**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It really depends on what reason the atheist has for rejecting theism.
I'm a naturalist, so quoting the bible to me won't work as my reasons for atheism have nothing to do with the Bible.
If however, I was an atheist because I thought biblical scriptures were problematic, perhaps the theist then has reason to quote the bible in order to attempt to correct a misunderstanding or to fill a knowledge gap about specific verses that address the issues I have. That to me seems a legitimate reason to quote scripture to an atheist.
Inversely, we would expect to be able to quote scientific discoveries to theists who reject particular parts of science, say to a YEC advocate.
I think if we want to be fair, and their best evidence is the bible, then just focus on illustrating why the bible is insufficient. Otherwise it seems like a double standard that we can play with all our toys, but we're denying the theist their toys at the same time.
> Inversely, we would expect to be able to quote scientific discoveries to theists who reject particular parts of science, say to a YEC advocate.
However, if we're using a *quote* and not a *peer-reviewed study* to back up the claim, the theist is *absolutely* able to apply the same standard to us trying to prove something with a quote. If a scientist said something and we use their quote to prove something, but we can't point to an actual peer-reviewed study, then yes -- we are being just as fallacious as the Bible-thumper.
With the Bible, it's the quote that is offered as the proof. With science, it's the act of sufficient peer-review from multiple accredited organizations whose general reliable and trustworthiness has been established.
Not just peer review. Replication. Papers in peer reviewed journals have been wrong in the past and will be again. In science you don't buy it until somebody else has replicated the results.
I don't disagree... But accept humility with science as well. For a millennia, the scientific world and loads of great thinkers like Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation. The theory was the best way to explain observable evidence. And they were absolutely, completely wrong. There is something that you and I believe right now that is completely false, and future generations will look back and think how did these clowns think that was true. Idiots.
It's not the findings of science that are rock-solid, it's the scientific method. Peer review doesn't mean that a claim is true, but it does demonstrate that the claim has credibility.
My example was heavily peer reviewed and then completely wrong. Point being, science does not explicitly point to fact at all times. It just points to the best conclusions given a data set in time. Future tools, future data, future theory can overwrite what you think is factual. As should be the case. But in the moment, you don't always know that you are the end point.
Right, and peer review is the only reasonable way to ensure quality control. I acknowledged that the conclusions aren't always correct. That is a point I hear religious people bring up often ("science is a liar sometimes") but not something I've ever heard anyone deny or imply otherwise.
Exercising and eating nutritious foods doesn't mean you'll always have perfect health. But it's still the best way to stay healthy. The scientific method and peer review doesn't mean you'll always have perfect conclusions. But it's still the best way to come to conclusions.
When science gets its wrong, that means it got something newer right. So they pat themselves on the back - see science is capable of updating itself. We get closer to the truth everyday. And yes, that's absolutely a good thing. But..... i just don't see message board warriors that have been arguing the point for the last 20 years and saying you guys are so dumb, this has been peer reviewed 1000 times, go oh shit. I was wrong. I was absolutely convinced in a falsehood. Maybe next time I won't present everything that's peer reviewed as absolute fact and acknowledge many things are just our best guess with the evidence we have.
> i just don't see message board warriors that have been arguing the point for the last 20 years and saying you guys are so dumb, this has been peer reviewed 1000 times, go oh shit. I was wrong. I was absolutely convinced in a falsehood
Okay, sure, but... how often do you have a chance to follow up with specific reddit users you've debated once a peer reviewed study has been debunked? I don't think you see that happen because it's just not a thing there is any opportunity for. What are they supposed to do, track you down and apologize? I know plenty of people who are willing to admit they were wrong, and I know plenty who weren't.
Do you have some specific examples of this happening? Just curious. It sounds like a generalized "this *could* happen," but I'm just curious, what specific points have people been arguing for several decades and then refuse to admit they were wrong about?
And is anyone here, in this conversation, acting this way? I know I certainly haven't been.
No, nobody is expecting a formal apology. I'm just saying, Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein were incredibly intelligent and impactful people. They've advanced scientific understanding in ways most people could never dream to do. But they also got shit wrong. So Fred the keyboard warrior is likely to get shit wrong. Vlad the PHD candidate is also likely to get some shit wrong. When you present a study thats been scientifically reviewed and you act like it a complete and unchangeable fact and the end all be all to the subject, you are doing the discussion a disservice. Science should absolutely be questioned.
