Christians are easily startled, but they'll soon be back. And in greater numbers 36:11

[Gethelred]

Welcome to the Ask an Atheist thread II.

Previous part:

Win Prizes - Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack. As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them. If you've still got...

www.bigfooty.com

Standard board rules apply.

 

[carltonchelsea]

You are taking the classical sceptical historical position which is not held uniformly by historians. From what I’ve been reading and listening to, even atheist historians will differ widely on your proposals. Biblical scholars and less biased historians land in a very different place. I read your stuff and I know you seek out reasons not to believe, indefinitely.

Nah, we as atheists only carry one united belief.
The thought/understanding/knowledge of, that there is no theological/cult/god claim that has ever been demonstrated nor adequately argued for as a first cause/creator/god head figure, ever.
Your claims remain unproven.
Quite simple in logicistal terms.

Humans adequately proved Galileo’s theory of the solar system.
Just on that, remember when Pope Jean Paul, an outstanding mammalian ape I make no regrets about calling him beyond brilliant in his curiosities for understanding, did apologise for “getting it wrong in regards to Galileo’s solar system”.
That should solely give cause to reflection?

You have faith, we want and desire details, we think they are of import!

Your claims are pure white noise amongst the gains that we’ve harnessed under the method of studying reality.

“We atheists wildly differ in every other way”. Our desires are of evidential nature, unlike your white noise!

I’d pray for a bone of contention yet I don’t care……I am to offer a resistance to your inadequacies in written form and evidence.

Where is your god mate, surely it can prove itself to us?

 

[Total Power]

Where is your god mate, surely it can prove itself to us?

It doesn't work like that for them. If it weren't for hypocrisy, there would be no Christians (or Muslims). Their ultimate answer to every doubt is "You'll find out".....they basically live for some notion of the future, while claiming to believe in Eternity. Their version begins with their conception, or at the time of their death, depending on which Christian you ask.

i really don't know how humans would matter at all to God. Ive mentioned this in many other posts. On a cosmic scale we are simply beyond trivial in every sense. In the trillions of galaxies we are likely only one of millions of intelligent species and probably not particularly remarkable on a universal scale.

None of them can tell you where they were before they were born. No one told them to ask that question. Or if they do answer, it's the same usual irrational BS that everyone must believe or Fry for All Eternity at the hands of the "All-Loving and all-forgiving" God.

 

[Vdubs]

It doesn't work like that for them. If it weren't for hypocrisy, there would be no Christians (or Muslims). Their ultimate answer to every doubt is "You'll find out".....they basically live for some notion of the future, while claiming to believe in Eternity. Their version begins with their conception, or at the time of their death, depending on which Christian you ask.

i really don't know how humans would matter at all to God. Ive mentioned this in many other posts. On a cosmic scale we are simply beyond trivial in every sense. In the trillions of galaxies we are likely only one of millions of intelligent species and probably not particularly remarkable on a universal scale.

None of them can tell you where they were before they were born. No one told them to ask that question. Or if they do answer, it's the same usual irrational BS that everyone must believe or Fry for All Eternity at the hands of the "All-Loving and all-forgiving" God.

That says a lot. You think you can explain God from your perspective.
You can not have the imagination to accept that God could care about His creation and his people.

 

[demondavey]

I haven't sat down and chosen any ethics per se.
It's about being a good bloke and treating people well.

Yet you go for Richmond?

 

[Roylion]

You think you can explain God from your perspective.

Isn't that exactly what theists do? Why do you think you can explain what 'God' is, what 'God' wants and what 'God' does and doesn't do?

You can not have the imagination to accept that God could care about His creation and his people.

The key word there is 'imagination'. Any notion that 'God could care about His creation and his people' is merely a product of human imagination. Man creating 'God' in his own image and for his own desires.

 

[Vdubs]

Isn't that exactly what theists do? Why do you think you can explain what 'God' is, what 'God' wants and what 'God' does and doesn't do?


