim will basically face the same judgment the muslims do. Allah will weigh their good and bad deeds on a scale. If there is more good than bad, then they go to heaven.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                    An arrogant, conceited and most of all wrong claim. It's about as accurate as Muslim telling you that you don't believe in Allah and Muhammed because you ignore the evidence. Because you want to be the lord of your own life and not answer to a Allah. The ironic thing is that this desire is exactly what will cause you to have to answer to Allah one day.
                    See my post above.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Because I have studied Islam and read the Koran and found it to be phony. Have you?
                      Is it possible that you could be in error?
                      And if I am wrong about it,
                      So, you admit that it's possible for you to be wrong? Do you think Allah would be just for punishing you due to your honest disbelief?

                      Islam teaches that the people of the book (Christians and Jews) who die without being Muslim will basically face the same judgment the muslims do. Allah will weigh their good and bad deeds on a scale. If there is more good than bad, then they go to heaven.
                      Do you mean to tell me that Allah is more just and less petty than Jesus?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        "hell" no? Ironic.
                        Not unintentionally.

                        CS Lewis said that the reason there are people in hell is because the door is locked from the inside.
                        I'll ask him about that if it turns out he was right. More likely, he was blowing smoke. Also not unintentional.

                        With bacon I hope.
                        Pick the right villages.

                        I think that describes the difference between believers and non-believers pretty well. A lot of people put themselves on the throne and are happy to believe in a God that fits their designs. When I became a Christian, I had to decide that I would follow the God of the bible, even when I didn't agree with him or his 'laws' - and put my own desires and wishes in second place.
                        It bears repeating that most Christians don't elevate the Bible into an object of faith. Catholics, I understand, go even further, making acceptance of the Bible contingent on the choices of the Church.

                        Most of the rest is hopelessly anachronistic. We don't do kings or thrones anymore, well, most of us don't, anyway, and the rest see the position as mostly ceremonial. Our social contracts are instead based, ideally, on compromises between equals. Right and wrong are based on principles of harm. Makes it a lot easier to argue for agreement that way.

                        The argument that something's right or wrong based on the Bible needlessly excludes the vast majority of humanity, not to mention a majority of Christianity itself. It's not defensible, even in principle. What's objectively right, or objectively wrong, can't depend on the authority of any book. Arguments from authority are informal fallacies.

                        The need to invoke that informal fallacy is an argument against your personal God, just by the way. You'd be better off sticking with the principles of Christianity that can be rationally defended, in my opinion. As an argument, the gift of faith works for Jesus. Stick with that. The gift of faith doesn't work for the Bible, though, because, well, the Bible makes mistakes, and even if it didn't, mistakes are inevitable absent an inerrant interpreter.

                        I don't think our understanding will become infinite, what does that even mean? You want to be like God, omniscient? That won't happen and you are right, you would not be human any longer, I don't think.
                        I tell the kids to pick up their calculators, press the inverse button, then the ln key, then 1, then equals, and write down what's displayed, the base of the natural log, e, according to their calculators.

                        Then I have them subtract the number they've written down. Most displays give e as 2.718281828 and a difference between the stored value and the display of 4.59 EE -10. That's not right, because e is irrational, and in fact it's transcendental. But in either case, as a decimal it goes on well past the 15 digits stored in the calculator.

                        The calculator gives the wrong answer for the difference because nothing you can hold in your hand is infinite, so eventually, it runs out of memory to store things.

                        Humans are finite. Eternity isn't. Eventually, if you're finite, you'd have to start shedding experiences.

                        Don't confuse the infinite with the all-encompassing, though. There are an infinite number of fractions, but none of them are equal to e.

                        I think we will be human, maybe as perfect and smart as humans can be, but not gods. We will be immortal and live forever. But I have no idea how that works either. The bible is mostly concerned with what goes on here and how we are to behave. It doesn't go into a lot of detail about heaven or the new Earth.
                        I don't know how that would work, either, but I'm entirely sure you'd eventually run out of memory, if your comprehension remained finite.

                        A lot of call for what?
                        Believing in a God you can't see.

                        Seems an odd entry requirement to me, unless, well, ya know ... you never do get a chance to see Him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Well if each truly didn't think it was a sin, then neither would be held responsible, but I think the both knew it was wrong. How can you not think owning a person is wrong?
                          For several centuries’ slavery was considered socially acceptable by entire communities. Christian slave owners justified it by scripture, e.g. Colossians 3:22 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord”. NIV.

