The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Jedidiah]

I'm still thinking you're talking about the origin or cause of the universe that can not be a subject of science. The universe itself can be tested: we can measure its size, mass, age, etc.

As I said above science is all about observations of the existing universe. Certainly we can test that, I did not suggest that we could not. If I appeared to I was expressing myself poorly.

[shunyadragon]

I don't know ask Jim, that is what he claimed.

If you do not know your argument has no credibility without credible historical evidence before the known texts.

[Tassman]

I was not speaking of science, but of your faith claims, like this fairy tale thing. There is zero evidence that the writers of the New Testament intended to write fairy tales or thought they were writing fairy tales. And if you make the claim it is on you to justify it.

I did not make the claim, dummy. I said the gospels may as well be fairy-tales given their lack of historical validation. They certainly cannot be placed on the same level as verified scientific knowledge, which is what you seem to be demanding.

[JimL]

I was not speaking of science, but of your faith claims, like this fairy tale thing. There is zero evidence that the writers of the New Testament intended to write fairy tales or thought they were writing fairy tales. And if you make the claim it is on you to justify it.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the writers of the N.T. intended to write non-fiction, or believed they were doing so. And if you make the claim, it is on you to justify it. The claim is theirs and yours, not mine, so it is yours to prove true, not mine to prove false.

[Roy]

In case this is all going over your head Homer, the ONLY reason I ask atheists/materialists to PROVE anything is because that is what they are are always asking us to do. Thereby highlighting their double standard.

Got it. You think atheists operate a double standard and so you want one too.

And if you make the claim it is on you to justify it.

If that is your attitude, why do you object to being asked to justify your claims?

Unless you think the above doesn't apply to you personally.

[seer]

There is absolutely zero evidence that the writers of the N.T. intended to write non-fiction, or believed they were doing so. And if you make the claim, it is on you to justify it. The claim is theirs and yours, not mine, so it is yours to prove true, not mine to prove false.

No Jim, you said they were fairy tales, I said there is no evidence that the authors intended to write fairy tales. If you have evidence to support your claim please present it.

[seer]

Got it. You think atheists operate a double standard and so you want one too.

Not just evidence, but like with Tass that evidence must have a scientific basis.

If that is your attitude, why do you object to being asked to justify your claims?

Example.

[Roy]

If that is your attitude, why do you object to being asked to justify your claims?

Example.

Um, this thread? Specifically post #342, where I asked you to justify your claims and you replied with a rant?

But no matter. It's clear both here and elsewhere that you think others should justify their claims, but you don't have to justify yours.

[seer]

Um, this thread? Specifically post #342, where I asked you to justify your claims and you replied with a rant?

But no matter. It's clear both here and elsewhere that you think others should justify their claims, but you don't have to justify yours.

That is a falsehood Roy, which is clear by the very example you used.

[psstein]

There is absolutely zero evidence that the writers of the N.T. intended to write non-fiction, or believed they were doing so. And if you make the claim, it is on you to justify it. The claim is theirs and yours, not mine, so it is yours to prove true, not mine to prove false.

You are quite literally out of your mind if you think this is the case. There have been several studies comparing the gospels to Greco-Roman bios, a genre of biographical writing. Beyond that, the correspondence between Acts and what we know of colonial Roman administration during the first century is remarkable.

The Pauline Epistles are written explicitly to deal with actual events in the early church, not fictitious ones.

[Tassman]

That is a falsehood Roy, which is clear by the very example you used.

Nonsense! You have a history. Your MO is to provide no evidence of your own and cast doubt on the evidence of others...and somehow this makes you right.

[Tassman]

You are quite literally out of your mind if you think this is the case. There have been several studies comparing the gospels to Greco-Roman bios, a genre of biographical writing. Beyond that, the correspondence between Acts and what we know of colonial Roman administration during the first century is remarkable.

intended

The Pauline Epistles are written explicitly to deal with actual events in the early church, not fictitious ones.

Unlike the gospels the Pauline Epistles have the virtue of being early accounts by a known author and therefore more reliable. Nobody's saying that the intentions of the NT authors was to tell lies.

[psstein]

intended

In what sense are they "historically inaccurate?" The gospels are certainly not blow-by-blow accounts of everything Jesus said and did, but they do contain historically accurate information on his life and teachings. The authorship is not really relevant here: anonymous authors were very common in the ancient world.

The dates are not all that late for ancient history.

[Tassman]

In what sense are they "historically inaccurate?"

The gospels cannot be assessed as either historically accurate or inaccurate given that they are not based upon eyewitnesses and cannot be verified by the usual historical criteria.This would include multiple pieces of evidence, such as artefacts, or independent contemporary sources etc. But there are none.

The gospels are certainly not blow-by-blow accounts of everything Jesus said and did, but they do contain historically accurate information on his life and teachings.

The authorship is not really relevant here: anonymous authors were very common in the ancient world.

The dates are not all that late for ancient history.

[Roy]

But no matter. It's clear both here and elsewhere that you think others should justify their claims, but you don't have to justify yours.

That is a falsehood Roy, which is clear by the very example you used.

A falsehood?

You said "And if you make the claim it is on you to justify it. "
You haven't justified your claim that "God is not physical. At least not in the sense that we understand physical."

You think others should justify their claims, but you don't justify yours. There's nothing false about that.