I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Merriam Webster
Definition of belief
:
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
:


Definition of faith
:
b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
:



I haven't. I may have said some things that you consider to be stupid; just as you have said some things that I consider stupid. The difference is that I am polite enough (or, if you like, not rude enough) to not call you an idiot for it.



So...it's wrong. Another instance where the bible is wrong - and this is God actually speaking. And you want to let it slide because it's a 'figure of speech'. Not a figure of speech anybody else has ever used, mind you.



There is zero evidence that the authors of the gospels ever saw Jesus.



Because this isn't the thread for it.



Which is precisely why I say that you have no support for the gospels' claims.



Just as Dickens was actually in London and accurately described the surroundings. That doesn't make Great Expectations real.



No, it is not supported. And no, it's not a miracle.



That claim, also, is unsupported.



That's just false. Very few serious biblical scholars believe the documents were written by Jesus followers and virtually nobody agrees that they were written by the apostles whose names they share.


And no amount of scholarship can verify that the religious/spiritual/miraculous claims they make are accurate.



The fact that you want to believe doesn't change that.



You are welcome to your own opinion, but that opinion is based on wishful thinking and faith (i.e., belief despite the lack of evidence).


See? I can ad hominem you just as well as you can, me. Or we can both stick to the issues instead of attacking each other. Your call (although I guess your repeated insults have shown you've already made your call).

I doubt you will get any answers to some of the above. If as Sparko alleges, "Nobody has ever shown the bible to be in error" why can he not tell us which of the four evangelists' account of the trial is the correct one? They cannot all be right.

What is this archaeological evidence that confirms the narrative details of the gospels? Who were all these leaders who were killed? What was this persecution by the Jews and the Romans?

When Sparko is asked to provide evidence for those contentions he suddenly goes quiet.

[Sparko]

Now you're just being silly again.

No you wouldn't. You're contradicting yourself again. If you didn't accept Jesus you wouldn't be judged for your sins, you'd simply go to hell. Nobody according to your belief is judged for their sins, they either believe in Jesus and so go to heaven, or don't believe and so go to hell.

Not true. Only those who are accountable for their sins. You have to understand good and evil and choose evil to be a sin. You have to do what you know is wrong and do it anyway. Someone who is incapable of understanding right from wrong won't be judged on their sins. This is why we say children until they reach an age of accountability won't end up in hell, nor will the mentally handicapped if they don't understand right from wrong.

But those that do understand and do wrong, will stand before God in judgment for those wrongs.

So, it's all a matter of luck to you. If you're lucky enough someone will tell you. Besides, you wouldn't really listen. The poison already poured into the porches of your ears is a strong defense against objective reason.

Well, I don't think it is luck at all. God is omniscient and I believe if he knows I would accept the gospel, he will make sure I hear it.

My imperfect mind I suppose.

There is still hope for you as long as you live.

[JimL]

Not true. Only those who are accountable for their sins. You have to understand good and evil and choose evil to be a sin. You have to do what you know is wrong and do it anyway. Someone who is incapable of understanding right from wrong won't be judged on their sins. This is why we say children until they reach an age of accountability won't end up in hell, nor will the mentally handicapped if they don't understand right from wrong.

But those that do understand and do wrong, will stand before God in judgment for those wrongs.

Who says those things, the bible, god? And are you saying that it's good to die as a child or to be born mentally compromised because that way you won't be judged, you get a free pass to heaven?

Well, I don't think it is luck at all. God is omniscient and I believe if he knows I would accept the gospel, he will make sure I hear it.

So, it's all up to god and those he knows to be special.

There is still hope for you as long as you live.

Well, I'm glad your belief gives you comfort anyway.

[Sparko]

Merriam Webster
Definition of belief
:
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
:


Definition of faith
:
b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
:

The definition right above the one you give:

Faith:
2(a): belief and trust in and loyalty to God

https://www.rzim.org/read/a-slice-of...and-evidence-3

There is zero evidence that the authors of the gospels ever saw Jesus.

The documents ARE evidence. You may not like the evidence, but that is your problem.

Which is precisely why I say that you have no support for the gospels' claims.

