Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[Jenny A]

Not only would it be embarrassing to spend three years with god and lack faith, it's almost inexplicable.  It's more of the pattern that I see in the Bible, where ordinary people experience transcendent things, and a surprising number of them seem utterly unimpressed.  Three years of watching Jesus do and say so many things that John ends his gospel by claiming that he 'didn't think there were enough books in the world to write them all down.'  Jesus explains to them several times that he will die and return shortly after, and this concept is so foreign to them that when it happens they're dumbstruck?  These were men who, in some cases, immediately dropped what they were doing when Jesus first called on them to become his followers.  But after three years of having that intuition reinforced, they become bumbling and confused dimwits?  It doesn't make sense.

It's the pattern during the OT too.   God gives the Jews rules and performs great things for them (like parting the red sea) and yet in no time at all they're doubting and going after other gods.  Once god gives them the promised land the same thing happens over and over.

It reads like a literary device, like the endless pattern in the Harry Potter books where Harry saves the school once a year and once a year is suspected of being the heir of Slytheryn or some such.  And it has a lesson aspect.  The OT was largely edited and compiled and in some cases written during the Babylonian captivity, and the question that had to be answered was why would god allow this to happen?  The whole narrative is god covenants with man, man breaks covenant, god punishes, man repents, god restores good life.  Rinse, repeat.  You would think that is these things were real, man would get the message.  But if it's only man explaining the ups and downs of Isreal, it makes perfect sense.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Apologists remove obstacles and roadblocks. What each person will do with that information is a function of their minds and free wills and God's grace, and that is out of the apologist's hands.

No, what they do is hide them in a haze of half-truths, misrepresented verse, and pretzel logic. Apologists lower the available information in the hopes of appeasing the doubts that they themselves feel.

I'm always amused by the idea that an omnipotent god needs or wants human spokespersons. Nothing says universal truth like needing to be sold door-to-door, or needing imperfect salesmen to explain infallible text.

Truly, apologists are the shovel crew at the elephant parade, doing their level best to sweep up the shit so decent people can walk in the streets.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Intellectual honesty looks mean spirited sometimes. But dems da breaks.

If you can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen ... 'cause I'm cookin'.

And that is exactly what Randy has done: he's put me and many other hard-nosed SOBs here on ignore -- he got out of the kitchen.

He clearly hasn't learnt that ideas, like steel, are tempered and made stronger in hot forges.

Has God on his side, must use ignore. What a pussy.

[Longhorn]

As long as a human has to make a case for this 'god', his existence is only becoming more dubious. We're taking an omnipotent being here who allegedly cares what we think, and its existence is up for debate? Come on. If he really cared, he'd speak for himself like a big boy instead of sending unconvincing, intellectually dishonest apologists with presupposition fetishes.

I mean, you'd think a fucking GOD could afford better lawyers than this -_-

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Pretty much all of the disciples seem to have had doubts about Jesus' resurrection 

Que the greek chorus, altogether now-

-Disciples:  "Jesus, that's amazing, that's impossible, how could you do that!?!?!"

-Jesus: "Wtf are you guys talking about, same way I miracled shit into being -last- tuesday............?"

That's a wonderful point.  After all, Jesus was supposed to be the son of God and he gets credit for making everything.  So here's an entity that created the whole universe and everything in it yet in the fairy tale he gets stuck with doing a handful of parlor tricks.  What a letdown.  I've always said that if Jesus was still wiggling on the cross two thousand years later it would be impressive.  Something like that would have been a snap for a being that created the whole universe.

[The Inquisition]

Not only would it be embarrassing to spend three years with god and lack faith, it's almost inexplicable.  It's more of the pattern that I see in the Bible, where ordinary people experience transcendent things, and a surprising number of them seem utterly unimpressed.  Three years of watching Jesus do and say so many things that John ends his gospel by claiming that he 'didn't think there were enough books in the world to write them all down.'  Jesus explains to them several times that he will die and return shortly after, and this concept is so foreign to them that when it happens they're dumbstruck?  These were men who, in some cases, immediately dropped what they were doing when Jesus first called on them to become his followers.  But after three years of having that intuition reinforced, they become bumbling and confused dimwits?  It doesn't make sense.

