Atheists interpret bible verses

[sinnerdaniel94]

Suetonius

which one's pass the test of legitimacy?

'ones'.  Plural, not possessive.

For a testimony to be acceptable, there are a few generally agreed-upon criteria.

The testator should have no bias regarding the testimony.  Taking a photograph of Abraham Lincoln is evidence that Lincoln existed, as the photographer is unlikely to have a particular axe to grind by taking a photograph.  The Pauline epistles don't qualify as evidence, as Paul is inherently biased that his words be accepted as true.

The testimony is suspect if there is an alternative, more likely explanation.  For example, if I tell you my toe hurts because I was attacked by a goblin who hit it with a club, we can reject this testimony in favour of 'Boru is a thumb-fingered idjit who dropped a hammer on his foot.'

The testimony should be able to be corroborated.  We are told that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and so forth.  But these events are to be found ONLY in the Bible.  It is reasonable to assume that someone else, somewhere would have written of the water-walking trick.  It isn't something that happens every day.  The war you brought up, as well and Gandhi, are confirmed by multiple, contemporary sources.

I hope this helps.

Boru

The disciples and the other writers of the new testament were tortured and faced death threats throughout their ministry. Is it not reasonable to assume they were telling the truth or do you think they were defending a lie? It seems to me they had much incentive to not preach or write down anything about Jesus, yet they still did. It doesn't seem they profited at all from what they believed. One can only question whether or not they saw a resurrected Jesus.

The alternative explanation is reasonable, but I don't hold anything to be true based on convenience. 

And there is mention of Jesus by other historians like Josephus and Suetonius. The disciples were the only ones who witness the walking on water miracle by Jesus according to the gospels, so I wouldn't expect another party to write about it.

It takes faith to believe the bible. I think it's reasonable though, especially considering the prophetic nature of the book. But its hard for me to argue the validity of miracles because it goes against the laws of nature. That's probably what Jesus was trying to tell us; that He was in control of the forces of nature and was able to do these things because He is God.

---

Even the talking animals and lights fixed to the skydome?

Every single verse. I look at it this way, you guys are begging for God to reveal Himself to humans and I think He did it through Jesus Christ and He left us the bible so that future generations can know about Him.

[Esquilax]

The disciples and the other writers of the new testament were tortured and faced death threats throughout their ministry. Is it not reasonable to assume they were telling the truth or do you think they were defending a lie?

So, first of all, the authors of the new testament were anonymous, so you don't know what they did or what happened to them. Secondly, what you have here is a false dichotomy, because there are more than two options. It's not just "they were telling the truth or lying," because people can die for beliefs that are false, they do it all the time. It's so frustrating that so many christians roll out this "die for a lie," nonsense, because the response is so obvious: you don't think muslim martyrs died because islam is definitely true, do you?

[Chad32]

The world trade center was destroyed by people willing to die for what they believed. Samurai would gut themselves for the sake of honor. Convincing people to die for beliefs isn't all that hard.

The writings from Josephus aren't very credible, from what I've heard.

[Homeless Nutter]

The disciples and the other writers of the new testament were tortured and faced death threats throughout their ministry. Is it not reasonable to assume they were telling the truth or do you think they were defending a lie. [...]

No, it's not "reasonable" at all. Are you kidding? How many communists were tortured and killed defending lies? How many Islamic warlords and terrorists? Or are you saying you believe the claims and doctrines of Stalin and Muhammad are truthful as well?
The nature of delusions is such that one is convinced of truthfulness of their own bullsh*t.

Oh yeah - and how about you PROVE that any of the new testament was written by Jesus' "disciples" (which would suggest they were eye-witnesses), as opposed to people who weren't even born yet, while Jebus allegedly existed. What? You can't? Oh, dear...

[The Valkyrie]

An atheist interpreting a bible verse:

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'

1. Either primitive desert barbarians justifying genocide, rape, and enslavement by claiming it was a deity who told them to do it, or:
2. A thoroughly evil deity ordering its followers to commit genocide. A deity NOT worth worshipping.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Five million Wehrmacht soldiers died for the Third Reich.

