Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

No sir, I came here to tell people about God and answer questions and challenges, not shake my head disparagingly at anyone. I haven't been intentionally derogatory to anyone. In fact, if we scroll through all of my interactions on this forum, I think it would be safe to say that I took the brunt of the disparaging comments from the atheists on this forum. And I admit, the animosity took me by surprise and I didn't react as maturely as I wanted. I don't think disparagingly about or look down on anyone. I know the only difference between the believer and the unbeliever is that God has shown mercy to the believer and made him to believe. I'm here because I care.

You just don't care enough to put in any effort.  Honestly bud, you do realize that alot of these guys used to be christian, right?  There's no one here who hasn't heard your pitch. 

We get a revolving door of cretins and their nonsense, with mealy mouthed bullshit about how much the dipshits care.  As for answering questions and challenges, swell job, you proved that your god can't exist according to you.

OK, I think that tired pitch goes both ways. As someone who seeks out atheists to talk to, I hear the same played out critiques over and over again from different atheists.

How I proved that God can't exist according to me, I don't know. I assume you're referring to the suppression conversation. If we are returning to that topic, let me ask you a question:
if you're sure there's no God and even if there was a God you wouldn't care then why do you account for 3% of the total posts on this forum? Why have you spent the last 10 years posting about the God that doesn't exist that you don't care about? This makes me think 'Well, maybe he is concerned, I'll give him more time."

If I am a mealy mouthed bullshitter why even respond to me?

How have I not put in the effort? What effort? Should I call you a nonsensical cretin, a mealy mouth bullshitting dipshit? Do you mean that kind of rigorous effort?

As far as the revolving door, I have no doubt that's true. This is a tough crowd in here. No one here has even asked me a question, except one disguised as a challenge. No one has been the least bit curious. It's challenges and insults. I'm sure people throw their hands up in frustration.

Maybe you think I'm condescending, I promise I'm not, but I'm certainly not insulting you or your worldview.

[Mister Agenda]

A crtique isn't really played out until it's refuted, IMHO. 'I'm tired of hearing it' isn't the same thing as 'played out'.

[ayost]

Ok, lets see if this quote thing works. Thank you for that.

I won't presume to speak for Vulcan, but do indulge us on how do you think the Bible came to be the collection of books that we see today?
Perhaps therein lies your lack of information that then informs all your subsequent beliefs.

Hold on, I think I see what you're saying. When you asked me this question I was like well they started off as letters written by apostles, sent to churches or people, read to those groups or individuals, and then copied and circulated to other churches and people. Slowly, over time, these writings were gathered together and put into collections and those collections were passed around and then.....wait a minute....historical accident....I get it. Hahaha. Touche.

Ok, I am going to expound a little to give you some context. I'm not denying faith. When I say faith I use the definition given to us in Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is being sure of what we expect and convicted of what we do not see.
Not just blind faith. For example, I look at the Bible: the manuscript evidence for the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible is so overwhelming when compared to other works of antiquity the idea that we don't know what the authors originally is a tough sell. I know there are scholars that would disagree with that. I'm saying having looked at both opinions, I find the secular Biblical scholar position to be lacking. Are there textual variants? Yes. Are they a secret? No. Do they change any fundamental theology? No. We address them as best we can. It's like we have a 1000 piece puzzle not build, but we have 1100 pieces.

So I go ok, it's reasonable to believe that what was originally written is what I'm reading. Then I read the 4 gospels telling me the same story form different points of view. And I say to myself this is what theses first century men wrote, they are all four telling the same story, what evidence do I have that contradicts what they are saying? Shoot, there's no evidence against what they're saying except skepticism. Maybe people resurrecting from the dead is enough to make you say this is a myth, fair enough. So what other evidence do I have that they were telling me the truth? Oh, wow, they were all violently killed instead of recanting because the were so sold out to what they believed? This seems to have truth to it.

Now have people in history made stuff up and lied and and dies for what they believed, yes. Do I assume you're a liar because my brother lied to me? No. We can evaluate other claims the same way I just explained this.

However, I admit faith is part of it. Just not blind faith. I know you didn't ask for all of that, but I felt compelled to tell you to explain 'not blind faith".

There was a post of mine, some time ago (perhaps on another thread? can't remember) where I made a distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament, with the caveat that many Christians mean New Testament when they say Bible. So... when you claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, which of these do you mean? Old, New or both?

If you include the Old Testament, does that make you a Young Earth Creationist?

Yes I believe in the Old and New Testament.

Yes I'm a Young Earth Creationist. On the sliding scale between faith and empirical evidence this one is almost all the way slid over to faith. Hahaha But I can still talk about it, I just know my limitations and eventually I will appeal to faith.