The key word there is 'imagination'. Any notion that 'God could care about His creation and his people' is merely a product of human imagination. Man creating 'God' in his own image and for his own desires.

which you clearly lack.
Christ is central to Christianity.
Through Christ, we know God.
Christ was not man-made

 

[Ghost Patrol]

which you clearly lack.
Christ is central to Christianity.
Through Christ, we know God.
Christ was not man-made

Does God refer to themself in the third person?

 

[Roylion]

which you clearly lack.

I have plenty of imagination. I just understand the difference between imaginary and reality / truth.

Through Christ, we know God.

That is only your supposition. One that you make without any supporting evidence. Why do you think you can explain what 'God' is, what 'God' wants and what 'God' does and doesn't do?

Christ was not man-made

'Christ' as it pertains to a historical Jesus is a product of human imagination.

 

[Vdubs]

I have plenty of imagination. I just understand the difference between imaginary and reality / truth.

We know what we know. Just because it is not Googleable....

That is only your supposition. One that you make without any supporting evidence. Why do you think you can explain what 'God' is, what 'God' wants and what 'God' does and doesn't do?

Because through God's love for mankind, I have experienced the Holy Spirit, personal salvation, a relationship with God, life-changing conversion, and His word in the Bible- none of these things has any impact on you, I get that, as there is "no proof", but changed lives and testimonies are indeed powerful revelations for many mere mortals.

'Christ' as it pertains to a historical Jesus is a product of human imagination.

Christ makes complete sense and I could not imagine how life would be without knowledge of and relationship with Him.

 

[Vdubs]

Does God refer to themself in the third person?

 

[ElectricG]

And yet the fedora remains

 

[Roylion]

We know what we know.

Through imagination only

Why do you think you can explain what 'God' is, what 'God' wants and what 'God' does and doesn't do?

Because through God's love for mankind, I have experienced the Holy Spirit, personal salvation, a relationship with God, life-changing conversion, and His word in the Bible- none of these things has any impact on you, I get that,

I see no reason to accept your assertions as true. They may be true for you, but that is your experience only. You're free to believe what you want, but I see no reason to accept your assertions.

but changed lives and testimonies are indeed powerful revelations for many mere mortals.

For some. Not others.

Christ makes complete sense

That is just your assertion and I see no reason to accept your assertion.

and I could not imagine how life would be without knowledge of and relationship with Him.

And much the same would be for many other adherents of different faiths and whatever deity they worship.

 

[Vdubs]

Through imagination only

Why do you think you can explain what 'God' is, what 'God' wants and what 'God' does and doesn't do?


I see no reason to accept your assertions as true. They may be true for you, but that is your experience only. You're free to believe what you want, but I see no reason to accept your assertions.



For some. Not others.


That is just your assertion and I see no reason to accept your assertion.


And much the same would be for many other adherents of different faiths and whatever deity they worship.

Theism comes before Christianity for most adherents.
You continually remind us...

 

[Roylion]

Theism comes before Christianity for most adherents.

You're free to believe what you want. But you seem hell-bent on persuading those who don't share your beliefs, that your particular beliefs are the only correct and true ones. And all you offer in support of the supposed truthfulness of your beliefs is your own personal experiences and the assertion that they are true.

 

[Vdubs]

You're free to believe what you want. But you seem hell-bent on persuading those who don't share your beliefs, that your particular beliefs are the only correct and true ones. And all you offer in support of the supposed truthfulness of your beliefs is your own personal experiences and the assertion that they are true.

Hell-bent on persuading...
not quite, but interesting phraseology.
That is quite incorrect.
I am only responding to direct questions about what We believe as Christians.
I never compare with or denigrate other faith systems, much to the annoyance of your Powerful mate.
In saying that, to me, Christianity makes the most sense and has the least problems, is not saying they are the only true and correct notions.

