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.

 

[Total Power]

Just because Jesus got that one right

One? literally several, including his second coming! God doesn't know the future hey? Verbal gymnastics wont get you out of that.

 

[Vdubs]

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?

Whole foods plant based.

 

[Total Power]

Whole foods plant based.

As i enjoy my steak right now! that's 600 calories and 70 grams of protein

just saying.

 

[carltonchelsea]

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.

I think that’s my greatest grievance with the 3 desert death cults.
The unfalsifiable nature of the claims they make about their magical rainbow unicorn.
We say “it looks like we maybe a part of an infinite amount of universes, the physics leads us to this conclusion”.
“No no no, you guys believe in magic things”
It is annoying!
They rely upon all the advanced modern physics and technology and medicine and longer lives, yet deny everything they have been given by these scientific methods.
They are sunk cost fallacy adherents, no more no less.
The delusion and illusion of magic sky dictator is too strong unfortunately, for some.

 

[Roylion]

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.

The authentic letters of Paul appear to show a very early version of Christianity. They display no knowledge of any written gospel, and mostly discuss issues that seemed to have been 'settled' by the time we get other Christian texts, such as circumcision.

Paul in the authentic letters also mentions his meetings, and disputes, with James "Brother of the Lord", and Josephus' notes the execution of "a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (Jewish Antiquities 20.200) in 62 AD.

Paul of course has a lot to say about the importance of Jesus, especially the importance of his death and resurrection and his imminent return from heaven. There is nothing about the details of Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nothing of his baptism or temptation in the wilderness, nothing of his teaching about the coming Kingdom of God; we have no indication that he ever told a parable, that he ever healed anyone, cast out a demon, or raised the dead; we learn nothing of his transfiguration or triumphal entry, nothing of his cleansing of the Temple, nothing of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, nothing of his being rejected in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc.

In other words there is nothing of what appears in the Gospels appears in Paul. Which suggests strongly that the writings of Paul that are considered to be authentic were written before the Gospels were written.

Paul's authentic letters are considered by Bart Ehrman to be Galatians (c. AD 48), 1 Thessalonians (probably written by the end of AD 52), 1 Corinthians (c. AD 53–54), 2 Corinthians (AD 55 or 56), Romans (AD late 55 to early 57), Philemon (AD 57–62) and Philippians. (c. AD 62).

There's several questions as to why there are very few references to Jesus' life in his own letters. Why does Paul not remind his congregations of what Jesus said and did, when at times doing so would have strengthened his arguments? Does he think that these things are unimportant? Does he assume that his readers already know them? Does he know them? If not, why not, if the Gospels were already written and in circulation?

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. ?

Scholars who date Mark after the fall of the Jerusalem temple:

1. Burton Mack in A Myth of Innocence says "Southern Syria in the seventies would be about right for such an intellectual labor as the Gospel of Mark. Jesus' apocalyptic instruction in Mark 13 is the important evidence for a post-70 CE date and for a place from which the events of the Jewish War could be closely observed, yet without immediate involvement." (p. 315).
   
   
2. L.M. White concludes "Arguments based on internal evidence can be mounted on both sides, but tend to favor a date of writing after the destruction had taken place, hence sometime between 70 and 75." (Scripting Jesus, p. 265.)
   
   
3. Fredrickson argues that "by ingeniously creating a prophetic synonymity between events circa 30 and events circa 70, between the fate of the Son of Man and the fate of the Temple, Mark preserved the authority of the threatened tradition by deploying it." (From Jesus to Christ, p. 184.)
   
   
4. Udo Schnelle (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings) concludes "From the viewpoint of the evangelist, Mark 13.2, 14 are vaticinia ex eventu, and the Gospel of Mark was probably written after the destruction of the temple early in the 70s" (cf. also Mark 12.9, 15.38" (p. 202).
   
   
5. Theissen (The New Testament: History, Literature, Religion, p. 96) argues "The Gospel of Mark was written shortly after AD 70. The destruction of the temple is presupposed. Jesus prophesies it in Mark 13.1-2 as if it has in fact taken place."
   
   
6. Paul Achtemeier, writing in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, states "a date around 70 is probably as good as any."
   