They are evidence. And there is no evidence that shows them wrong. In historic documents, When they are clearly written as a witness document claiming to be documenting real events, they are accepted as true unless they are shown to be wrong with other evidence. If not, we would know nothing of history.

Just as Dickens was actually in London and accurately described the surroundings. That doesn't make Great Expectations real.

Dickens never claimed it was a historic document. It was published as fiction. But a historian would be able to determine from references in the story that Dickens indeed lived during the time he set the story in and archeology would support that too.

No, it is not supported. And no, it's not a miracle.

going "neener neener, no it's not" is not a refutation.

That claim, also, is unsupported.

see above.

That's just false. Very few serious biblical scholars believe the documents were written by Jesus followers and virtually nobody agrees that they were written by the apostles whose names they share.

All full copies of the gospel manuscripts have the names we currently attribute to them on them. If they were truly anonymous and just later had the names of disciples attached to them, we should see copies with misattributions on them. Why don't we have copies of say, Matthew, with Mark's name on them? Or copies with someone else entirely? Why even put Mark's name on a gospel instead of Peter's? Mark was a disciple of Peter's. If they wanted to give the document authority, why wouldn't they put Peter's name on the gospel? Why are their no copies with Peter's name on it?



There is no evidence that the gospels were written by anyone other than who they have historically been attributed to.

And no amount of scholarship can verify that the religious/spiritual/miraculous claims they make are accurate.

This is where the faith comes in based on the evidence that these are reliable, trustworthy documents.

You are welcome to your own opinion, but that opinion is based on wishful thinking and faith (i.e., belief despite the lack of evidence).

"I know you are but what am I?" is your best response?

[Sparko]

If you grew up and became a muslim, you would think anyone who accepted Jesus was wrong, and be just as sure of it as you now are that anyone who does not do so is wrong. And if some Christian found you and told me the gospel, you would dismiss it just as you now dismiss every other religion.

No, I wouldn't. My personality is to dig through the evidence and make a decision. Heck it took me 3 months of research to decide which was the best SUV to buy.

I didn't become a Christian until I was 40 years old.

Even though I am a Christian, I have studied Islam and other religions. So if I were a Muslim, I know I would study Christianity. And knowing what I currently know about both, Islam wouldn't stand a chance. Islam actually started as a heretical offshoot of Christianity in a way. Mohammad's Aunt was a Christian of sorts, and he got a lot of his ideas apparently from her and her family.

[Sparko]

Who says those things, the bible, god? And are you saying that it's good to die as a child or to be born mentally compromised because that way you won't be judged, you get a free pass to heaven?

Did I not already quote Romans 2 to you? Go read it.

So, it's all up to god and those he knows to be special.

Well, I'm glad your belief gives you comfort anyway.

Maybe you will be one of the "special" - I actually do pray for you from time to time.

[Electric Skeptic]

No, I wouldn't. My personality is to dig through the evidence and make a decision. Heck it took me 3 months of research to decide which was the best SUV to buy.

I didn't become a Christian until I was 40 years old.

Even though I am a Christian, I have studied Islam and other religions. So if I were a Muslim, I know I would study Christianity. And knowing what I currently know about both, Islam wouldn't stand a chance. Islam actually started as a heretical offshoot of Christianity in a way. Mohammad's Aunt was a Christian of sorts, and he got a lot of his ideas apparently from her and her family.

You'll forgive me if I doubt that very much.

[Electric Skeptic]

https://www.rzim.org/read/a-slice-of...and-evidence-3

That's just nosnense and obviously false. Pin down a Christian on some belief they can't evidence and the first response is "Well then it comes down to faith" - i.e. belief without evidence.

The documents ARE evidence. You may not like the evidence, but that is your problem.

The documents aren't evidence that they were written by the names they carry. They are evidence of what they claim, but very very poor evidence.

They are evidence.

The documents aren't evidence that they were written by the names they carry. They are evidence of what they claim, but very very poor evidence.

And there is no evidence that shows them wrong.

That's not how it works. You claim they are genuine and true; it's up to you to evidence that. It's not up to us to evidence that they are not.