---

A crtique isn't really played out until it's refuted, IMHO. 'I'm tired of hearing it' isn't the same thing as 'played out'.

I'm not tired of hearing it. I love the conversation. I do wish we could move the ball forward sometimes.

[Angrboda]

@ayost:

FWIW, we get plenty of people who say they've heard it all when they haven't and they're just closed-minded. Showing your work is important.

[ayost]

@ayost:

FWIW, we get plenty of people who say they've heard it all when they haven't and they're just closed-minded.  Showing your work is important.

Fair enough.

---

@ayost:

FWIW, we get plenty of people who say they've heard it all when they haven't and they're just closed-minded.  Showing your work is important.

Fair enough. The next time I have a chance to respond to someone I will make sure to demonstrate why I think I know something.

[LadyForCamus]

@ayost

It’s very telling that you assume we have questions for you, yet you have none for us. We’ve been questioning for years. That’s how many of us became atheists. Maybe it’s time for you to start asking and listening.

[Spongebob]

It's sad that you are so poorly informed of the religion that you've dedicated your life to.  But sorry, facts are facts and even Biblical scholars don't disagree on most of what I posted.  If you've never read about the dead sea scrolls, then you wouldn't understand these things.  You won't ever learn anything if you just reject everything you hear and clearly you have had zero time to verify anything I posted; you just rejected it, which is exactly what I would expect from someone like you.

Here's a place to start learning:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl

You aren't saying anything new that I haven't heard 1000 times. I have already looked into these things which is can conversationally reply to them. You're having a conversation with me that I started having 20 years ago.

What does "Biblical scholars" mean? I know Bart Ehrman agrees with you. What if I point you to Biblical scholars that disagree with what you said, would that change your mind?

---

The problem with hearing things and truly understanding them is a different matter.  I only offered a tiny fraction of the controversial issues with Biblical heredity.  The research is available but if you don't actually read it and learn about it, then you will just reject it.  These aren't conspiracies; they are honest, sincere work of historians.  The many biblical contradictions is a good place to start understanding but if you approach it from a position of "god explains everything" then you won't learn anything.  There are real contradictions in there that cannot be explained in ways other than human manipulation and other shortcomings that don't agree with a bible that is divinely inspired.

Biblical scholars are people who have spent their life exploring the historical roots of religious texts.  Sure, there are differing opinions on some matters, but I'm calling out issues that are pretty solidly consensus.  Just to start with, you should understand all of the political alterations that were made during the formation of the King James Version of the Bible.  They are fascinating and without question intentional modifications.  When I was a Christian, this was never spoken of so as a young person I was told the KJV was the most accurate translation of the ancient Greek texts.  Turns out this was completely false.  The KJV is largely just British monarchical propaganda.

But I won't be surprised if you reject this.  Most Christians do because it will most certainly upset your apple cart if you begin to learn of the true history of the bible.

[ayost]

There is zero evidence that either a god exists, or that any god does anything in the world.

Let's explore this statement. What about Jesus life, death, and resurrection?

Evidence for:
First, I know that definitively ascribing authorship of the Gospels to certain authors is difficult and not indisputable proof. I know there are two sides of this argument. I know they were written anonymously. I know Church tradition on authorship can't be proven as existing before in the second century, but, there is no external evidence either supporting or denying authorship. I know the gospels are the only source for information about Jesus aside from a few potential external sources that give almost no information.

That being said, we do know that church tradition for the NT authors named has always been the tradition of the church as far back as we can know. There is evidence that they were written prior to 70 AD, except John, which was probably before 100 AD, since none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem and Luke ends with Paul on house arrest). We also have fragments dating to 130 AD and a potential fragment of Mark dating to prior to 68 AD.

Ultimately, the arguments against aren't more concrete or compelling than the arguments for the authenticity of the New Testament. Now, I know I'm predisposed to believe church tradition, but in light of the fact that there is no indisputable, external evidence for the NT writings to be anything other than what they claim to be, I choose to believe they are, in fact, authentic.

People love to point out that the Bible was written by multiple authors. Yes, it was. That , means we actually have 4 independent lines of testimony about Jesus life. To me, we have the testimony of 4 contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and John were eyewitnesses to at least parts of Jesus life. Luke admits to researching Jesus and writing his gospel 9no different than a biographical author today). The events they recount are very similar and very consistent. They are also different. But if 4 people recount the life of 1 man it only makes sense that they highlight what was important to them and their intended audience. These authors tell a consistent story that I can't prove happened like WWII footage, but there is evidence. Jesus is mentioned extra-biblically by Josephus (I know some of the Jesus writings attributed to him are potentially false, but not all of them). Obviously, someone existed and something happened. My goodness, He changed the world. The only real testimony we have are the Gospels and then tell an amazing story of God entering into His creation in order to save a particular people from destruction. Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.