   
7. Joel Marcus, "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark," JBL 111, p. 460: "As for the "when," Theissen is probably right in suggesting a date shortly after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70."
8. J. S. Kloppenborg, "Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark", JBL 124, p. 450: "As an element in Mark's narrative, Mark 13:1-2 is best seen as a historiographic effort to provide a retrospective account of the dual fates of Jesus and the temple"
   
   
9. Neill Q. Hamilton, "Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark," JBL 84, p. 419: "The gospel ought to be dated, like all apocalyptically oriented literature, from the last event it knows correctly but pretends to predict. This, of course, is the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem."
   
   
10. S. G. F. Brandon, "The Date of the Markan Gospel," NTS 7, p. 130, refers to "the probable situation of the Christian community at Rome under the impact of the events of A.D. 70"
    
    
11. W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark, p. 110: "What comes to expression in the apocalyptic speech must be of ultimate concern to Mark. At issue, we shall see, is the very crisis which gave rise to the gospel composition, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple."
    
    
12. Morton Smith (Jesus the Magician, pp. 29, 155) puts the Gospel ca. 75 C.E. on the basis of Mark's reports of conflict with the Pharisees, which Smith argues, reflects the period after the revolt when reorganized Pharisaic groups came into conflict with the Jesus movement.
    
    
13. Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist
    
    
14. Eyal Regev, "The Temple in Mark" in Kaiphas: der Hohepriester jenes Jahres: Geschichte und Deutung, p. 154, states "I have followed J. Marcus in regarding [the abomination that causes desolation] as pointing to the Zealot's desecration of the Temple."
    
    
15. P. Botha, "The Historical Setting of Mark's Gospel: Problems and Possibilities", JSNT 51, notes: "Before 70 the synagogue probably was something of a secular meeting place for Jews in any given locality in which they gathered for a variety of purposes. Only after the destruction of the temple did the religious function of these houses predominate over their secular role. Incidentally, should one relate Mark’s situation to the apologetic sphere of Diaspora Judaism, it could be that Mark told his story during the decades after the war. In Mark’s story the Pharisees are pictured as fairly representative of and very influential in Jewish society, a picture that fits post-70 developments."
    
    
16. Adam Winn, in The Purpose of Mark's Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda, p. 76
    concludes, after a lengthy discussion: "Therefore, based on this piece of internal evidence, we must conclude that Mark was written no earlier than 70 C.E., at some point after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple."
17. H.N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context, p. 76: "In my view, the 'temple saying' in Mark 13:2 is to be regarded as a 'vaticinium ex eventu', and therefore an indication that the gospel was written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD."
    
    
18. G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days. The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, pp. 363-364.
    
    
19. Brian Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans, spends Chapter 3 arguing that Mark knew of the fall of the temple.
    
    
20. I. Head, "Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel’s Thesis," Journal of Religious History 28, concludes "Hengel’s hypothesis is therefore feasible in part but is strengthened by shifting the date from 69 through to 71 ... Hengel’s Year of the Four Emperors only ends with the triumph of Vespasian and Titus in 71. This fits perfectly with Raymond E. Brown’s 'just after 70,' which is where I began. There is sufficient in Hengel’s and Incigneri’s approach to persist with a larger interpretation of Mark that assumes that this Roman location and date is correct."
    
    
21. J.D. Crossan argues that Mark was written in the early 70s (The Birth of Christianity, p. 99ff).

 

[sdfc]

What is “hardcore atheism”?
Do I really have to explain what atheism is again for the ****ing 500th time?
There is no “hardcore” atheism, unless it’s played at 180 bpm with a guttural voice tone and metal guitar riffs in the background.
And lol, I lack curiosity do I?
Don’t project your ignorance onto me sweetheart, I’ve been very passionate about the sciences and religious beliefs since my formative years. I have dozens of books on both.
Yet I somehow lack curiosity!

The idea that there might be some form of existence after we die isn't inconsistent with atheism. Hence the term hardcore atheism, I thought that was obvious.

 

[Total Power]

The idea that there might be some form of existence after we die isn't inconsistent with atheism. Hence the term hardcore atheism, I thought that was obvious.

This is not quite true. Wouldn't you say Buddhism is an atheistic religion with reincaration in it?

It's a small percentage of atheists yes, but according to Pew research roughly 12% of atheists in America believe in reincarnation.

I believe atheism is a lack of belief in a deity/god (mostly what religion tries to claim).

 

[sdfc]

This is not quite true. Wouldn't you say Buddhism is an atheistic religion with reincaration in it?

It's a small percentage of atheists yes, but according to Pew research roughly 12% of atheists in America believe in reincarnation.

I believe atheism is a lack of belief in a deity/god (mostly what religion tries to claim).

