The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[JimL]

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

Its a religious dominated world Adrift, the idea of god is impressed upon most every young mind. All you need do is observe. People grow up believing what they are taught dependent upon where they grow up. If you grew up in an Islamic dominated country, you'd be defending Islam and Allah instead of Christianity and the three amigos.

Not at all.

You are a perfect example of doing just that. You weren't raised as an atheist, so your preconceived notion is the belief in god and creation.

Sure. My father who was Zen Buddhist who claims to have witnessed a miracle, and who, through Christ, finally found wholeness.

Might I ask what miracle your father witnessed? And by wholeness, do you mean to say that believing made your father feel better? Because if thats all you mean, I have no argument about that. Belief, I'm sure, makes people feel better.

My grandfather, who was a tough racist agnostic, but through the love of a black congregation gave his heart to Jesus.

So what? So your grandfather found acceptance and so joined the cult. Happens all the time. What was he doing with a black congregation anyway, if he was a racist agnostic. The story doesn't ring true.

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.

I wanted your examples only to support my assertion, and thats exactly what your examples do, they all, your friends and relatives, wanted something more in their pitiful existences and they found that by joining the cult.

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.

Exactly my point. They believe in god because it was impressed upon them at an early age, but in actuallity don't really think that deeply about it one way or the other.

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

Oh please, of course its the case. What world are you living in? Religion is, for the most part, the way of the world, most people are brought up believing in god and creation.

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.

Human life is not any more innately valuable, than is any other life form, and simply believing that it is more valuable doesn't make it so. The reason you feel that way is because you are human, and your life is certainly valuable to you. Bet you don't value the life of the chicken or cow you ate for dinner the other night, right? Thats because you are not a chicken or a cow.

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

So, they are wrong. The concept of good and evil is relative to the interests of human beings, so there is no need of a transcendent source whether you wish to believe in one or not.

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

Where you are all going after you die is "wanting to believe." You want to believe you are going somewhere.

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.

First of all questions are not answers. If you are looking for purpose, or fulfillment of desire, then you will find the answer you are looking for, if you are looking for truth, then you may not.

I don't think it would make much sense for an eternal being to ask himself where he came from.

Right, and the same goes for an eternal Universe, it makes no sense to ask where it came from or why it has the nature it does..

And for him to ask why he exists or what his purpose is seems to anthropomorphize a transcendent being. If you imagine that God needs to ask himself these sorts of things, then your conception of God seems rather small, but at any rate, God does tell us who he is, and what his purpose is in scripture,

Well, that is exactly what believers do, they anthropomorphize a creator. It is silly to equate purpose with the eternal. Whether god or the universe is eternal there is no purpose for its existence.

"The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Love is not a thing in itself so it is silly to say that god is love.
Yeah, whatever that means. Religious gibberish is what it sounds like.
More biblical gibberish. "If you don't believe then you are not of god" Doesn't even make sense of course, because if god is the creator then you are of god whether you believe it or not.

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.

Yes, we are all entitled to believe what we want, but self satisfaction with the answer should have nothing to do with it. And that was my point from the beginning, and you keep proving my point.

[psstein]

Norwich's books are good from a simple narrative perspective but leave a lot to desire in other fields. He's too quick to see theology as dictated by political demands. The Nika Revolt has archeological evidence? I don't know of any. Even if that is true, you'd need the text to make sense of it. Much of our knowledge of Maurice's reign comes from a single chronicle, with little archeological evidence.

Many chronicles have miracle accounts; it was very common in antiquity to have them in works of history.

That's not true. Even notoriously skeptical scholars (like Maurice Casey) believe that Jesus was known as an exorcist and healer of some type. The view that the miracle accounts are all later insertions is outdated.

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

It's pretty clear what's Christian interpolation and what's not.

[Adrift]

Its a religious dominated world Adrift, the idea of god is impressed upon most every young mind. All you need do is observe. People grow up believing what they are taught dependent upon where they grow up. If you grew up in an Islamic dominated country, you'd be defending Islam and Allah instead of Christianity and the three amigos.



You are a perfect example of doing just that. You weren't raised as an atheist, so your preconceived notion is the belief in god and creation.

I wasn't raised a Christian. I wasn't indoctrinated to be a Christian. In fact, if anything I was indoctrinated to believe that mainstream Christianity was rotten. So your above does not hold true for me. Nor does it hold true for millions of others who came to Christ despite never being indoctrinated by Christians.