In historic documents, When they are clearly written as a witness document claiming to be documenting real events

Except that these are not "clearly written as a witness document".

they are accepted as true unless they are shown to be wrong with other evidence. If not, we would know nothing of history.

According to this, we should accept every historian's claims, including those of miraculous events, without any corrorobration. Which is ridiculous and not what is done.

Historical documents (particularly 2,000 year old contradictory ones of unknown authorship describing miraculous events which amazingly are not described in other contemporary accounts) are not "accepted as true unless they are shown to be wrong". They are accepted as true when and if they are show to be true by corroborating evidence.

going "neener neener, no it's not" is not a refutation.

When claim is nothing but "Is so!", then "Is not!" is a perfectly valid refutation.

All full copies of the gospel manuscripts have the names we currently attribute to them on them. If they were truly anonymous and just later had the names of disciples attached to them, we should see copies with misattributions on them. Why don't we have copies of say, Matthew, with Mark's name on them? Or copies with someone else entirely? Why even put Mark's name on a gospel instead of Peter's? Mark was a disciple of Peter's. If they wanted to give the document authority, why wouldn't they put Peter's name on the gospel? Why are their no copies with Peter's name on it?

Why would there by? Who says that we should see copies with misattributions to them? If I (2,000 years ago) produce an account of Jesus' life that I heard from my granpa (who claims to have been a real good friend of Mark's) and label it Mark's Gospel, why would someone else change that and try to attribute it to Matthew instead?

There is no evidence that the gospels were written by anyone other than who they have historically been attributed to.

Actually there are large amounts of evidence to that, not least how long after Jesus' death they were written. And there is zero evidence that they were written by those whose names they bear.

This is a mistake you consistently make - "This is the claim and unless you can disprove it, it's true." That's not how it works. The person making the claim needs to provide evidence to support that claim; doubters don't need to produce evidence against it. All they need to is note that the evidence to support it is nonexistent or unconvincing.

This is where the faith comes in based on the evidence that these are reliable, trustworthy documents.

This is certainly where faith comes in, because there is no evidence that these are reliable, trustworthy documents. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that they are false and untrustworthy.

"I know you are but what am I?" is your best response?

When what I'm responding to is as poor as your line was, it's a fine response.

[Sparko]

You'll forgive me if I doubt that very much.

Sure, I forgive you. You don't know me at all. I do though.

[Sparko]

That's just nosnense and obviously false. Pin down a Christian on some belief they can't evidence and the first response is "Well then it comes down to faith" - i.e. belief without evidence.


The documents aren't evidence that they were written by the names they carry. They are evidence of what they claim, but very very poor evidence.


The documents aren't evidence that they were written by the names they carry. They are evidence of what they claim, but very very poor evidence.


That's not how it works. You claim they are genuine and true; it's up to you to evidence that. It's not up to us to evidence that they are not.


Except that these are not "clearly written as a witness document".


According to this, we should accept every historian's claims, including those of miraculous events, without any corrorobration. Which is ridiculous and not what is done.

Historical documents (particularly 2,000 year old contradictory ones of unknown authorship describing miraculous events which amazingly are not described in other contemporary accounts) are not "accepted as true unless they are shown to be wrong". They are accepted as true when and if they are show to be true by corroborating evidence.


When claim is nothing but "Is so!", then "Is not!" is a perfectly valid refutation.


Why would there by? Who says that we should see copies with misattributions to them? If I (2,000 years ago) produce an account of Jesus' life that I heard from my granpa (who claims to have been a real good friend of Mark's) and label it Mark's Gospel, why would someone else change that and try to attribute it to Matthew instead?


Actually there are large amounts of evidence to that, not least how long after Jesus' death they were written. And there is zero evidence that they were written by those whose names they bear.

This is a mistake you consistently make - "This is the claim and unless you can disprove it, it's true." That's not how it works. The person making the claim needs to provide evidence to support that claim; doubters don't need to produce evidence against it. All they need to is note that the evidence to support it is nonexistent or unconvincing.


This is certainly where faith comes in, because there is no evidence that these are reliable, trustworthy documents. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that they are false and untrustworthy.


When what I'm responding to is as poor as your line was, it's a fine response.