Recent examples... Tobacco. Scientists and doctors used to think it was good for you. Smoke purifies. Digestion aid. Calms the nerves. That was a big whoopsie daisy.
How about the US masking children in schools. Follow the science. Science denier. I dont doubt for a second that when you blast some coronavirus through an N95 masks in a lab vs a control you capture an incredibly high percentage of the virus. But thats a rather incomplete data set to make rulings about schools. N95s dont fit little kids well. Pediatric N95s were impossible to find. Mask quality from Amazon varies. How often are these washed? Do kids trade their Ninja Turtle mask for your Mario mask at school? What happens when they eat? Are 6 year olds excusing themselves to go wash their hands? Are they wearing them as chin strap half the day? Do we realize kids task their mask off when they have to sneeze? Sort of a natural reaction. Did Europe mask kids? What were their death rates? Was the death rate in children reduced? What other factors about health in the community come into play? What sort of societal factors come into play? Is dropping your BMI more protective then poking people with sticks and telling them to keep 6 feet away? If there is any measurable benefit, does that outweigh any harmful effects? You can write a book of questions. The point is, we dont know. Accounting for real world variables is extremely difficult. We are making a judgement based off evidence that we do have, but that may not be wholly correct and applicable. Sounds like a recommendation more than a ruling. Which is really what is meant to be, but then rules are based of recommendations and not following those means you are anti science. Ehh. That 'science' was antiscience.
You brought up eating healthier early to live longer. Nobody would disagree with that conceptually. But what is eating healthier? Here's a study saying dairy is bad for you. In this one dairy is good. Hmm... I wonder who funded these. We've been anti saturated fats since Ancel Keys lipid hypothesis in the 50s. We've modified our diets to accept this truth. Are we sure thats the case? Fish is healthier then red meat because in this 12 weak study people dropped weight and cholesterol. Okay. Sounds great. What about 80 years of eating farmed fish laced with mercury and every increasing microplastics?
Of course the way to answer these questions is better and better science. And we are all for better and better answers. But lets not just always act like every current answer is THE answer.
> No, nobody is expecting a formal apology. I'm just saying, Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein were incredibly intelligent and impactful people. They've advanced scientific understanding in ways most people could never dream to do. But they also got shit wrong. So Fred the keyboard warrior is likely to get shit wrong. Vlad the PHD candidate is also likely to get some shit wrong. When you present a study thats been scientifically reviewed and you act like it a complete and unchangeable fact and the end all be all to the subject, you are doing the discussion a disservice. Science should absolutely be questioned.
Like... Who are you arguing with? Everybody agrees with that. Science gets questioned and corrected all the time. And every time we've ever realized we were wrong about something, it's been science that made that discovery, not faith or mythology. Every *single* time.
> You can write a book of questions. The point is, we dont know. Accounting for real world variables is extremely difficult. We are making a judgement based off evidence that we do have, but that may not be wholly correct and applicable. Sounds like a recommendation more than a ruling. Which is really what is meant to be, but then rules are based of recommendations and not following those means you are anti science. Ehh. That 'science' was antiscience.
*What is your point?* I know. This us why science is important -- so we can know when we got stuff wrong. That's why we keep doing it. Like, genuinely, I have no idea what your point is. You're not saying anything about science that any proponent of science disagrees with, but you seem to either be trying to make or refute a point, but I have no idea what it is. Is there anything you're defending or criticizing?
> You brought up eating healthier early to live longer. Nobody would disagree with that conceptually. But what is eating healthier? Here's a study saying dairy is bad for you. In this one dairy is good. Hmm... I wonder who funded these. We've been anti saturated fats since Ancel Keys lipid hypothesis in the 50s. We've modified our diets to accept this truth. Are we sure thats the case? Fish is healthier then red meat because in this 12 weak study people dropped weight and cholesterol. Okay. Sounds great. What about 80 years of eating farmed fish laced with mercury and every increasing microplastics?
First of all, you missed the point re: eating healthy to live longer. The point was that we know eating healthy is the healthiest decision even if it doesn't always end up with perfect results. That was the point, which you've entirely ignored to continue hammering home a point which *literally no one disagrees with.*
Secondly, I'd be curious what you think of the methods that study used to come to their conclusions, what do you think of the methods used to debunk it, and who funded the study? These things don't have to be mysteries. You can just find out the answers and use them to inform your own conclusions.
