Atheism

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1785910' dateline='1530890212']
But the south americans had no idea of Christ before Columbus. Anither reason to assign it to the bin of ideas.

You just confused two things. 

1. EVERY culture that we have ever heard of has some sort of "god idea".

Indeed but they aren't the god of the bible many have totally different characteristics and there are multiple gods and sometimes no gods at all just spirits or pixies.

2. How do you imagine that South Americans would have heard about the Gospel if no one tells them?

If Christ is the universal god why would they NOT have known?

The only way they would not have known is if the jesus myth is not true. 

You seem to think you made a point and I just don't see any.

the Abrahamic god is supposed to be universally true according to the people who believe that sort of thing.

If that was right then the jesus myth would have been the predominant idea everywhere without the need for intervention by people who had encountered it.

It would be a universal truth like water is wet. Things fall to the ground when dropped. You see where I am going with that.

It was NOT universally believed so it cannot be universally true.

Is where I was going with that.

[I_am_not_mafia]

2. How do you imagine that South Americans would have heard about the Gospel if no one tells them? 

This then tells us that religious experiences are cultural rather than divine. Because if they were divine in nature the South Americans would be having experiences containing Xtian imagery before they had heard of the gospel. But experiences only have a Xtian flavour after being exposed to someone proselytising Xtianity.

Because how can your god truly exist but be unable to give people religious experiences before some human has told them about him on his behalf? Either he can appear to humans or he cannot. Why is he dependent on humans to first proselytise for him before he can communicate?

[SteveII]

[quote pid='1785910' dateline='1530890212']
But the south americans had no idea of Christ before Columbus. Anither reason to assign it to the bin of ideas.

You just confused two things. 

1. EVERY culture that we have ever heard of has some sort of "god idea".

Indeed but they aren't the god of the bible many have totally different characteristics and there are multiple gods and sometimes no gods at all just spirits or pixies.

2. How do you imagine that South Americans would have heard about the Gospel if no one tells them?

If Christ is the universal god why would they NOT have known?

The only way they would not have known is if the jesus myth is not true. 

You seem to think you made a point and I just don't see any.

the Abrahamic god is supposed to be universally true according to the people who believe that sort of thing.

If that was right then the jesus myth would have been the predominant idea everywhere without the need for intervention by people who had encountered it.

It would be a universal truth like water is wet. Things fall to the ground when dropped. You see where I am going with that.

It was NOT universally believed so it cannot be universally true.

Is where I was going with that.

You are conflating the Gospel message with some basic level of knowledge of God. Your argument only needs the latter to be true but you want to apply it to the former. 
A basic level of knowledge of God is not only possible, it is nearly universal. Almost everyone ever has had an intuition of the supernatural.

---

2. How do you imagine that South Americans would have heard about the Gospel if no one tells them? 

This then tells us that religious experiences are cultural rather than divine.

No, it doesn't. That is a false dichotomy. All it tells that culture affects our concept of the divine. 

Because if they were divine in nature the South Americans would be having experiences containing Xtian imagery before they had heard of the gospel. But experiences only have a Xtian flavour after being exposed to someone proselytising Xtianity.

You are conflating some basic knowledge of God with the specific Gospel Message. There is no rational argument to think a person's concept of God should mirror the complicated atonement doctrines of the NT. 

Because how can your god truly exist but be unable to give people religious experiences before some human has told them about him on his behalf? Either he can appear to humans or he cannot. Why is he dependent on humans to first proselytise for him before he can communicate?

Again, nearly all humans ever born have had a intuition of the supernatural.

[Amarok]

Give it up Steve 

Every culture (which isn't true ) having some god idea(which makes sense as we all came from one group that likely believed such and the idea simply endured ) proves nothing .

As for gospels if Jesus was real no body would need to be preached too they would already know Christianity was right . Any cultural interaction Christianity already counts as cultural contamination thus proving Mats point

[Ravenshire]

Again, nearly all humans ever born have had a intuition of the supernatural.

So the fuck what? What you call the "intuition of the supernatural" is what gave humanity belief in superstition, witchcraft, healing crystals, gods and all manner of completely stupid shit. So, unless you wish to argue that it's "evidence" for all those other wacky, bullshit beliefs, you don't get to argue it as evidence for your particular wacky, bullshit belief.

[Amarok]

Again, nearly all humans ever born have had a intuition of the supernatural.

Bullocks people were taught the supernatural people have intuition of ignorance and fear of the unknown . More apologist nonsense .

[surreptitious57]

You are conflating some basic knowledge of God with the specific Gospel Message  

There is no such thing as the specific Gospel message. If there was there would only be one Gospel instead of four. None of the four Gospel
writers actually knew Jesus and they were written twenty to eighty years after his death. None of them is therefore primary source material

The Gospel of Matthew is actually plagiarised from the Gospel of Mark which should automatically invalidate its inclusion in the New Testament yet it is there
The one Gospel that was primary source material was the Gospel of Mary Magdalene who was a cousin of Jesus but it was omitted because she was a woman

Furthermore the Gospel message was not love because Jesus very specifically stated that he came not to bring peace but a sword
There is no way this can be interpreted metaphorically since it is so obvious that to suggest it is metaphor would be simply wrong

Also there are different versions of the Bible with specific verses either included or omitted that do not appear in other versions of the Bible

And if the Bible is the word of God it should all be accepted without question. This would include both Old and New Testaments not just the
Gospels regardless of what the OT actually says. To therefore not include it and deliberately so is simply cherry picking of the highest order

[Amarok]

You are conflating some basic knowledge of God with the specific Gospel Message  

No were not because there is no basic knowledge of god to begin with god no matter how much you reformed dodo's pretend is not a properly basic belief it's a taught belief even if that belief was taught and developed in a primal age .But even if it were properly basic it's clearly not reliable and thus is discredited by default .

[SteveII]

You are conflating some basic knowledge of God with the specific Gospel Message  

There is no such thing as the specific Gospel message. If there was there would only be one Gospel instead of four. None of the four Gospel
writers actually knew Jesus and they were written twenty to eighty years after his death. None of them is therefore primary source material

The Gospel of Matthew is actually plagiarised from the Gospel of Mark which should automatically invalidate its inclusion in the New Testament yet it is there
The one Gospel that was primary source material was the Gospel of Mary Magdalene who was a cousin of Jesus but it was omitted because she was a woman

Furthermore the Gospel message was not love because Jesus very specifically stated that he came not to bring peace but a sword
There is no way this can be interpreted metaphorically since it is so obvious that to suggest it is metaphor would be simply wrong

Also there are different versions of the Bible with specific verses either included or omitted that do not appear in other versions of the Bible

And if the Bible is the word of God it should all be accepted without question. This would include both Old and New Testaments not just the
Gospels regardless of what the OT actually says. To therefore not include it and deliberately so is simply cherry picking of the highest order

You're highly sophisticated objections will fit right in with a certain group at AF. Unfortunately, I am picky with whom I respond to. Sorry.

---

Again, nearly all humans ever born have had a intuition of the supernatural.

So the fuck what? What you call the "intuition of the supernatural" is what gave humanity belief in superstition, witchcraft, healing crystals, gods and all manner of completely stupid shit. So, unless you wish to argue that it's "evidence" for all those other wacky, bullshit beliefs, you don't get to argue it as evidence for your particular wacky, bullshit belief.

THIS WAS NEVER my argument. I keep getting sucked into stupid logic and conflating terms and then my answers are taken out of context three and four deep! THIS is my argument.

[Minimalist]

Unfortunately, I am picky with whom I respond to. Sorry.

Too bad you aren't more picky about the horseshit you elect to believe!