The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[JimL]

Do you choose a self existent universe or a self existent creator. Science does not help with that decision. If you think it does you are fooling yourself. I choose a creator because it seems more likely to me. I choose the God of Christianity because it is the only one who seems to me to fit my observations of the world and my comparisons with other religions. You, if you reject god because of lack of scientific evidence you are fooling yourself. You choose what you find less incredulous - as do I.

Why does a creator seem more likely to you than a self existent natural world, and has that always been your view?

[Tassman]

I didn't say that the N.T. was written as a fairy tale in the sense that it was meant to be understood as such. I'm sure that the gospel authors wanted their readers to believe in the reality of the events they wrote of, that they may have even believed those things themselves, but the fact that they believed what they wrote doesn't make what they wrote any more of a reality. Their belief doesn't make it so! Its a fairy tale because its BS, plain and simple. Flesh and blood can't walk on water, two fish can't feed thousands, demons don't live in our bodies, mountains can't be moved by believing, the long time dead don't climb out of their graves and chat with the locals, people don't become paralyzed from sinning, and they are not cured of paralysis by forgiveness, etc etc etc. Its a fairy tale!

You were perfectly clear from the start, Jim. This is just seer up to his old tricks in deliberately misrepresenting you and taking faux umbrage at what he's pretending you said.

[Tassman]

Good to know that your preconceived notions trump evidence. I'd ask you to consider reading Craig Keener's book on miracles, but I'm not sure your mind could take the cognitive dissonance required to get through it while maintaining your skepticism. Even Gary couldn't get all the way through it.

Oh, does Keener say that God answers the prayers of amputees to regrow lost limbs? Or does he only focus on things that can be explained psychosomatically or are susceptible to a possible natural explanation?

[Tassman]

In my non-internet life, I'm a historian. So I know quite a bit about this kind of thing. There are many accounts in ancient history that do not have multiple supporting pieces of evidence, independent sources, etc. Nobody doubts the fundamental historicity of them.

Can you provide examples?

No, I do know this. This is the view of every NT scholar, historian of Christianity, etc. in the world who teaches at an accredited university. The gospels testify to how Jesus' message was remembered and interpreted by Christian communities.

Many historical works from the ancient world relate miraculous occurrences. That doesn't make them ahistorical. Nobody discounts Josephus for his reports of miracles.

[psstein]

Could I trouble you for a typical example?

The Nika Revolt is an excellent example. To my knowledge, we only know about it through Procopius, who isn't always a good source.

[JimL]

That hasn't been my experience, nor the experience of many other Christians I know.

Well that may be, it isn't only that you want to believe, but you were first indoctrinated to believe.

First of all, plenty of Christians have come to their worldview through rational arguments.

The rational arguments come after the early indoctrination.

But even those who do not, still often come to their worldview through other forms of evidence.

No, they try to support their preconceived world view.

I know many Christians who've come to faith in Christ through personal experiences in their lives, or by seeing a radical change in someone else's life.

Any examples?

Some people come to their worldview through philosophical questions and deep personal contemplation without knowledge of systematic theology.

Most religious people are brought up religious. Philosophical questions and contemplating on them comes after the fact. The idea of God has already been implanted.

They look at the world around them, and see the evidence of God in creation.

Again, thats because the idea of god and creation has already been impressed upon them.

They see evidence in the purpose of life.

That doesn't even make sense.

They see evidence in the existence of good and evil.

Again, doesn't make sense. Good and evil make perfect sense without god.

They ask themselves, "where did this all come from?" "what is it all about?" "where are we all going in the end?"

Thats what I said, they want to believe!

Now you may have never asked yourself these questions, nor found any of this evidence particularly powerful, but millions and millions of others have. To lay blanket claims that believers simply believe because they want to, and disbelievers never do that is intellectually dishonest.

That isn't evidence of god, its evidence of peoples desire for there to be a god to give them purpose, to give the eternal life etc etc.

Why is it that your god doesn't ask those questions of himself, like, "where did I come from, why do I exist, and what is my purpose?" For the same reasons we don't need answers to them, there is no reason for our existence, it just is.

[psstein]

Can you provide examples?

Off the top of my head, the Nika Revolt, as well as much of the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice.

I'm not saying it does. Let's stay on one topic at a time. You're arguing for some sort of Bultmannian skepticism where we can't know anything substantial about the historical Jesus on extremely shaky grounds.

Not immediately, no. The TF has an authentic core, at least in the view of most Josephan scholars (most of whom are not Christians, by the way), though a small minority believes the entire portion is an interpolation. You can pick anything from Josephus: if we're required to throw out sources because they have miracles, than nothing Josephus says can be considered reliable information.

[Tassman]

Off the top of my head, the Nika Revolt, as well as much of the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice.

I'm not saying it does. Let's stay on one topic at a time. You're arguing for some sort of Bultmannian skepticism where we can't know anything substantial about the historical Jesus on extremely shaky grounds.

Not immediately, no. The TF has an authentic core, at least in the view of most Josephan scholars (most of whom are not Christians, by the way), though a small minority believes the entire portion is an interpolation. You can pick anything from Josephus: if we're required to throw out sources because they have miracles, than nothing Josephus says can be considered reliable information.