Might I ask what miracle your father witnessed? And by wholeness, do you mean to say that believing made your father feel better? Because if thats all you mean, I have no argument about that. Belief, I'm sure, makes people feel better.

While recovering from jaundice from dirty needles, he claims to have met someone he believes was an angel who spoke into his life. By whole I mean he found intellectual and spiritual fulfillment.

So what? So your grandfather found acceptance and so joined the cult. Happens all the time. What was he doing with a black congregation anyway, if he was a racist agnostic. The story doesn't ring true.

He was laying in a hospital dying of prostate cancer, when the members of the congregation volunteered to visit him, and pray for him. He miraculously recovered.

I wanted your examples only to support my assertion, and thats exactly what your examples do, they all, your friends and relatives, wanted something more in their pitiful existences and they found that by joining the cult.



Exactly my point. They believe in god because it was impressed upon them at an early age, but in actuallity don't really think that deeply about it one way or the other.



Oh please, of course its the case. What world are you living in? Religion is, for the most part, the way of the world, most people are brought up believing in god and creation.



Human life is not any more innately valuable, than is any other life form, and simply believing that it is more valuable doesn't make it so. The reason you feel that way is because you are human, and your life is certainly valuable to you. Bet you don't value the life of the chicken or cow you ate for dinner the other night, right? Thats because you are not a chicken or a cow.



So, they are wrong. The concept of good and evil is relative to the interests of human beings, so there is no need of a transcendent source whether you wish to believe in one or not.



Where you are all going after you die is "wanting to believe." You want to believe you are going somewhere.


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.




Right, and the same goes for an eternal Universe, it makes no sense to ask where it came from or why it has the nature it does..


Well, that is exactly what believers do, they anthropomorphize a creator. It is silly to equate purpose with the eternal. Whether god or the universe is eternal there is no purpose for its existence.

Love is not a thing in itself so it is silly to say that god is love.

Yeah, whatever that means. Religious gibberish is what it sounds like.

More biblical gibberish. "If you don't believe then you are not of god" Doesn't even make sense of course, because if god is the creator then you are of god whether you believe it or not.



Yes, we are all entitled to believe what we want, but self satisfaction with the answer should have nothing to do with it. And that was my point from the beginning, and you keep proving my point.

Was hoping that an irenic approach would have seen you at least attempt to be a bit more open-minded, and less cynical. I knew better.

[JimL]

I wasn't raised a Christian. I wasn't indoctrinated to be a Christian. In fact, if anything I was indoctrinated to believe that mainstream Christianity was rotten. So your above does not hold true for me. Nor does it hold true for millions of others who came to Christ despite never being indoctrinated by Christians.

I didn't say that you were raised christian, I said that the idea of god was impressed upon you early on, which holds true for millions of others, nearly everyone, whether they belonged to a particular cult or not.

While recovering from jaundice from dirty needles, he claims to have met someone he believes was an angel who spoke into his life. By whole I mean he found intellectual and spiritual fulfillment.

Well, so he was a bit off his rocker, believing a person he met was an angel. And intellectual fulfillment has nothing to do with god, and spiritual fulfillment doesn't mean anything at all. Or perhaps it means whatever you want it to mean, like, "I feel better now that I believe in god."

He was laying in a hospital dying of prostate cancer, when the members of the congregation volunteered to visit him, and pray for him. He miraculously recovered.

Yeah right Adrift, because people praying for others miraculously cures the incurable. You shouldn't lie to people Adrift, no is nice!

Was hoping that an irenic approach would have seen you at least attempt to be a bit more open-minded, and less cynical. I knew better.

I'm cynical for a reason, particularly with people like you who toss around these kind of nonsensical arguments. Perhaps you should be more open minded yourself, ever think of that?

[One Bad Pig]

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

That you're utterly unaware that you keep proving my point is amusing.

And yes, limbs don't regrow naturally. That's how I know that, when they do, it's due to a supernatural cause.

[JimL]

That you're utterly unaware that you keep proving my point is amusing.

And yes, limbs don't regrow naturally. That's how I know that, when they do, it's due to a supernatural cause.

Yes, you definitely are a hoot. Spontaneous supernatural limb restoration!

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, you definitely are a hoot. Spontaneous supernatural limb restoration!

Sorry, you'll have to point me to where I said anything about it being spontaneous.