Well this isn't going anywhere.

Obviously, ES, if you did accept the evidence for Christianity and the bible, you would probably be a Christian. I get that you don't believe the evidence, or the bible. That's your prerogative. But I do, and that is why I am a Christian and why billions and billions have been Christians for the last 2000 years. We have faith (trust) in the evidence of the bible and it's claims and we see evidence of God all around us and in our lives. You don't get to tell me what "faith" means to me.

[JimL]

Did I not already quote Romans 2 to you? Go read it.

And are you not aware of any quotes that say you must be a believer to be saved? Also, it is better to die young and uninformed, or mentally compromised because then you get a free pass to heaven, right? Is that your belief?

Maybe you will be one of the "special" - I actually do pray for you from time to time.

I suspect that's a waste of your time, Sparko, but thanks anyway.

[Juvenal]

Well it wouldn't be infinite, just everlasting. A potential infinite. As far as retaining your experiences, I don't have an answer, I just have to trust there is one. Maybe we will offload our memories onto digital storage or something

Infinite means not ending, or Sweden, depending on whether you'd like to be understood or not. And while you're free to trust that your finite vessel will never be filled, as an idea that fits neatly in the cabinet with married bachelors. I'm not saying it can't work for you, but arguing for it, as an apologetic, isn't likely to attract converts.

That's why Jesus came to us. He wasn't invisible.

Or divine, before the promotion, at which time he was equally invisible. Funny how that works.

And what's with all this conversion after study crap? You became a Christian because it made a difference in your dad's life. That's a perfectly acceptable reason. In fact, it's a perfectly acceptable reason even if it wasn't a sincere conversion, if it lent support to those changes. You're not a muslim because becoming muslim didn't change your dad's life. Ditto mormonism, and hindu, and same same for buddhists ...

[Tassman]

1. The bible says that those who do not have the law will be judged by their own law, the law written on their conscience, which will either condemn them or defend them on their actions.

The "law written on our conscience" was written by Natural Selection as a survival mechanism for us as a social species, NOT the bible.

4. If you are not a Christian (see #1) you will stand in judgment for your sins. Unless you are sinless, you will end up in hell. The only sinless person who ever lived is Jesus. There are things you have done which you KNOW were wrong and you did them anyway. Your own conscience will condemn you for those actions when you face God. You know you did wrong. So you will face judgment for those actions.

without realizing that what they did was wrong - such as a Christian slave-owner vis-a-vis a non-Christian slave owner. It seems you are saying that the Christian sinners get a

[Sparko]

Infinite means not ending, or Sweden, depending on whether you'd like to be understood or not.

infinite would mean no beginning and no ending. Eternal means no ending. It is only a potential Sweden.

And what's with all this conversion after study crap? You became a Christian because it made a difference in your dad's life. That's a perfectly acceptable reason. In fact, it's a perfectly acceptable reason even if it wasn't a sincere conversion, if it lent support to those changes. You're not a muslim because becoming muslim didn't change your dad's life. Ditto mormonism, and hindu, and same same for buddhists ...

I started going to church because my mother got my Dad to go to church after being an alcoholic for most of his life. Once he got saved and I saw the change in him, I was open to the idea of God and started going to Church. At which time I studied the scriptures and talked to others about salvation. Then I decided it was true and invited Jesus into my heart. After that, I studied even more. I also had been arguing AGAINST Christians for years on alt.religion.christianity on usenet. I continued to do so after being saved, just on the other side. I also began studying other religions too and apologetics.

[Juvenal]

infinite would mean no beginning and no ending. Eternal means no ending. It is only a potential Sweden.

So the counting numbers, with a beginning and no end, aren't infinite.

I started going to church because my mother got my Dad to go to church after being an alcoholic for most of his life. Once he got saved and I saw the change in him, I was open to the idea of God and started going to Church. At which time I studied the scriptures and talked to others about salvation. Then I decided it was true and invited Jesus into my heart. After that, I studied even more. I also had been arguing AGAINST Christians for years on alt.religion.christianity on usenet. I continued to do so after being saved, just on the other side. I also began studying other religions too and apologetics.

What are the four noble truths, and how do you argue against them?