A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

Your comparison of the supposed secret letters that claim Jesus was not real is a poor example to support the point you are trying to make.

Funny you say that, because:

1. We don't even know if they exist.

1. We don't know the eyewitnesses to Jesus exist.

2. We don't know their content.

2. We don't know if the content of the gospels is an accurate reflection of reality.

3. We don't know the other pertinent facts of the documents: their provenance, their likely time frame, likely authors, reasons for writing, etc.

3. We don't know any of this for the gospels either, since the authors are anonymous.

So, under your own logic your claim is equally poor. Well, except for the fact that you special plead in favor of your own claim.

Likewise your fictitious modern friend who claims to know something about God and tells you so is a poor parallel as well because:

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.

1. You don't know who the gospel writers are, so your conception of the gospel writers as eyewitnesses or second hand tellers of the events in the gospels is equally spurious.

2. The gospel writers understand themselves to be relating historical events that are happening in real places with real people--many facts could still be verified at the time. Your fictitious friend isn't providing details, just "the bible isn't true".

2. The bible writers make the claim that they are relating actual events, as does my friend, and you have no justification for privileging the former claim while dismissing the latter.

2. We know the time frame of the gospels (with the lifetime of eyewitnesses). Time travel aside, your fictitious friend cannot add nor take way from period writing and experiences.

2 again, for some reason. We know the time frame for my time travelling friend, and it is the same as the gospel writers, only more exact because it was precisely during Jesus' life, and not the vague window your has. Again, you're positing the existence of a problem that your own claim also has. The only difference is that I know that what I'm saying is a poor example. You do get that, right?

3. We know the content was believed by others even before the gospels themselves were written (epistles, etc.). Does your friend have friends that say the same thing and acted in real life on that information?

3. You have claims that the content was believed beforehand, but with no way to verify that, and no non-primary sources to support this, you're forced to circle around and use the claims to verify the claims, which is obviously fallacious.

4. and perhaps the most important thing that does not seem to sink in is that we are discussing a particular event, the resurrection. This is not a case where someone gets a new message from God or some other truth claim. Christianity hinges on a real event.

4. Why do you keep calling it a real event when you have no indication that it even occurred, or is possible to occur? Real events, by definition, require both of those things. And are you therefore saying that if I made a claim that my friend sat and watched Jesus not rise from the grave after three days, then you'd give that additional weight because it too is a real event? Because somehow being present to confirm that Jesus wasn't who he said he is isn't a real event, because you say so?

I have yet to hear why you think that the gospels and the epistles were written and why the early church believed these events took place.

And if I don't know exactly why the gospels were written or the early church believed them, does that make them automatically true, in your book? You wanna add the argument from ignorance to your ever growing pile of fallacies?

The gospels could be written for any number of reasons, in fact in your world there are countless other holy books written for non-truthful reasons that were still believed. This is not an argument in favor of your specific religion.

[IATIA]

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.

You do understand circular reasoning?

2. We know the time frame of the gospels (with the lifetime of eyewitnesses).

The gospels date after the lifetime of the 'authors'. That has already been shown.

3. We know the content was believed by others even before the gospels themselves were written (epistles, etc.).

And some people believe in faeries. Belief is not evidence or proof.

4. and perhaps the most important thing that does not seem to sink in is that we are discussing a particular event, the resurrection.

Which no one witnessed.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's going to be an uphill battle to get him to recognise the faulty logic that goes into believing everything in the bible and rejecting everything else with the exact same (lack of) evidence.

[Cyberman]

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.

[Faith No More]

Maybe I missed something in the last 74 pages (I haven't actually read them all), but has anyone brought up the existence of the non-canonical gospels yet? And how the church leaders picked and chose which gospels they wanted to keep?

I once asked a very relgious Catholic about this, and he told me that the people choosing were guided by god, which underscores the true issue with debating religion with religious people. Nothing is ever a problem when your answer for everything is magic.

[IATIA]

Please explain in detail what god is I want to know some things before we move on from this statement.

We cannot get any of the theists detail god. It always vague and "the human mind cannot comprehend.".

The only ones that have tried to describe a god are the atheists and we could get none of those descriptions to validate with any logic or possibility.

[Esquilax]

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.

I actually don't have much issue with that statement, because it's true: writers for the gospel do exist, and the evidence is that the gospels exist. It's if Steve tries to give those writers identities, or conclude that therefore the events within are therefore historical events, that I'd have a problem with it.

But as a statement, it's correct.

[SteveII]

1. I understand what the gospels are. I understand they are anonymous. I understand them to be written within the lifetime of witnesses. I understand them to be written for the reason the first verse of Luke says:

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

2. The further evidence of the epistles (written before the Gospels) and the fact there were churches all over to write letters to suggest these events were believed.

3. Conspiracy theories to give an alternate explanation to this evidence do not seem plausible for a number of reason.

4. Many events were prophesied. While this point was not brought up, it does lend some weight. This fact certainly meant something to the first Jewish Christians.

5. Is there incontrovertible proof that Jesus rose from the dead? No, there is not. Is there evidence that he did? Yes there is. You can question the strength of the evidence, but you don't get to claim there is none.

6. You are caught in the circular reasoning that God does not exists so miracles do not exist. The only physical proof (which is what you are demanding) that God exists is a miracle. Many of you have stated in different ways that any account of a miracle is proof that it is not true.

7. You say I claim special pleading because I think Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. I may not have formed the sentences perfectly, but that is incorrect. I have evidence to believe that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. Again, I don't care that you think the evidence is thin, it is still evidence.

8. You think I have reasoned in a circle. That is not true. I support 4 accounts of events with the fact that the early Christians believed these events to be true. It is important to distinguish that the gospels relate events (objective) and are not "inspired writings" like the Quran (subjective).

9. Lastly, you cannot be reasoned into Christianity. There is an element of faith and a desire to have a relationship with God. If you approach it with a closed mind that God cannot exist, there is no way for it to make any sense to you.

[FatAndFaithless]

Wow, I come back after 20 pages, I expect at least a little shift in Steve's arguing methods. But it's really just circular assertion after circular assertion wrapped in special pleading and covered in a liberal sprinkling of arguments from ignorance.

you cannot be reasoned into Christianity.

Well there's finally something we can fucking agree on.

[SteveII]

Wow, I come back after 20 pages, I expect at least a little shift in Steve's arguing methods. But it's really just circular assertion after circular assertion wrapped in special pleading and covered in a liberal sprinkling of arguments from ignorance.

you cannot be reasoned into Christianity.

Well there's finally something we can fucking agree on.

Please explain specifically what is circular. I want to know.