We can call it mainstream atheism if you like.

 

[Boston tiger]

The authentic letters of Paul appear to show a very early version of Christianity. They display no knowledge of any written gospel, and mostly discuss issues that seemed to have been 'settled' by the time we get other Christian texts, such as circumcision.

Paul in the authentic letters also mentions his meetings, and disputes, with James "Brother of the Lord", and Josephus' notes the execution of "a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (Jewish Antiquities 20.200) in 62 AD.

Paul of course has a lot to say about the importance of Jesus, especially the importance of his death and resurrection and his imminent return from heaven. There is nothing about the details of Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nothing of his baptism or temptation in the wilderness, nothing of his teaching about the coming Kingdom of God; we have no indication that he ever told a parable, that he ever healed anyone, cast out a demon, or raised the dead; we learn nothing of his transfiguration or triumphal entry, nothing of his cleansing of the Temple, nothing of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, nothing of his being rejected in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc.

In other words there is nothing of what appears in the Gospels appears in Paul. Which suggests strongly that the writings of Paul that are considered to be authentic were written before the Gospels were written.

Paul's authentic letters are considered by Bart Ehrman to be Galatians (c. AD 48), 1 Thessalonians (probably written by the end of AD 52), 1 Corinthians (c. AD 53–54), 2 Corinthians (AD 55 or 56), Romans (AD late 55 to early 57), Philemon (AD 57–62) and Philippians. (c. AD 62).

There's several questions as to why there are very few references to Jesus' life in his own letters. Why does Paul not remind his congregations of what Jesus said and did, when at times doing so would have strengthened his arguments? Does he think that these things are unimportant? Does he assume that his readers already know them? Does he know them? If not, why not, if the Gospels were already written and in circulation?



Scholars who date Mark after the fall of the Jerusalem temple:

1. Burton Mack in A Myth of Innocence says "Southern Syria in the seventies would be about right for such an intellectual labor as the Gospel of Mark. Jesus' apocalyptic instruction in Mark 13 is the important evidence for a post-70 CE date and for a place from which the events of the Jewish War could be closely observed, yet without immediate involvement." (p. 315).
   
   
2. L.M. White concludes "Arguments based on internal evidence can be mounted on both sides, but tend to favor a date of writing after the destruction had taken place, hence sometime between 70 and 75." (Scripting Jesus, p. 265.)
   
   
3. Fredrickson argues that "by ingeniously creating a prophetic synonymity between events circa 30 and events circa 70, between the fate of the Son of Man and the fate of the Temple, Mark preserved the authority of the threatened tradition by deploying it." (From Jesus to Christ, p. 184.)
   
   
4. Udo Schnelle (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings) concludes "From the viewpoint of the evangelist, Mark 13.2, 14 are vaticinia ex eventu, and the Gospel of Mark was probably written after the destruction of the temple early in the 70s" (cf. also Mark 12.9, 15.38" (p. 202).
   
   
5. Theissen (The New Testament: History, Literature, Religion, p. 96) argues "The Gospel of Mark was written shortly after AD 70. The destruction of the temple is presupposed. Jesus prophesies it in Mark 13.1-2 as if it has in fact taken place."
   
   
6. Paul Achtemeier, writing in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, states "a date around 70 is probably as good as any."
   
   
7. Joel Marcus, "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark," JBL 111, p. 460: "As for the "when," Theissen is probably right in suggesting a date shortly after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70."
8. J. S. Kloppenborg, "Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark", JBL 124, p. 450: "As an element in Mark's narrative, Mark 13:1-2 is best seen as a historiographic effort to provide a retrospective account of the dual fates of Jesus and the temple"
   
   
9. Neill Q. Hamilton, "Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark," JBL 84, p. 419: "The gospel ought to be dated, like all apocalyptically oriented literature, from the last event it knows correctly but pretends to predict. This, of course, is the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem."
   
   
10. S. G. F. Brandon, "The Date of the Markan Gospel," NTS 7, p. 130, refers to "the probable situation of the Christian community at Rome under the impact of the events of A.D. 70"
    
    
11. W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark, p. 110: "What comes to expression in the apocalyptic speech must be of ultimate concern to Mark. At issue, we shall see, is the very crisis which gave rise to the gospel composition, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple."
    
    
12. Morton Smith (Jesus the Magician, pp. 29, 155) puts the Gospel ca. 75 C.E. on the basis of Mark's reports of conflict with the Pharisees, which Smith argues, reflects the period after the revolt when reorganized Pharisaic groups came into conflict with the Jesus movement.
    