Nevertheless, the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction of the TF remains unclear

[Adrift]

Well that may be, it isn't only that you want to believe, but you were first indoctrinated to believe.

The rational arguments come after the early indoctrination.

That doesn't really account for the myriad of people like myself who were never indoctrinated into Christianity.

No, they try to support their preconceived world view.

Not at all.

Any examples?

Sure. My father who was Zen Buddhist who claims to have witnessed a miracle, and who, through Christ, finally found wholeness. My grandfather, who was a tough racist agnostic, but through the love of a black congregation gave his heart to Jesus. A girlfriend of mine who was a Wiccan who was searching for love, real power, and real answers that witchcraft simply couldn't give her, but that she found in Christ. A pal of mine in the military, a hopeless Jehovah Witness who, I'm hoping through my own example, realized that there was more to life than he thought. And a slew of other people who've filtered in and out of my life over the decades who saw a change in others and wanted what they had, or experienced something profound in their own lives. Honestly, that you'd require examples, as though this concept was so completely foreign to you, is a little strange to me, but I suppose it explains quite a bit.

Most religious people are brought up religious. Philosophical questions and contemplating on them comes after the fact. The idea of God has already been implanted.

Again, that hasn't been my experience. Most people I've come into contact with who were raised in the church are nominally religious at best. Religion is something that happens in the background. Sometimes on a Sunday. Usually not at all. If they were to fill out a survey asking if they belonged to X,Y, Z religion/denomination, they'd check off a box, but not because it's all that important to them, it's just a sort of automatic mode thing. Sure they know the name "Jesus". Probably have heard the phrase "Jesus Saves", but it doesn't get much further than a bumper sticker type of understanding of Christianity. When asked, they really know very little of the faith they profess. They'll tell you that grampa and gramma live in the clouds with Jesus, and that if you're good enough, you will to. But that's about as deep as most of their theology gets. Having associated with the underground as long as I have, most of my peers outside of work wouldn't even qualify themselves as nominally Christian, or even religious. Most of my friends are atheists, agnostic, or in the I don't know/don't care category.

Again, thats because the idea of god and creation has already been impressed upon them.

I'm sorry that's the impression you've received over the years, but I'm telling you, that is not the case.

That doesn't even make sense.

Sure it does. When you see that human life is innately valuable, when you believe that life must have purpose, you naturally wonder how and who gave that life value and purpose.

Again, doesn't make sense. Good and evil make perfect sense without god.

To you it may. For many people the concept of an objective good and evil must originate in something transcendent.

Thats what I said, they want to believe!

Asking the big questions is in no way "wanting to believe".

That isn't evidence of god, its evidence of peoples desire for there to be a god to give them purpose, to give the eternal life etc etc.

You're free to disagree, but for most people I've come into contact, this is very real evidence for God, and not anything to do with their desire for there to be a god. It's been my experience that, given the option, most people would rather make themselves god, or make someone/something else god.

Why is it that your god doesn't ask those questions of himself, like, "where did I come from, why do I exist, and what is my purpose?"

For the same reasons we don't need answers to them, there is no reason for our existence, it just is.

You're, of course, entitled to believe that, and you may be satisfied with that sort of answer, but it's been my experience that most people are not satisfied with that answer. I know I'm not.

[Jedidiah]

Why does a creator seem more likely to you than a self existent natural world,

For the reasons seer shared earlier among others. Bottom line though is that since science can not speak to the issue other evidence must be used.

and has that always been your view?

No.

[One Bad Pig]

Oh, does Keener say that God answers the prayers of amputees to regrow lost limbs? Or does he only focus on things that can be explained psychosomatically or are susceptible to a possible natural explanation?

Yes, he does cite some cases of regrown limbs. He generally focuses on things that can't be explained psychosomatically, and quite readily acknowledges that some alleged miracles are faked. He doesn't just uncritically accept or reject every account he comes across.

[One Bad Pig]

Not a preconceived notion, there is no evidence of anything other than the existence of the natural world and natural law.

You're a hoot, JimL.

[tabibito]

Oh, does Keener say that God answers the prayers of amputees to regrow lost limbs? Or does he only focus on things that can be explained psychosomatically or are susceptible to a possible natural explanation?

And if it did happen, you would no doubt find a way to dream up a perfectly natural and scientific explanation for why no deity could possibly have had anything to do with it - it might take ten minutes or so, but you would find a way.

[JimL]

Yes, he does cite some cases of regrown limbs. He generally focuses on things that can't be explained psychosomatically, and quite readily acknowledges that some alleged miracles are faked. He doesn't just uncritically accept or reject every account he comes across.

Limbs don't regrow OBP. And you think I'm a hoot!

[tabibito]

Limbs don't regrow OBP. And you think I'm a hoot!

Quite so: not in humans anyway, and I think not in mammals generally. So any reports of such an event, regardless of how many, how well documented, and thoroughly attested will be dismissed as nonsense and faked.

If all else fails, there's a perfectly natural and scientific reason for it which is simply not yet understood.

I've seen the like with regard to prophecy - people who sincerely don't want to believe have impressive arsenals of defence against any evidence suggesting that the supernatural is real.