                          Because the Christian is forgiven because he accepted Christ as his savior and the other did not. So while the Christian gets pardoned, the other must stand trial for his sin. Why do I need to keep repeating this?
                          You are being inconsistent. You have already acknowledged that if a person (Christian or non-Christian) commits a sin without realizing it was a sin then they can’t be held accountable.

                          You seem to think that decisions just happen to you and you don't actually make them. I am sorry you believe you are a robot, but that is no excuse for your sins. You do have a choice to make. And once you do make the decision to follow Christ you will need to commit to him and follow him as your Lord and live as a Christian.
                          There’s no moral difference. There is just as much excuse for “my sins” as there is for Christians who do something wrong without understanding it is wrong.

                          If you think saying a magical prayer saves you without a commitment, then you are fooling yourself.
                          I don't advocate prayers of any sort. But, supposedly, your omniscient deity can read your heart.

                          You don't disbelieve because of a lack of evidence. You disbelieve because you ignore the evidence.
                          EVIDENCE? You jest.

                          Because you want to be the lord of your own life and not answer to a God.
                          You assume that your particular deity exists, I do not.
                          “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


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            When it talks about the sun standing still for example, it is just speaking from the point of view of the people watching the event.
                            How do you know that is the correct understanding of that biblical text?

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            When we get into the new testament and the gospels and acts, the events there have never been shown to be wrong.
                            It is odd then that you are unable to tell me which of the four evangelist's account of the trial is the correct account of that event.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            There have been several attempts over the years but they have each failed when new archeological evidence has been found.
                            Apart from the 1961 discovery of the dedication from Pilate, what archaeological evidence has been found that confirms the various narrative details in the four canonical gospels in every respect?

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The authors of the gospels have proven to be honest and accurate and so I can trust their testimony as eye witnesses to the events they record.
                            The anonymous writers of those four canonical gospels were not eye-witnesses.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The difference is that Christianity DID claim to have evidence and witnesses and it occurred during a time of great persecution to anyone who did try to start a new religion.
                            What are you referencing? The ancient world teemed with religions. An individual could worship at different Temples dedicated to different gods as they chose.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The Jews and the Romans actively tried to stamp them out.
                            What? Where is the historical evidence to support that remark?

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            There was no benefit to start a new religion.
                            The new cult of Christianity was simply one among many. There was salacious gossip about it because it attracted the lower orders in society, and its groups met in secret, often after dark. There were rules and conditions in Rome pertaining to meetings and gatherings.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The leaders and followers both were hunted down and stoned or killed.
                            Once again, where is the historical evidence to support that remark?

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Why not just fade into the woodwork and go back to being good Jews and pretend it never happened? How did they get new followers if those people would have known the truth that Jesus was not resurrected? It would have fizzled at the start.
                            Do you have any idea of the impact that the events of 66-70 CE had on Christianity as well as Judaism? I would recommend you do a little reading on the various Christian sects that arose from the early second century through to the late third century CE.

                            Had Constantine not finally granted legal toleration in the early fourth century CE it is quite possible that Christianity would have remained a collection of disparate sects and it may even have disappeared altogether. It was Constantine's need to bring about cohesion and stability within the Empire that indirectly led to the ascent of Christianity. It would not have achieved its importance had it not been for Imperial support.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The difference is that those first Christian leaders and followers would have KNOWN they were charlatans. Why would they die for something they knew was a lie?
                            Which of those first Christian followers died? Or are you trying to allege that Christian traditions are facts?
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Nobody has ever shown the bible to be in error.
                              The Bible is full of inconsistencies and errors. That you do not want to recognise them, is another matter entirely.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Archeologists have been using the bible as a guide for centuries.
                              There are those who still like to wave a bible in one hand and a trowel in the other. However, they are not generally regarded as serious archaeologists. The modern system of archaeology was developed by Flinders Petrie at the end of the nineteenth century.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              It is based on historical evidence and claims.
                              The historical evidence only applies to the age of the document fragments. There is no extraneous contemporary source material to support any of the narrative details found in the gospels.

                              No one has left a journal entry or other record of seeing a Jew who had been crucified the previous week, doing his shopping in the market.

                              As to Christianity's "claims" well people can claim anything, can't they?

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Christianity would never have started without that evidence and the witnesses to the resurrection. People would have just said, "what are you talking about? we can go to Jesus' grave right now,
                              As a common criminal it is highly unlikely he had a grave. It is more likely that the body was simply thrown into a pit.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Could some of these last pages perhaps be moved to a Proof of Christianity thread or something like that please? It would make it easier to find, certainly for me!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 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
                                2,507 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X