The fact that billions of people worldwide have had their lives shaped and changed by their faith should be at least a pointer to admitting that there just may be something in it, even without your research and professoriaL type evidence...but, NO. Unless you receive hard evidence, you will remain faithless, according to your comments. So be it, but don't insinuate or suggest that I am here to push my faith onto unsuspecting keyboard warriors, who I have no relationship with.
It does not work like that.
I came here to answer questions from a personal perspective, as a practicing Christian, as was the original OP.

 

[kranky al]

Does God refer to themself in the third person?

Not just in the third person but in the holy trinty’th person

I’ll see myself out.

 

[Roylion]

Hell-bent on persuading...
not quite, but interesting phraseology.
That is quite incorrect.

You've made several comments to me about that you live in hope of my conversion. For example here where you said. "Sadly. But where there is a heartbeat, there is hope."

What were you referring to?

I am only responding to direct questions about what We believe as Christians.

We know what you believe. You keep asserting your beliefs as true, without (it appears) the understanding the reasons why some - including myself - reject your assertions. Rejecting your assertions, doesnt mean you haven't the right to believe whatever you want to.

In saying that, to me, Christianity makes the most sense and has the least problems, is not saying they are the only true and correct notions.

But you keep asserting that they are true. The resurrection of Jesus for example is either true or it is not true. The Trinity is either true or not true.

The fact that billions of people worldwide have had their lives shaped and changed by their faith should be at least a pointer to admitting that there just may be something in it,

An argument ad populum is a logical fallacy that use popularity as evidence of truth. Christianity could have double the numbers of believers that it currently has but that doesn't make its beliefs any more true.

Unless you receive hard evidence, you will remain faithless, according to your comments.

Yes. Objective, robust, empirical evidence. Saying the contents of the Bible are true merely because they are in the Bible does not make said contents actually true.

I came here to answer questions from a personal perspective, as a practicing Christian, as was the original OP.

But you also make unsubstantiated claims to truth and quite rightly are challenged on those assertions. If you merely said I believe in such and such because of my own personal experiences only, I'd quite happy to accept that.

 

[Vdubs]

You've made several comments to me about that you live in hope of my conversion. For example here where you said. "Sadly. But where there is a heartbeat, there is hope."

What were you referring to?

A truth, and all Christians hope that people they encounter, particularly those they know, might come to faith, but that comment to you should be taken in context. Again, I never come here to convince or convert people- even my own family. members do not share our faith- so little chance I'm coming here, and knowing not a single poster, to bring them to faith.

We know what you believe. You keep asserting your beliefs as true, without (it appears) the understanding the reasons why some - including myself - reject your assertions. Rejecting your assertions, doesnt mean you haven't the right to believe whatever you want to.


But you keep asserting that they are true. The resurrection of Jesus for example is either true or it is not true. The Trinity is either true or not true.

We very much believe them to be true, and believe there is evidence enough for that.

An argument ad populum is a logical fallacy that use popularity as evidence of truth. Christianity could have double the numbers of believers that it currently has but that doesn't make its beliefs any more true.

Of course, but I ask the question to you because you come across as entirely convicted that it's not possible for any of those beliefs to be true, so is there anything in your DNA that asks the question- could it be possible?

Yes. Objective, robust, empirical evidence. Saying the contents of the Bible are true merely because they are in the Bible does not make said contents actually true.

That is your opinion. I don't read the Bible as a historical text book with accurate chronology, but as the Word of God for our benefit. It of course does have some historical matter throughout, but given when it was written, by whom, and how, I raed it with that in mind, and find it very salient and relevant today.

But you also make unsubstantiated claims to truth and quite rightly are challenged on those assertions. If you merely said I believe in such and such because of my own personal experiences only, I'd quite happy to accept that.

It's not only based on my experiences, but on decades of life experience, intensive knowledge of the human body, thousands of Bible based sermons, and multiple testimonies.

 

[Total Power]

That says a lot. You think you can explain God from your perspective.

