Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I still am a skeptic, to a degree and objectiveity cant be reached unless you believe it could of happened. For example if I was too say, 'Napoleon lived in the 18th century.' I cant be skeptic about Napoleon because I believe he lived. If one says, 'Pft, the Bible is a load of S*#$' Anything arguing the contrary is not going to get through to them, because they are being subjective and dont believe anything in the Bible is historical...

... I don't even quite know where to begin answering this. The response you're reading is the fifth attempt to forumate a response to this statement because there is so much wrong with it and a great deal of misunderstanding regarding what it is and is not to be skeptical and what is and is not subjective or objective.

Let's start with skepticism:

Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude, or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.

The word skepticism can characterise a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence. Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess.

In religion, skepticism refers to 'doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation).' (Merriam–Webster). Often skepticism is confused with agnosticism for the reason that the skeptic usually is also an agnostic.

In classical philosophy, skepticism (or scepticism) is the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.

Note that this isn't the same thing as simply not believing in something. It is itself a very complicated thing that has many definitions depending upon the context to which it is used.
I've bolded, however, the portion to which I believe that it applies here, for despite the specific examples, we are talking about the skeptical outlook in general, unless I am mistaken.

Be that as it may, Napoleon Bonaparte is a historical figure and one who has had a signficant impact on world history regardless of any subjective opinions on him. As skeptical as I can be, Napoleon existed and there is little I can do to argue against that fact - there is a body, a death mask, many cogent eye-witness accounts, and even things he has written himself among other evidence I may not be aware of. There are aspects of his life that can come into question - be it his professional career or his personal life - that have claims to which skeptics can argue against for one reason or another based on the validity of the evidence or even the existance of said evidence.
It's not simply a matter of what I believe about Napoleon and what hte evidence says or not.

In regards to the bible, I can objectively state that the bible is full of asterisks, the letter S, the pound key, and the American Dollars sign objectively becuase there is little historical evidence to support it's more fantasical claims and any area of it that differs from actual history - such as any mention of the supernatural.
Still, being skeptical of the bible does't preclude being objectively skeptical nor does it preclude evidence-based true proving or disproving aspects of it.

As such, no, you are wrong.

The reason is, because in the 18th and 17th century people wanted to dismiss God (aka modernism) Modernism still exists in the world today. I believe God can exist because of my world view, just like Dawkins believes was God disproven by evolution, its all about worldview...

What does this have anything to do with what has been said about the % of scientists who are religious or not? What people? What about worldview?
You're once again bringing up something that only seems tenuously related to what's been discussed and I'm not even sure what your point is.

Irrational views according to you?

Objectively irrational views.

How so?

My entire point to which your statement was a response was that religion is by and large stagnant only only changed by rationalizing it with contending modern secular naturalism. You contended otherwise by stating that you and others rationalized it precisely because the bible, as written, had to contend with modern secular views. In other words, (I hope) you and I both know that the earth doesn't have a crystal dome over it, that light comes from the sun, that the Earth's rotation can't suddenly stop without severe reprocussions, and so on.
The difference between science and faith in this regard is that if you have one unchanging worldview, you have to contort it hard to accept new evidence whereas science's views on everything can change completely depending on the new evidence - as the world view that science has is entirely supported by evidence and has changed - even drastically - based on new evidence. The world view of the faithful, simply put, is none of those things. At best, you have to contort your world view - pigeonhole belief with contradictory fact in order to keep allowing the worldview to remain viable.
As such, the Christian belief system has not changed since its inception.

I'm sure he made a very convincing arguement. I'm certain he may have even said there is proof. I'm also certain you just said that he's a New Testiment Scholar. I'm sure he's very christian. I'm quite certain he has no actual empirical evidence.

Give me empirical evidence that Socrates existed.

Why? I never asserted that Socrates exists. What does this have to do with my response above?
If I can't prove that Socrates existed, then I'm not going to assert that he does but I know too little about Socrates to make any assertion on the topic.

He was actually a historian, before a scholar and has produced some great works, perhaps you should read it, before you dismiss it so quickly, who knows, you may become a Christian...

I'm not an atheist because I don't believe in the bible. I don't believe in the bible because it hasn't met its burdon of proof on any of its pertinent points.
I have no reason to believe that your scholar has done any of that. I have no reason to believe that your scholar is truely objective about any of the subject matter.

Unlike the authors that I do accept myself - like Stephan Hawking on theoretical physics or Richard Dawkins on biology or Bill Nye on science in general - those authors' entire professional careers as scientists hinges on their professional integrity with all scientists - even those who vehemontly disagree with them.
The difference between those people and theologans is empirical evidence. Stephan Hawking, for example, maintained the theory that black holes destroyed information - that anything that fell into a black hole was lost forever for thirty years. He doggedly and stubbornly maintained that idea and when the entire scientific community was against him on that and had the math to prove it, it wasn't until Hawking relentlessly (with help) attempted to debunk the math and it proved futile to attempt such a feat that he publically renounced his former position and posulated a new theorum based on the new evidence.