Now, is that irrefutable proof that God exists and has acted in this world? I would say no, I'll grant that. But, denial that is based on skepticism and internal critiques I don't find very compelling.

You said zero evidence. If the gospels are reliable and the author's telling the truth then Jesus did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. That would be evidence. Not irrefutable proof, but evidence. Zero evidence is a hard claim to substantiate.

In light of what I said, I don't think belief in the NT is crazy. Is it?

[Soberman921]

So I go ok, it's reasonable to believe that what was originally written is what I'm reading. Then I read the 4 gospels telling me the same story form different points of view. And I say to myself this is what theses first century men wrote, they are all four telling the same story, what evidence do I have that contradicts what they are saying? Shoot, there's no evidence against what they're saying except skepticism. Maybe people resurrecting from the dead is enough to make you say this is a myth, fair enough. So what other evidence do I have that they were telling me the truth? Oh, wow, they were all violently killed instead of recanting because the were so sold out to what they believed? This seems to have truth to it.

You make a number of statements here as fact with which few if any critical New Testament scholars would agree. For example, the claim that the gospels tell "the same story form different points of view." The vast inconsistencies between the gospel accounts have been documented for centuries, and many of them are quite significant. For example, on what day was Jesus crucified and what were his last words? While some might not be complete inconsistencies, attempts to harmonize them into a single account require tortuous contrivances that defy the principle of analogy and insult reason. Even more important that where the gospels differ is where they are identical, word for word. This is clear evidence they were not independent accounts but were copied from one another. These are works of plagiarism in which the authors of later gospels reworked earlier ones to make them better align with their own theologies.

New Testament Chrisitan scholar Richard Bauckham holds to traditional authorship of the gospels but has admitted, “That the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus — runs counter to almost all recent New Testament scholarship. . . . [T]he prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.”

Also, what is your basis for claiming the gospel writers "were all violently killed instead of recanting because the were so sold out to what they believed?" I'm not aware of a single record of any gospel writer being violently killed because of his Christian faith after refusing to recant. This Christian persecution claim is a myth.

[ayost]

So, of course we see Paul's letters first, showing just how influential his interpretation became. and that is the interpretation that you claim to follow, not blindly, of course, but because you seem to think that some of them were violently killed for their beliefs (which you also acknowledged that is not a very good metric)... so we're left with blind faith.

The Gospel of Peter is a very short gospel, probably from 150 AD, although we don't have anything prior to the 8th/9th century. The Gospel of Peter tells a very, very different story that the other gospels. So yes, it didn't make the cut because it isn't consistent with the story told by the other gospel writers. Is that that crazy? Does that make it a clergy conspiracy? I think that's a pretty far leap. In court, don't they frequently hear multiple versions of the same story and when one witness is totally different that the other witnesses we say that probably isn't a reliable witness? I would say that's reasonable and not necessarily a conspiracy.

...so we're left with blind faith.
How did you get to be this faithful?
Have you "always" been? Is it a childhood indoctrination thing?
Can you acknowledge that such a practice could have made you faithful in any other belief system (had your parents held it) and is thus also not a good metric to ascertain what is true?

I wish we could move past statements like blind faith and indoctrination. I think at a minimum I have established that I've thought these things out as an adult. I don't consider myself to have blind faith. I am someone who researches and reads and learns. I'm frequently challenged and then go away and learn. I think I can make a reasonable, not airtight, but reasonable case for everything I believe.

I'm not asserting that my faith means something is true in the way you want it to be certainly true. Faith means I'm trusting God to do what he said based on evidence x, y, and z while acknowledging that x, y, and z aren't indisputable proof.

I would also argue that science eventually leads to the same place of faith. That statement could send us on a rabbit trail. I won't pursue it unless you do, haha.

Why?
Why accept the writings of people who obviously didn't know better over the findings of successive scientists?

Well, this is where faith comes in, but also it's also thought out faith:

I am convinced that the NT is authentic, reliable, and true.
I am convinced that what the NT says about Jesus and who He is is true (the God/man).
Jesus believed the OT writers and that God created the universe.
Therefore, I believe what Jesus believed: the OT.

You see how it's not blind? How one thing builds on another?

I also reject the idea that an accurate understanding of the the world is a modern phenomenon, but that's a side note I don't want to debate.

Now, when it comes to creation, I can level critiques at science and challenge how they know what they know. No one escapes the skeptic buzzsaw. haha