The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[carpedm9587]

Yes, though they are more disputable. I like the prophecies that are falsifiable at any time...

Blessings,
Lee

I truly do not get this point of view. When a "prophecy" is so open-ended that it stretches off into essentially infinity, how can the lack of current day fulfillment say anything at all? For all you know, it will be falsified in 1000 years when you are long since dead and gone, and you will have pinned a belief on something that turns out to be false. How do you get around that dilemma?

[LostSheep]

I truly do not get this point of view. When a "prophecy" is so open-ended that it stretches off into essentially infinity, how can the lack of current day fulfillment say anything at all? For all you know, it will be falsified in 1000 years when you are long since dead and gone, and you will have pinned a belief on something that turns out to be false. How do you get around that dilemma?

Hi Carpe.

I usually don't get involved in these discussions/debates so please go easy on me. Your argument that I quoted to me on the surface makes sense. But the thing is with Babylon, for much of ancient history this was the fertile crescent and it was also the center or near the center of many ancient empires. So to a believer maybe, it defies belief --- it is extremely unlikely - that this city was not rebuilt but any one or more of these many ancient empires, let alone not rebuilt to the present day. It's not so much that it may be falsified 1000 years from now and so be falsified, it's that it's so highly improbable that it hasn't happened yet that's convincing to a believer like me.

[carpedm9587]

Hi Carpe.

I usually don't get involved in these discussions/debates so please go easy on me. Your argument that I quoted to me on the surface makes sense. But the thing is with Babylon, for much of ancient history this was the fertile crescent and it was also the center or near the center of many ancient empires. So to a believer maybe, it defies belief --- it is extremely unlikely - that this city was not rebuilt but any one or more of these many ancient empires, let alone not rebuilt to the present day. It's not so much that it may be falsified 1000 years from now and so be falsified, it's that it's so highly improbable that it hasn't happened yet that's convincing to a believer like me.

No problem, LS. I try not to beat up people.

It is not clear to me how anyone would measure the "likeliness" of this situation. Ancient Babylon stood on the edge of one of the more forbidding deserts in the middle east. While it was a major trade route in ancient times, as cultures developed to the west and north, those trade routes shifted with them. But even were that not so, to base a belief on a vague, open ended prophecy just does not make a lot of sense to me. The area around the ruins is now extensive farms lands. Part of what was ancient Babylon is now part of Hillah, which is extensively built up. The ruins themselves have become a significant tourist area. So what constitutes "re-built" and when do you know it has happened? Do you have to have skyscrapers? Does more than X% of the local population need to live there? Not to mention the argument I made above.

I know that "prophecy" is a major component of a lot of people's belief system. In my experience, prophecy is usually badly applied math, badly applied history, or just plain snake oil. I find it...unsatisfying. And when someone else bases their beliefs on it...I'm not sure what I think/feel. Perhaps "disappointed" is the best word.

[lee_merrill]

I truly do not get this point of view. When a "prophecy" is so open-ended that it stretches off into essentially infinity, how can the lack of current day fulfillment say anything at all?

You can try and falsify it yourself, is the point. The point becomes more pointed when people have tried and failed.

For all you know, it will be falsified in 1000 years when you are long since dead and gone, and you will have pinned a belief on something that turns out to be false. How do you get around that dilemma?

That is one pillar of my belief, but not the only one, answered prayers is another.

Blessings,
Lee

[carpedm9587]

You can try and falsify it yourself, is the point. The point becomes more pointed when people have tried and failed.


That is one pillar of my belief, but not the only one, answered prayers is another.

Blessings,
Lee

Answered prayers are usually, in my experience, just another misapplication of probabilities.

[carpedm9587]

Hi Carpe.

I usually don't get involved in these discussions/debates so please go easy on me. Your argument that I quoted to me on the surface makes sense. But the thing is with Babylon, for much of ancient history this was the fertile crescent and it was also the center or near the center of many ancient empires. So to a believer maybe, it defies belief --- it is extremely unlikely - that this city was not rebuilt but any one or more of these many ancient empires, let alone not rebuilt to the present day. It's not so much that it may be falsified 1000 years from now and so be falsified, it's that it's so highly improbable that it hasn't happened yet that's convincing to a believer like me.

LS - I wish I could go back and delete my previous post. Unfortunately, it is too late. You are entitled to base your beliefs on whatever you find compelling. I cannot go there with you for reasons that go well beyond what can be posted on a message board. Perhaps, someday, we will have opportunity to talk and swap stories. Until then - follow the path you find right. At the end of our lives, if any of us can say we lived as honestly as we could, and did as much good as we could, I think the rest will sort itself out.