And that really belies the fundemental difference, but it's even more subtle but profound than that. This is to say that Hawking can write about something, be wrong, and be proven to be so by others both in his field and outside of his field in an objective manner. His professional career depends on him being right more than anything and even he puts more importance in the pursuit of truth than his own reputation.

Your book already makes a claim that cannot be objectively verified. To my knowledge, it hasn't been verified by anyone outside of the Christian religious establishment. As such, I have no reason whatsoever to take his word for anything.
This is why relativity is a thoery instead of a hypothosis - because it made predictions based on the math and, when tested, the predictions accurately reflected observation. If I had all the requisite training and knowledge in physics, I could even get into the business of making theoretical predictions, writing books and professional papers on the topic (and having them verified by peers), and having my theories proven through testing, experimentation, and observation of events that coincide with predictions made by my physical models. All of this can and is done objectively and even proven by individuals who may have a motive to protect theories that are countermanous to mine.
The only way I could be taken seriously as a physicist is if things, such as those above, were unequivially true.

I cannot say the same thing for any of the authors you've suggested and, as such, I cannot take their work seriously, because even if their work is peer-reviewed, it is only peer-reviewed within a community of like-minded individuals who have the same motive to protect their beliefs. Their work cannot be objectively verified - especeially to those who have the motive to disprove their theories. Lastly, theological arguements and implications of their work only have evidence within other theological texts and works within that community or 'interpreted' by that community.
I have no reason to take any of it as anything like 'true' based on what a few of your authors stated.

That's why you're only going to hear about the truth of Jesus' resurrection only from Christians and Christian scholars - because it didn't actually happen. There's no evidence of it. None. Zero. Zilch.

If a scholar does believe in the resurrection of Jesus, they are a Christian! so yes correcto!
But there is evidence, the evidence you want is ridiculous...

I don't see how that can be the case, given that the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is among the core beliefs of Christianity. Be that as it may, I don't see how my standards for evidence is ridiculous when all I asked for any evidence that can be objectively verified. If this is good enough to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt to me, then this shouldn't be an issue for Jesus H. Christ.

I mean, after all, it's not like I required a species to undergo a billion years of evolution in my liviing room or a living croc-a-duck.

That may be how you rationalized it, but the origin on sin is still written in the manner to which you disagree with in the old and new testiments

How so?

Because the old and new testiments are the origin and core of the Christian beliefs, which defines sin in the manner to which the term describes.

I think you can stop proving my point now, unless I'm wrong about the fact that you appear to be tiptoeing around my point as best you can while being vague on the point that you're still accepting some parts of the bible as literal less than others.

I want to read the Bible as a Jew or an early Christian would understand it, if that questions whether it is literal or metaphoric, so be it!
Gen 50:26 So Joseph died, being a hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.
Did Joseph live to a hundread and ten? Who knows, however, living to 110 in ancient Egypt, was a honorific number and shows his status and that he was a righteous man, rather than him actually living to 110 years old (who knows how old he was when he died?) perhaps he was just a man with a very status?

Case and point.

You would not die for something you did believe in:

I'm inclined to believe I know more about what I would and would not do than you would.
Regardless, neither your link nor your quote successfully answers my question. Whether or not Christians were persecuted, who did the persecutions, or to which degree are all irrelevant to that question.

Islam, had peace! It didnt suffer mass persecution, after its leader died, it went on a conquest! Christanity, on the other hand, was persecuted pretty much everywhere. It doesnt make sense, a belief in a Jewish Messiah causing so much stir. There were false Messiahs, none of them caused that much stir, this one did and the people were ready to die for Him and to become scum of the Earth, they were certain that Jesus did live, die and rise again.

... yeah... about the whole "Islam was persecuting us" thing...
Well, according to Wikipedia:

The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Western Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly by Roman Catholic forces (taking place after the East-West Schism and mostly before the Protestant Reformation) against Muslims who had occupied the near east since the time of the Rashidun Caliphate, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, pagan Balts, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the various popes. Orthodox Christians also took part in fighting against Islamic forces in some Crusades. Crusaders took vows and were granted penance for past sins, often called an indulgence.

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and their campaigns were launched in response to a call from the Christian Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.

The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.

So... no. The crusades weren't a campaign of defense against Muslims for their persecution of Christians. It was a military campaign (of at least one of the crusades) to take Jerusulem from the Muslims. The others were also military campaigns.
Just in case Wikipedia isnt' a good enough source by itself, here are a few others that surmise the same conclusion.
I'm not saying they weren't persecuted at many points in history as many groups have been but it doesn't invalidate my statement. They didn't become popular because they were persecuted. Many faiths have had the same treatment or worse. They became popular because Christianity had the opportunity to grab power both politically and militarily and they used it.