And you choose to speak from yours. Yet when i speak from mine, it's a problem? the God of Bible ****ed up on his creation so badly that he regretted creating us. Says a lot about his abilities anyway.

God is nowhere to be found, except in some peoples heads.

You can not have the imagination to accept that God could care about His creation and his people.

That's the key word. I choose not to fantasize about lies.

 

[Total Power]

The fact that billions of people worldwide have had their lives shaped and changed by their faith should be at least a pointer to admitting that there just may be something in

Hahaha funny you say this, billions of people living in utter misery and destitute. Or you are judging by the lives of people in first world nations? Majority of the Christians are living in extreme poverty. You should travel more, i have lived in Africa and i have seen things i wish i didn't.

'Lives shapes and changed'....please! You see what you wish to see, just like with your 'secular historians' or listening to Bart Ehrman. You say things they didn't imply

 

[Total Power]

It's not only based on my experiences, but on decades of life experience, intensive knowledge of the human body, thousands of Bible based sermons, and multiple testimonies.

Where you tried to quote the disovery institute to prove evolution is false? If you had ANY KNOWLEDGE of the human body, you would know that it's not designed or created. It evolved for billions of years. We got here after 4 billion years of evolution and we also have neanderthal genes in us.

Your argument previous about bodies healing power, tells me you literally know nothing. Human body is nothing special, except our frontal lobe which allows us to build tools and be creative, we are pretty much primates. There are other species out there that are way better in survival. They can grow limbs if cut off, grow heads even when cut off..we can't. Food for thought?

 

[Roylion]

A truth, and all Christians hope that people they encounter, particularly those they know, might come to faith,

And you present material in the hope that some will be persuaded by what you say. I just try to explain why I am not convinced by the evidence that you use in support of your assertions to truth.

We very much believe them to be true, and believe there is evidence enough for that.

I understand that you believe them to be true, but I do not believe them to be true. And I see no reason to believe that they are true.

Of course, but I ask the question to you because you come across as entirely convicted that it's not possible for any of those beliefs to be true,

Your beliefs lack robust, objective evidence to support them. Quoting Biblical scripture is not robust, objective evidence.

so is there anything in your DNA that asks the question- could it be possible?

Give me some objective evidence that suggests it could be possible. Not Biblical scripture or your own personal experiences.

I don't read the Bible as a historical text book with accurate chronology, but as the Word of God for our benefit.

I see absolutely no reason to suppose the Bible is the 'Word of God'. That some claim it is the word of 'god' is not necessarily to be believed.

It of course does have some historical matter throughout,

Which does not make it all true. And certainly not the 'word of god'.

but given when it was written, by whom, and how, I raed it with that in mind, and find it very salient and relevant today.

I do not.

It's not only based on my experiences, but on decades of life experience, intensive knowledge of the human body, thousands of Bible based sermons, and multiple testimonies.

Very little of which is robust objective evidence to support your assertions.

 

[carltonchelsea]

It doesn't work like that for them. If it weren't for hypocrisy, there would be no Christians (or Muslims). Their ultimate answer to every doubt is "You'll find out".....they basically live for some notion of the future, while claiming to believe in Eternity. Their version begins with their conception, or at the time of their death, depending on which Christian you ask.

i really don't know how humans would matter at all to God. Ive mentioned this in many other posts. On a cosmic scale we are simply beyond trivial in every sense. In the trillions of galaxies we are likely only one of millions of intelligent species and probably not particularly remarkable on a universal scale.

None of them can tell you where they were before they were born. No one told them to ask that question. Or if they do answer, it's the same usual irrational BS that everyone must believe or Fry for All Eternity at the hands of the "All-Loving and all-forgiving" God.

It’s easy to verify my existence to you TotalPower, we exchange deets and I act upon the 3 dimensions available and we dine and drink and laugh and have a hoot of a night.
Yet the creator of all things is incapable of what we find basic and simple.
How very inconvenient for the cult?!