[JimL]

Sorry, you'll have to point me to where I said anything about it being spontaneous.

As if that makes a difference, , you are a hoot OBP.

[One Bad Pig]

As if that makes a difference, , you are a hoot OBP.

Y'know, you're not a half-bad mimic. When regurgitating MSM talking points isn't enough, just ape your opponent. That can work, when applied judiciously, but you're rather indiscriminate about it. Of course, contrary to your grammatically poor handwave, it DOES make a difference. Given a before and after picture of building materials and an assembled house, does it make a difference whether or not you think it assembled spontaneously or that people built it?

[JimL]

Y'know, you're not a half-bad mimic. When regurgitating MSM talking points isn't enough, just ape your opponent. That can work, when applied judiciously, but you're rather indiscriminate about it. Of course, contrary to your grammatically poor handwave, it DOES make a difference. Given a before and after picture of building materials and an assembled house, does it make a difference whether or not you think it assembled spontaneously or that people built it?

Oh stop while you're behind will ya, its getting embarrassing. Do you really believe that missing limbs reconstitute? Sheesh!

[Tassman]

The Nika Revolt has archeological evidence? I don't know of any. Even if that is true, you'd need the text to make sense of it.

http://www.academia.edu/24836774/The...tan_topography

Much of our knowledge of Maurice's reign comes from a single chronicle, with little archeological evidence.

Well there's no archaeological evidence that substantiates the miraculous claims of the gospels.

Many chronicles have miracle accounts; it was very common in antiquity to have them in works of history.

So? Miracles in history are not accepted as verifiable by historical-critical historians using standard historical methodology.

That's not true. Even notoriously skeptical scholars (like Maurice Casey) believe that Jesus was known as an exorcist and healer of some type.

The view that the miracle accounts are all later insertions is outdated.

No one says the miracles were "inserted", they grew organically via embellishments as the Jesus story grew in the telling, before being written down.

It's pretty clear what's Christian interpolation and what's not.

[Tassman]

And yes, limbs don't regrow naturally. That's how I know that, when they do, it's due to a supernatural cause.

When do limbs regrow, evidence please. Or are miracles restricted to occurrences that can have a psychosomatic explanation or some other natural explanation, as per the "miracles" worked by the likes of Benny Hinn?

[psstein]

http://www.academia.edu/24836774/The...tan_topography

I looked through that article and saw little in the way of actual archeological evidence.

Well there's no archaeological evidence that substantiates the miraculous claims of the gospels.

Uh, okay. I can't imagine why there'd be archeological evidence in the first place for miracles, but this is an aside. I'm not arguing for or against the reality of miraculous events.

So? Miracles in history are not accepted as verifiable by historical-critical historians using standard historical methodology.

We agree here. Miracles or the lack thereof require a further philosophical argument that goes beyond the pale of what strict history can or cannot do.

Brown wasn't a Jesuit; he was a Sulpician. "Regarded as a healer" means that he performed seemingly miraculous healings, as Brown (and literally every other scholar in the world) would acknowledge. Whether or not those are actually miracles is another question. I'm not arguing that Jesus did or didn't perform miracles. I'm saying that one of the earliest strands of the Jesus tradition involves Jesus remembered as an exorcist and healer.

No one says the miracles were "inserted", they grew organically via embellishments as the Jesus story grew in the telling, before being written down.

My language was not precise enough. I think you're arguing that the miracle stories are all post-Easter creations with no basis in history. What I'm saying is that the historical Jesus of Nazareth performed miraculous seeming deeds and exorcisms. Again, whether or not those are actually miracles is not the same question.

No, my claim is that the TF is, in part, original to Josephus and not a later Christian interpolation. This is the view of the majority of Josephan and NT scholars today.

[One Bad Pig]

Oh stop while you're behind will ya, its getting embarrassing. Do you really believe that missing limbs reconstitute? Sheesh!

Given evidence that they have, yes. Unlike you, I'm willing to follow the evidence. You might try doing that before pretending that you're somehow ahead in this back'n'forth.

[One Bad Pig]

When do limbs regrow, evidence please. Or are miracles restricted to occurrences that can have a psychosomatic explanation or some other natural explanation, as per the "miracles" worked by the likes of Benny Hinn?

Evidence is in here, as I've already pointed out. I've also already addressed psychosomatic explanations above. Do try to pay attention, so you don't foolishly ask questions already answered.