[Sparko]

Well what would you expect with agenda driven authors, would you expect that the authors of the NT would contradict the authors of the OT.

If you believe the authors were evil deceitful liars who set out to write a story that matched the OT prophesies and then convinced everyone living then that it really happened when it was all made up, and then died horrible deaths being tortured to recant their stories and yet dying claiming they were true when they had nothing to gain, then I guess you might be a moron.

[carpedm9587]

If you believe the authors were evil deceitful liars who set out to write a story that matched the OT prophesies and then convinced everyone living then that it really happened when it was all made up, and then died horrible deaths being tortured to recant their stories and yet dying claiming they were true when they had nothing to gain, then I guess you might be a moron.

Actually - that is a somewhat extreme view. A developing theology does not have to be "evil deceitful liars." Matching a story to prophecy is a literary device. It is a way of saying, "pay attention - this man is important." It was not unheard of in that period. If the story being told was a theological one, not a historical one, it would fit quite well. As for the circumstances of their death, these would not be the first people to die for a wrong belief. There is no evidence I know of that they died because of the details of the story - but rather because of their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Judaic Messiah and the Son of God. One does not have to be a moron to see an alternative way all of this could have unfolded, and one that fits with what we know about human psychology, memory, theological development, and science.

[Sparko]

Actually - that is a somewhat extreme view. A developing theology does not have to be "evil deceitful liars." Matching a story to prophecy is a literary device. It is a way of saying, "pay attention - this man is important." It was not unheard of in that period. If the story being told was a theological one, not a historical one, it would fit quite well. As for the circumstances of their death, these would not be the first people to die for a wrong belief. There is no evidence I know of that they died because of the details of the story - but rather because of their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Judaic Messiah and the Son of God. One does not have to be a moron to see an alternative way all of this could have unfolded, and one that fits with what we know about human psychology, memory, theological development, and science.

Sorry but the NT is written as a history of actual events, not as an allegory or literary device. One only has to actually read it to know that. And the letters of the apostles confirm that. The fact that the church started from the time period and has taught this as facts from the beginning also confirms that. The fact that there IS a church is evidence of it. And if anyone knew whether the "beliefs" were true or not it would be the people who experienced it and wrote about it. They witnessed the resurrected Christ. They were all ready to disband and thought it was all a lie until he appeared to them alive. That is why they believed and why they died for their belief. If they just made it up or merely thought he was the Messiah then they would have never started the church or died for their convictions. All they had to do was go back to the Temple and be good Jews and live a normal life. Instead they lived on the road, on the run from the Jews and Romans, and spread their story and eventually wrote it down. They were mocked, beaten, tortured and killed for something they would know to be a lie? No.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry but the NT is written as a history of actual events, not as an allegory or literary device. One only has to actually read it to know that.

I have not only read it - I have studied it. I do not come to that conclusion.

And the letters of the apostles confirm that.

We have few letters from eyewitnesses, Sparko - and those we DO have are written well beyond the time of the events they record.

The fact that the church started from the time period and has taught this as facts from the beginning also confirms that.

No, it actually doesn't. Recorded, formal church teachings begin well after the period of Jesus, and reflect an already developed theology. They cannot be used to support a historical claim.

The fact that there IS a church is evidence of it.

The fact that there is a church is evidence that the teachings attributed to Jesus found a receptive ear, so gained a following. It is also testament to the incredible leadership power and charisma of one Saul of Tarsus. It is not necessarily evidence that the NT is literal history.

And if anyone knew whether the "beliefs" were true or not it would be the people who experienced it and wrote about it. They witnessed the resurrected Christ. They were all ready to disband and thought it was all a lie until he appeared to them alive. That is why they believed and why they died for their belief. If they just made it up or merely thought he was the Messiah then they would have never started the church or died for their convictions. All they had to do was go back to the Temple and be good Jews and live a normal life. Instead they lived on the road, on the run from the Jews and Romans, and spread their story and eventually wrote it down. They were mocked, beaten, tortured and killed for something they would know to be a lie? No.

We have no documentation from first-hand witnesses to this event. Even if we did, they are written decades after the events they report, long enough for the "memory" effect to be at work and for the development of a theological interpretation of the events. At no point did I say "lie," and I do not believe they WERE lying. I believe they were most likely following a truly held theology, as you are.

[Sparko]

I have not only read it - I have studied it. I do not come to that conclusion.



We have few letters from eyewitnesses, Sparko - and those we DO have are written well beyond the time of the events they record.