    
13. Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist
    
    
14. Eyal Regev, "The Temple in Mark" in Kaiphas: der Hohepriester jenes Jahres: Geschichte und Deutung, p. 154, states "I have followed J. Marcus in regarding [the abomination that causes desolation] as pointing to the Zealot's desecration of the Temple."
    
    
15. P. Botha, "The Historical Setting of Mark's Gospel: Problems and Possibilities", JSNT 51, notes: "Before 70 the synagogue probably was something of a secular meeting place for Jews in any given locality in which they gathered for a variety of purposes. Only after the destruction of the temple did the religious function of these houses predominate over their secular role. Incidentally, should one relate Mark’s situation to the apologetic sphere of Diaspora Judaism, it could be that Mark told his story during the decades after the war. In Mark’s story the Pharisees are pictured as fairly representative of and very influential in Jewish society, a picture that fits post-70 developments."
    
    
16. Adam Winn, in The Purpose of Mark's Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda, p. 76
    concludes, after a lengthy discussion: "Therefore, based on this piece of internal evidence, we must conclude that Mark was written no earlier than 70 C.E., at some point after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple."
17. H.N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context, p. 76: "In my view, the 'temple saying' in Mark 13:2 is to be regarded as a 'vaticinium ex eventu', and therefore an indication that the gospel was written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD."
    
    
18. G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days. The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, pp. 363-364.
    
    
19. Brian Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans, spends Chapter 3 arguing that Mark knew of the fall of the temple.
    
    
20. I. Head, "Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel’s Thesis," Journal of Religious History 28, concludes "Hengel’s hypothesis is therefore feasible in part but is strengthened by shifting the date from 69 through to 71 ... Hengel’s Year of the Four Emperors only ends with the triumph of Vespasian and Titus in 71. This fits perfectly with Raymond E. Brown’s 'just after 70,' which is where I began. There is sufficient in Hengel’s and Incigneri’s approach to persist with a larger interpretation of Mark that assumes that this Roman location and date is correct."
    
    
21. J.D. Crossan argues that Mark was written in the early 70s (The Birth of Christianity, p. 99ff).

Yes it’s shame that they have to use the term …probably a lot to get Mark and Luke into a time after the fall of the temple.
You don’t think those examples have a feel of making things fit ?

 

[dorianyates]

Why isn’t Jesus equated with the left side of politics?

 

[dorianyates]

It just makes me sad that the right seem to have exploited Christianity.

 

[GrayRanga]

It just makes me sad that the right seem to have exploited Christianity.

Basically depends on whether you you attend a Social Justice type church or on evangelist Church

A social justice type will say "you soul has been saved, now what are you going to do about it ?"and refer to Matthew 25:35 to 40

An evangelist will state "I've been saved. you can be saved too"

The former believe they have been given a gift and they have a responsibilty to use this to improve the lives of those around them

The latter believe they have been given a gift and wander around saying "Look at the gift I have, aren't I lucky"

As a commited agnostic, I can sit in a "Social Justice" Church and listen to the sermons without too many issues

In an evangelist Church I feel like standing up and yellimg to the smug sanctimonious bastards to get of their arses and help those less fortunate than them

Don't get me started about Prosperity Donctrine

 

[dorianyates]

Basically depends on whether you you attend a Social Justice type church or on evangelist Church

A social justice type will say "you soul has been saved, now what are you going to do about it ?"and refer to Matthew 25:35 to 40

An evangelist will state "I've been saved. you can be saved too"

The former believe they have been given a gift and they have a responsibilty to use this to improve the lives of those around them

The latter believe they have been given a gift and wander around saying "Look at the gift I have, aren't I lucky"

As a commited agnostic, I can sit in a "Social Justice" Church and listen to the sermons without too many issues

In an evangelist Church I feel like standing up and yellimg to the smug sanctimonious bastards to get of their arses and help those less fortunate than them

Don't get me started about Prosperity Donctrine

Thanks for the reply.
I grew up a Catholic and became a policeman. I have seen so much suffering in my job I think it has opened my heart to those that suffer.
But in my experience Buddhism or Schopenhauer seems a better way.

 

[Total Power]

Thanks for the reply.
I grew up a Catholic and became a policeman. I have seen so much suffering in my job I think it has opened my heart to those that suffer.
But in my experience Buddhism or Schopenhauer seems a better way.

Completely agree.