A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

Good question. Thank you for actual dialog.

That is not the only reason to think mormonism and Islam is wrong. One has to weight the teachings as well.

It is the cumulative case for Christianity that makes it different. We have the OT and information that provides and then the NT which is radically different but fits the facts and completes the picture. We give weight to the OT, but it is not the same weight given to the NT. The OT was an incomplete revelation of God.

Then why dismiss my point about the first muslims and mormons, in response to yours about the first christians? If your actual objection is that you don't think the muslim and mormon religions are true based on a comprehensive overview of the facts that's fine, but it does rather work against your original point: if your answer to me bringing up those other religions is "yes, but those religions aren't true," then you're accepting the fact that religions with early members reporting things can be either true or false, not true by necessity, and therefore your point about christianity being more reasonable because of the views of the first christians is moot.

I think the difference is what are the early members attesting to. One side they attesting to teachings from someone who claimed to be God and then witness a death and resurrection that then is explained to them by the person they believe to be God. With Mormons and Muslims, early members would be attesting to a man claiming to have a message from God.

[downbeatplumb]

I think the difference is what are the early members attesting to. One side they attesting to teachings from someone who claimed to be God and then witness a death and resurrection that then is explained to them by the person they believe to be God. With Mormons and Muslims, early members would be attesting to a man claiming to have a message from God.

Why is this any more believable?

[SteveII]

Isn't Islam and the muslim faith based on christianity last time i checked they nearly have the same identical teachings just different saviors.

No. Muslims do not believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. They oppose vehemently the doctrine of the trinity. The focus is on dos and don'ts whereas Jesus taught about love, sacrifice, and atonement. Their description about the character of God would be different. Then there is the killing thing for infidels. Not really close when you examine the details--other than monotheistic.

[Chas]

Evidence of what? It is, at best, our interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone else's perception of what they may or may not have seen and experienced. It is called hearsay and is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

The events described in the gospels and Acts are the best attested to set of individual events in ancient times. There are 4 sources (with supporting documentation from Paul) easily within a lifetime of eyewitnesses AND subsequent historical chain of events that support them.

Oh, bullshit. Caesar wrote actual first person accounts of the Gallic Wars.

[downbeatplumb]

Isn't Islam and the muslim faith based on christianity last time i checked they nearly have the same identical teachings just different saviors.

No. Muslims do not believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. They oppose vehemently the doctrine of the trinity. The focus is on dos and don'ts whereas Jesus taught about love, sacrifice, and atonement. Their description about the character of God would be different. Then there is the killing thing for infidels. Not really close when you examine the details--other than monotheistic.

Didn't jesus teach in the form of parables that could be interpreted in different ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU

[Ryantology]

Until you can demonstrate that your god exists, anything you have to say about that god is worthless. Any argument you put forth only wastes everybody's time. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's not our fault you have no support for your assertions and we shouldn't have to give any credence to your assertions just because you've demonstrated a capacity to make them.

[SteveII]

The events described in the gospels and Acts are the best attested to set of individual events in ancient times. There are 4 sources (with supporting documentation from Paul) easily within a lifetime of eyewitnesses AND subsequent historical chain of events that support them.

Oh, bullshit. Caesar wrote actual first person accounts of the Gallic Wars.

Fair enough. I would like to insert "one of the" before best. Although Caesar is one person...

[dyresand]

Isn't Islam and the muslim faith based on christianity last time i checked they nearly have the same identical teachings just different saviors.

No. Muslims do not believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. They oppose vehemently the doctrine of the trinity. The focus is on dos and don'ts whereas Jesus taught about love, sacrifice, and atonement. Their description about the character of God would be different. Then there is the killing thing for infidels. Not really close when you examine the details--other than monotheistic.

Bare bones of the religion is the same. Also Romans crucified people but never on a cross like people thing the way jesus was in fact they were nailed to a plank of wood with their hands above their heads. If someone in the bible mentioned that the story of jesus would have been a tad more to reality.

[Esquilax]

I think the difference is what are the early members attesting to. One side they attesting to teachings from someone who claimed to be God and then witness a death and resurrection that then is explained to them by the person they believe to be God. With Mormons and Muslims, early members would be attesting to a man claiming to have a message from God.

So if the muslims had an identical story to the christian religion, you'd give them equal weight?

Do you, perchance, cast the same sorts of doubt on the ten commandments, Noah's ark, or Paul's conversion at Damascus? It's such a weird position you seem to hold here, where the message of a prophet is good enough for anyone in your own religion, but immediately suspect from anyone else. Paul's conversion happened in the new testament, and the one giving him a message there identified themselves as Jesus, and yet I've seen you refer to Paul's writings in this thread. If the messenger is that integral to whether you'll take the message seriously or not, why is that?

[Cyberman]

I think the difference is what are the early members attesting to. One side they attesting to teachings from someone who claimed to be God and then witness a death and resurrection that then is explained to them by the person they believe to be God. With Mormons and Muslims, early members would be attesting to a man claiming to have a message from God.

It really says a lot about a person's beliefs when he justifies them based on uncritically accepting the traditionally-held word of anonymous characters who must have had even lower standards of evidence than he himself does.