No, it actually doesn't. Recorded, formal church teachings begin well after the period of Jesus, and reflect an already developed theology. They cannot be used to support a historical claim.



The fact that there is a church is evidence that the teachings attributed to Jesus found a receptive ear, so gained a following. It is also testament to the incredible leadership power and charisma of one Saul of Tarsus. It is not necessarily evidence that the NT is literal history.



We have no documentation from first-hand witnesses to this event. Even if we did, they are written decades after the events they report, long enough for the "memory" effect to be at work and for the development of a theological interpretation of the events. At no point did I say "lie," and I do not believe they WERE lying. I believe they were most likely following a truly held theology, as you are.

what you are doing is dismissing the fact that the writers of the gospels were the first hand eye witnesses to the events. They were not just some people who heard a story and then wrote down some legends. The fact that the gospels were written down within a few decades is actually pretty remarkable for historical documents. Much of what we know from history was in written hundreds of years after the reported events. Not much eye-witness testimony in actual ancient history. And what makes you think the apostles didn't keep notes while with Jesus? I would. And then later compile those notes into the gospels?

[carpedm9587]

what you are doing is dismissing the fact that the writers of the gospels were the first hand eye witnesses to the events. They were not just some people who heard a story and then wrote down some legends.

I am disputing that there is enough evidence to definitively say they WERE eyewitnesses, and that the time elapsed between the events described and their recording is a concern.

The fact that the gospels were written down within a few decades is actually pretty remarkable for historical documents.

I am aware of this.

Much of what we know from history was in written hundreds of years after the reported events. Not much eye-witness testimony in actual ancient history.

I am aware of this too, which is why historians prefer multiple documents from multiple independent sources to affirm a historical claim. If they do not have that, they look for presence/lack of consistency within the document, the nature of the source of the document (could they have been biased or had a reason to report incorrectly), and so forth. Many/most of these are missing in the NT accounts of the events described.

And what makes you think the apostles didn't keep notes while with Jesus? I would. And then later compile those notes into the gospels?

Umm...you are suggesting that fishermen following an itinerant preacher kept a journal, and then used them to base the Gosples on? Exegesis confirms a Q source, but it is not dated to a time concurrent with Jesus. And I know of no evidence that suggests it was based on "notes" kept by the apostles.

[Jedidiah]

. . . As for the circumstances of their death, these would not be the first people to die for a wrong belief. . . .

Pure baloney. There is a huge difference between dying for a wrong belief and dying for a story you made up and claim is real.

[Sparko]

I am disputing that there is enough evidence to definitively say they WERE eyewitnesses, and that the time elapsed between the events described and their recording is a concern.



I am aware of this.



I am aware of this too, which is why historians prefer multiple documents from multiple independent sources to affirm a historical claim. If they do not have that, they look for presence/lack of consistency within the document, the nature of the source of the document (could they have been biased or had a reason to report incorrectly), and so forth. Many/most of these are missing in the NT accounts of the events described.



Umm...you are suggesting that fishermen following an itinerant preacher kept a journal, and then used them to base the Gosples on? Exegesis confirms a Q source, but it is not dated to a time concurrent with Jesus. And I know of no evidence that suggests it was based on "notes" kept by the apostles.

Matthew was a tax collector who would keep records and know how to write. Mark was a disciple and the scribe of that fisherman, Peter, so yeah he would know how to write since that was his job, John was another fisherman but he apparently knew how to write, and Luke was a doctor and scribe to Paul, so he knew how to write. Of the 4 Luke was not an eyewitness and would not have kept notes during the time, maybe not John either. But Mark and Matthew? It is very plausible. Not to mention Jesus had many disciples, many who were rich and educated, like Lazarus, Joseph of Arimethea, and Nicodemus. They could easily have kept notes. Luke claims to have interviewed eye-witnesses to write his gospel, and it is plausible that those people kept notes and could have even been people like Joseph of A and Nicodemus and many of the Apostles themselves.

And the NT is multiple documents from independent sources. And we have other historical and archeological sources that confirm many of the events and people of the time and area.
But if not notes, the society was an oral society. who pretty much had a system to hand down oral stories word for word without embellishment. It wasn't like today where we have to have everything recorded to remember anything.

[carpedm9587]

Pure baloney. There is a huge difference between dying for a wrong belief and dying for a story you made up and claim is real.

No one said anything about "making up." Memory is an unreliable thing. It is perfectly plausible that the events they described and believed in did not happen as they related them, and they were being perfectly honest about it.

Also, the only "pure baloney" I know of is at the local deli...