[The Valkyrie]

Five million Wehrmacht soldiers died for the Third Reich.

And millions of Japanese died for their "divine" Emperor.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The world trade center was destroyed by people willing to die for what they believed. Samurai would gut themselves for the sake of honor. Convincing people to die for beliefs isn't all that hard.

The writings from Josephus aren't very credible, from what I've heard.

People love to die for their special causes.  It makes them feel special and valued.  The only people who really hate the idea of dying for a cause are the creeps who get other people to do the dying.  If modern politicians had to go out on combat patrols where they had to risk their own life and limbs they wouldn't be so eager to go to war.  But they can easily persuade some stupid teen to suit up and go get killed or crippled for the "cause".

[Redbeard The Pink]

The disciples and the other writers of the new testament were tortured and faced death threats throughout their ministry. Is it not reasonable to assume they were telling the truth or do you think they were defending a lie? It seems to me they had much incentive to not preach or write down anything about Jesus, yet they still did. It doesn't seem they profited at all from what they believed. One can only question whether or not they saw a resurrected Jesus.

(Emphasis mine)


Indeed, one would have to question such a thing...or whether they saw Bigfoot...or flying sex snakes...or any other host of hallucinations that might drive a mad man toward death. Just because someone is seeing it, doesn't make it real.


As others have mentioned, non-Christian people around the world die for their beliefs at least as often as Christians do.

The alternative explanation is reasonable, but I don't hold anything to be true based on convenience. 

Convenience isn't your problem, my friend. Faith is your problem. It's fine that you don't hold things to be true on convenience, but you shouldn't be using faith, either. Evidence is virtually the only valid basis for defensible truth.

And there is mention of Jesus by other historians like Josephus and Suetonius. The disciples were the only ones who witness the walking on water miracle by Jesus according to the gospels, so I wouldn't expect another party to write about it.

Josephus has been dead as an apologetics tool since the 1800s. Tacitus is pretty much the only other non-Christian source, and there's a lot of dispute over him, too. Pretty much everyone else who wrote about Jesus (historian or otherwise) was a Christian, giving them every reason to fabricate things to support the story they liked.

It takes faith to believe the bible. I think it's reasonable though, especially considering the prophetic nature of the book. But its hard for me to argue the validity of miracles because it goes against the laws of nature. That's probably what Jesus was trying to tell us; that He was in control of the forces of nature and was able to do these things because He is God.

Nothing that requires faith is a reasonable belief. Also, I don't know if you know this, but not one Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, especially not in the way the Bible said it would. Tyre still stands, Egypt isn't a barren wasteland devoid of humans or animals, and the Nile never dried up.


If Jesus existed and was trying to tell us anything, he was pretty express about it. "Hold nothing close because the world will end soon" seemed to be the general gist of his message.

Every single verse. I look at it this way, you guys are begging for God to reveal Himself to humans and I think He did it through Jesus Christ and He left us the bible so that future generations can know about Him.

Atheists aren't generally begging Gaud for anything. If the Bible is Gaud's best attempt at making himself believable and knowable, it indicates one of three things:


1. Gaud routinely murders humans in droves, making him evil and not worthy of worship.

2. Gaud made up a story that is contrary to reality and wants us to believe the story instead of reality or he'll send us to Hell, making him evil and not worthy of worship.

3. The people who made up Gaud didn't know enough about science or the natural world to properly evaluate their own assertions.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You either believe the testimony of others or you don't. I believe the testimony of the American civil war, Gandhi's work, as well as the claims of the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Testimony of the US Civil War and the work of Ghandi are not claims in of themselves but rather evidence of the given events occuring.

The claims made in the bible are just claims of a larger claim (i.e. The bible is the work of 'god', and that 'god' exists). It is thus a false equivocation to assert that the journal of a US Civil War soldier is the same as, say, Moses parting the red sea, or the Resurrection (etc). This brackets out the nature of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence (soldiers in the civil war and Ghandi were not promising eternal salvation or supernatural powers).