It's the pattern during the OT too.   God gives the Jews rules and performs great things for them (like parting the red sea) and yet in no time at all they're doubting and going after other gods.  Once god gives them the promised land the same thing happens over and over.

It reads like a literary device, like the endless pattern in the Harry Potter books where Harry saves the school once a year and once a year is suspected of being the heir of Slytheryn or some such.  And it has a lesson aspect.  The OT was largely edited and compiled and in some cases written during the Babylonian captivity, and the question that had to be answered was why would god allow this to happen?  The whole narrative is god covenants with man, man breaks covenant, god punishes, man repents, god restores good life.  Rinse, repeat.  You would think that is these things were real, man would get the message.  But if it's only man explaining the ups and downs of Isreal, it makes perfect sense.

They were practicing post-hoc apologism from the very start in the OT.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Not only would it be embarrassing to spend three years with god and lack faith, it's almost inexplicable.  It's more of the pattern that I see in the Bible, where ordinary people experience transcendent things, and a surprising number of them seem utterly unimpressed.  Three years of watching Jesus do and say so many things that John ends his gospel by claiming that he 'didn't think there were enough books in the world to write them all down.'  Jesus explains to them several times that he will die and return shortly after, and this concept is so foreign to them that when it happens they're dumbstruck?  These were men who, in some cases, immediately dropped what they were doing when Jesus first called on them to become his followers.  But after three years of having that intuition reinforced, they become bumbling and confused dimwits?  It doesn't make sense.

It's the pattern during the OT too.   God gives the Jews rules and performs great things for them (like parting the red sea) and yet in no time at all they're doubting and going after other gods.  Once god gives them the promised land the same thing happens over and over.

It reads like a literary device, like the endless pattern in the Harry Potter books where Harry saves the school once a year and once a year is suspected of being the heir of Slytheryn or some such.  And it has a lesson aspect.  The OT was largely edited and compiled and in some cases written during the Babylonian captivity, and the question that had to be answered was why would god allow this to happen?  The whole narrative is god covenants with man, man breaks covenant, god punishes, man repents, god restores good life.  Rinse, repeat.  You would think that is these things were real, man would get the message.  But if it's only man explaining the ups and downs of Isreal, it makes perfect sense.

Even the Bible says a person shouldn't believe Jewish fairy tales.

[FreeTony]

1. No miracles can occur in the nature of things.
   
2. #1 logically follows because, of course, under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God to perform any miracle.
   
3. The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.
   
4. Some atheists even claim (or suspect) that Jesus didn't exist at all (making such a topic even more absurd and ludicrous (given that premise) than it already is in atheist eyes).  
   

1. Theists love sentences full of undefined words/phrases. What is a miracle? What the hell is "the nature of things"?
2. FFS, nearly 1200 posts and you cannot grasp the simple concept of a lack of belief.
3. All historical documents should be treated with skepticism. I know little about the topic, but my partner has a degree in Archaeology and would disagree about any supporting archaeological evidence for magical NT events.
4. I'm not sure that is a premise of any Atheist. I for one neither believe the claim that Jesus did exist, nor the claim that he did not. Suspecting something isn't a presupposition.



You're supposed to have the most powerful force in the universe on your side, something you claim exists everywhere, controls everything and created every single thing, yet you need to go back to 2000yr old documents to provide any evidence for it's existence. It's absurd.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I mean, you'd think a fucking GOD could afford better lawyers than this -_-

You know?

If these folk are the best he can attract, hire, and manage, he needs to give his HR department a comprehensive review.

They were practicing post-hoc apologism from the very start in the OT.

Where have you been, dude? I've been waiting for you.

[Cyberman]

But not expecting him, by definition.