 

[Total Power]

It’s easy to verify my existence to you TotalPower, we exchange deets and I act upon the 3 dimensions available and we dine and drink and laugh and have a hoot of a night.
Yet the creator of all things is incapable of what we find basic and simple.
How very inconvenient for the cult?!

There's no problem with a god existing outside space and time, there's nothing we can do to prove or disprove that. The problem is when that god decides to intervene and do something in our space-time then we have the tools to study that and so far there's no evidence nor proof that such a god exists.

 

[Boston tiger]

The majority view is that Mark was written c. AD 60-75, Matthew c. AD 65-85, Luke c. AD 65-95 and John c. AD 75-100.

One of the major arguments in favour of this for this is Paul doesn't make any reference to the Gospels themselves. There are several areas where he quotes Jesus' teachings (esp. from Matthew), but it seems strange that Paul would not refer somewhat directly to the Gospels when exhorting early Christians to follow Jesus' teachings.

When it comes to evidence establishing the earliest date for the Gospels, the most glaring evidence would be that the Gospels make explicit reference to the Roman-Jewish War (AD 66 – 73). Specifically, the Gospels refer to when Roman soldiers surrounded Jerusalem in AD 67 CE, and most notably the Gospels (Luke 21 and Mark 13) mention the complete destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, which happened in AD 70. According to this scholarship, the Gospels were in all likelihood written after these events since they make direct mention of them.

Nevertheless, those (usually Conservative evangelists in Bart Ehrman's words) who espouse early composition dates for the Gospels (most often, but not always) assert that the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple as mentioned in the Gospels constitutes prophecy, and thus, the Gospels must have been written prior to these events – lest these prophecies attributed to Jesus be rendered as "prophecies after the fact"

So given that is almost universally accepted that the authors of Matthew and Luke based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends the dating Mark in the 40s-50s or after AD 67 is the key.

The main exceptions to the mainstream view that the Gospels were composed c. AD 70 and later are:

• James G.Crossley dates Mark between mind 30's to mid 40's- few years after Jesus death;
• Maurice Casey dates Mark to AD 40;
• John Arthur Thomas Robinson, an Anglican bishop also argues for an early dating of Mark. He argues on the basis that “the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of Judaism based on the temple is never once mentioned as a past fact. (In other words any mentions of it in the Gospels are prophecy). He proposed the following dates: Matthew 40-60; Mark 45-60; Luke 57-60; John 40-65.

Other prominent scholars who have argued for an early dating of Mark between the 40s and 70s are

• John W. Wenham a conservative Anglican biblical scholar who was a beloever in biblical inerrancy and argues that Matthee was written first
• Birger Gerhardsson, a Swedish professor in the Faculty of Theology at Lund University
• Marcel Jousse, a French Jesuit
• Philippe Rolland, argues for the early dating of Acts

Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, John Meier, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen and Bart Ehrman as well as many others, all argue for the later dating of Mark after AD 70.




Please provide some further details on how they "differ widely".


You mean I call for the provision of evidence for any claims that are made?

He’s me doing a bit of tyre kicking

I don’t get the Paul argument. Why would Paul want or need to directly quote Mark’s writing which was a bit of a mess anyway. The gospels were never deemed more important than oral teaching. Plus Paul was writing to communities and specific subjects. He could have just been up himself and didn’t see the need to be quoting anybody.

“so then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:

And the Gospels mentioning the fall of the temple wasn’t that they mentioned it ! .. it that they wrote that Jesus prophesied the event. A bit of difference.
Just because Jesus got that one right doesn’t mean they wrote it after the fact. Let’s face it predicting the fall of the temple at some stage wouldn’t have been a
biggie and plenty of other people would have had money on it. He was fighting with the Pharisees as it is .
If someone predicted the destruction of Gaza in 2000 would you say it must have been written post Oct 7. ?