Dear Theists....Why?

[solja247]

You're teasing me, aren't you? You DO realise this is an atheist forum? Or is that you simply haven't managed to grasp the meaning of the word 'evidence'?

You do know the gospel of Mark and Luke are taken seriosuly by rational scholars?

There is no evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

But there is. Any historian has to take the synoptic gospels seriously. I think Atheists like you need to move past the 19th century .

His existence is plausible at best,but the alleged evidence falls far short of the scholarly rigor demanded by reputable historians today. The NT is the mythlogy of Christianity,with little if any basis in fact.. The Gospels cannot even agree on what happened with the resurrection.

The resurrection stories are all the same, you have to remember the audience .

Here's an exercise:Sit down with four copies of whatever Bible you use. Open each at a different account of the resurrection. Read them together. .

I have, they do vary. Sit down with four different credible newspapers with the same story, things will be a little different

Neither the Torah nor the NT meet the requirements for credible evidence.Skeptics reject the special pleading made for sacred texts,as no claim for revealed truth has ever been supported by evidence.Such evidence would need to begin with proof of the existence of a divinty to make the revelations.No one has ever managed to accomplish such a task.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000​

Skeptics reject the NT, most scholars dont.

[Minimalist]

Any historian has to take the synoptic gospels seriously.

Why?

We do not know who wrote them. We don't know when they were written. We don't know the reason they were written. We don't know what they originally said as we have only copies of copies of copies.

All we do know is that there is no evidence to substantiate them from the early first century AD.


They are a pig in a poke.

[solja247]

Why?

We do not know who wrote them. We don't know when they were written. We don't know the reason they were written. We don't know what they originally said as we have only copies of copies of copies.

All we do know is that there is no evidence to substantiate them from the early first century AD.


They are a pig in a poke.

This is why:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You do know the gospel of Mark and Luke are taken seriosuly by rational scholars?

No true Scotsman fallacy.

I don't know of any, but so what? ALL rational scholars do not,nor is such a thing the consensus.THE basic issue with the NT is the absence of ANY supporting contemporary evidence, a basic condition of modern historical study.This does not invalidate the veracity of the NT,nor does it allow an inference even of 'most likely or probably' which is the most any competent ancient historian will claim on the basis of the unsubstaniated accounts used by apologists..As a general principle,ancient historians especially avoid definite truth statements.
The resurrection stories are all the same, you have to remember the audience

You have not done as I asked,or you would not make such an absurd and patently untrue statement. Come back when you have done so.


The NT is replete with factual errors,contradictions and later additions.Nor indeed do all Christian churches accept the same canon (Eg Copts and Eastern rites) Google is your friend.

I try to avoid wasting my time with apologists.I don't know you and have limited interest in you or your personal superstitions,especially when you have nothing interesting or informed to say.Bored now.

[solja247]

Perhaps this is what you are looking for:

http://www.holycross.edu/assets/pdfs/res...debate.pdf

I have just started reading it. It is between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman...

[HeyItsZeus]

You have just disproved yourself on absolutes.

I can not disprove this but I do know one thing, I am in an existence. An existence where certain laws of nature apply. An existence where some things are real and others false. One where I can disprove your religion along with others.

I dont think so. I can subjectively absolutely know what my favourite color or food is. There is a difference between absolute truths and knowing absolutely what you like .

How do you know you are in existence? It could all be a lie. You and eveyone else could be a computer simulation created by highly advanced aliens. Your existence is not an absolute.

---

I have never found any religious belief supported by evidence...

The resurrection of Jesus?

When something is absolute, its absolute it does not matter what it is. If we know something for a fact, it is fact. You obtain that fact by evidence and proof. Once again, an existence within a computer is that. An existence.

---

But there is. Any historian has to take the synoptic gospels seriously. I think Atheists like you need to move past the 19th century .

Oh the irony.

[Pippy]

Hey,

I appreciate the question posed, as I always want to try to build bridges between different schools of belief.

As a believer (but not, and here is where I take the wind out of the sails of self-ritcheousness, affiliated with any religion. To repeat, if I am the only one, then there is a portion of the population that believe or have faith, but either ignore or openly shun OR. So all the Moses isn't real shit has no affect on me. I can out argue your point there... Or course MOses could not have existed, the flaw is that the theology is not meant to be interpreted as a liturgical nonfiction. Moses is meant to be archtypical, and you are supposed to have a relationship with "him", but the flaw that the Bible represents a factual history is known (to me), so to disprove it says very, very little. When you say Moses could not have existed (or jesus could not have pulled a rabbit froma hat, or whatever he did), I can only say "So? We know that."

Another approach would e that you are proving the people who have misunderstood xtianity wrong. Congratulations, I think.

Why do i believe? I assure you for the same reasons as yourself. I believe what I believe because it is the only thing that makes sense to me. The only way this existence and experience I have found myself in could be is to incluse the things I beleive in, that you likely do not. I try to see all the facts, I have been a long tern truth seeker, and the facts and evidence (if those are the words-du-jour) point me to belief in a higher power, among other things.

It has nothing to do with dismissing evidence, actually it feels like a journey of fact.

If I may retort, why do you guys, or you yourself, dis-believe? Why do you choose to believe that this world, this universe, this experience, these mysteries, the micro verse, all that we know now, is just random. Big bang, first cause, expanding universe... To me believing in atheism is to scream (at differing volumes) 'I believe in the million monkey paradox, taken to an illogical extreme'. Why, pray tell, do you believe this is all random? Is it because the bible is stupid, because a lot of us figured that out and moved on years ago. I have come to kind of appreciate it for what it is...

Anyways, off to work. I am trying to start my own farming business, and you have to work a lot of hours and I haven't gotten paid yet...

Love and respect of differences,
-Pip

[Minimalist]

Why?

We do not know who wrote them. We don't know when they were written. We don't know the reason they were written. We don't know what they originally said as we have only copies of copies of copies.

All we do know is that there is no evidence to substantiate them from the early first century AD.


They are a pig in a poke.

This is why:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

You can't be serious, Sol? The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry? This is your fucking source!

Let's look at their mission statement and see if even you can detect a certain built in bias.


"
General Information about Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

by Matt Slick

Who/What is CARM? - CARM is several people who help keep it running. Matt Slick who is the founder and president; Ryan Turner a researcher and writer; Diane Sellner who runs the discussion boards and chat room.

Why this site? - To equip Christians with the truth, to expose the error of false religious systems, evolution, to teach apologetics, help Christians defend the faith, and to glorify the Lord Jesus."



Yeah - a load of shit from the top down. You people are so funny.

[DeistPaladin]

You do know the gospel of Mark and Luke are taken seriosuly by rational scholars?

I'm sorry but literally every time I hear a Christian hold up his book of mythology as a collection of "historical documents", I laugh out loud. It gets me every time. I just can't get used to it no matter how often it happens.

I keep picturing those aliens in that Tim Allen movie, "Galaxy Quest", who see an earth TV show and think it's a set of "historical documents".

Imagine for a moment that I said, "Look, Zeus is real. We know this because his actions are detailed in the historical account of the Trojan War found in the Iliad." Everyone would laugh. In an academic setting, I'd be laughed out of the room and my career would be over. Why do we offer any deference to Christian mythology that we wouldn't offer to any other religion?

I hope one day we have a truly rational society that treats all mythology the same. The Bible belongs on the shelf next to the Iliad. "The historicity of the resurrection" should only be discussed in articles that appear in tabloids along side Elvis sightings and accounts of UFO abductions. A degree in "theology" will be thought of the same way as a degree in "voodoo magic" and certainly not offered by any respectable academic institution. Also, the churches will be taxed as any other business.

[RachelSkates]

So just because I wasn't there, maybe people DO raise from the dead?

Oh goodie. And I thought the story of Romulus was just a myth. Now I can expect to see him again, the ancient Roman founder turned god! All the people who worshiped him can now partake in his resurrection. Oh.....sorry, you were talking about that newcomer (as Jupiter called him) Jesus?? Ooops.

I just keep saying how idiotic it is to take a mythical book and argue from it.

Moses parted the sea. Well, Icarus flew. He really did, man! It's in the text!
Jesus rose from the dead. Well, Theseus slew the Minotaur. I KNOW he did because it's written down and Plutarch said so, too!
I wasn't there, so maybe Achilles really did take out half the Trojan army alone as certainly as Samson slew 1,000 with the jawbone of an ass.

Of course, the "I don't know because I wasn't there" argument is a free for all. That means Zeus really CAN be throwing lightening bolts and Athena should be worshiped. I am not in a terrorist training camp, so maybe Allah really IS telling people to do the things that we see in the news.

If I can't use common sense but only say, "Well, I don't know....." well, anything goes. I don't need to be a theologian or professional researcher to argue the case for common sense. Even kids have it till they get poisoned with idiotic belief systems.