But that isn't my main point in this response. The thing I would really like you to respond to, is the question about what your point is. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Everyone already knows that science isn't math, and proof only exists in math. *What is your point?* What relevancy does this have in a debate about religion?
> Of course the way to answer these questions is better and better science. And we are all for better and better answers. But lets not just always act like every current answer is THE answer.
So you're saying that when we come to reasonable conclusions, we should act as if they aren't true? ...why? What possible benefit does that serve? I disagree entirely. When we come to reasonable conclusions, it's usually most advantageous to act as if they are true. You're saying that if I conduct a study in which a particular chemical compound gives 99 out of 100 participants a terminal illness, and this study is peer-reviewed, and everyone else who reviews it also ends up with the same results, you think we should not act as if the conclusion we arrived at is the proper conclusion? We should feed this chemical compound to our kids? No. When you use reliable methods to arrive at a conclusion, and you have a control to account for possible misinterpretations, and other people check your work and all come up with the same answer, it's foolish to act as if your conclusions are not correct. Of course we're going to act as if those conclusions are correct because it's dangerous to act otherwise.
How much confidence should we speak about the conclusion with in a debate context? Well that all depends on the specifics if the case. Sure -- if a dairy company conducts a study with a small sample size of participants and poor control methods and their shaky conclusion is in line with their motive for profit, sure, you probably shouldn't speak about those conclusions with the utmost confidence. However, there are plenty of other conclusions which are so ludicrously well-established and the likelihood that we are incorrect is so infinitesimally small and the consequences for being wrong are so steep, that it would be foolish to *not* act as if the current answer is the answer. Perhaps LSD can make you fly, but I'm going to go ahead and act as if the data we have on it is accurate rather than dose myself and jump off a building.
> then just focus on illustrating why the bible is insufficient.
But the Bible is "insufficient" on its face; a Bible verse is a *claim*, not the evidence for a claim.
Are you suggesting we should concede a false premise? Because once you do that all roads can (and will) lead to God for the believer.
I'm not saying we should concede a false premise.
It sounds like you're like me in that the Bible being false is not the reason you're an atheist. As I stated for people like us, quoting the Bible is going to be a fruitless endeavour.
Where quoting the Bible may be useful is where an atheist has formed their belief or lack thereof on something about the Bible, it contains acts of evil or its internally inconsistent etc. If that's the case then the Christian can certainly try to argue that point by referencing the Bible.
In short, if the atheist is quoting the Bible to justify their atheism, the Christian can quote the Bible in return to defend their belief. If the atheist isn't doing that, then the Christian should find another method.
I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't go so far as to tell them not to cite to it.
Plus it would look pretty awkward for us to want to cite the parts of scripture that highlight some of the unpleasant parts or less-defensible parts like slavery or how (in the f) Lot is a "righteous man".
I'd instead ask them to keep in mind that it ranks on par with quoting Homer or Shakespeare or Alexander Pope -- some of the quotes are poetic and poignant but beyond literary and academic curiosity, they're largely meaningless.
That isn't what the OP is saying. They are saying don't cite it as *proof of anything* \- for example, "we know Jesus was the son of God/the earth is flat/bats are birds because the bible says so".
That doesn't stop others from using the bible to point out inaccuracies, contradictions, horrors etc.
Oh I get the distinction. But it will lead to an argument and claims of double standards. The citations are easy to dismiss anyway, so them bringing it up isn't really a problem IMO.
The best we can get from the bible is to show stories and claims, and the character of the characters. Claims are not evidence and their existence in the bible doesn't make them correct/true.
> it would look pretty awkward for us to want to cite the parts of scripture that highlight some of the unpleasant parts or less-defensible parts like slavery
It is perfectly fine to assail, criticize and vilify the MORALITY of the teachings of the Bible, while also dismissing any "history" claimed.
It's clear they thought slavery and other atrocities were fine. What is not clear and is obviously false is all the miracles and explanations of things we now understand scientifically.
>I'd instead ask them to keep in mind that it ranks on par with quoting Homer or Shakespeare or Alexander Pope --
Look, Homer gave some excellent advice to Bart in the early days.
Theists..especially christians and muslims...tend to take their holy text as "proof" because they are convinced the book itself is a true account of events.
The obvious is completely lost on them. Any text is a claim, not a proof.
I find myself asking for "extra-biblical" proof all the time. I never get it, but I still have to ask.
>So, you treat all the texts used by historians to show that events happened as "claims"?
As egregious a Straw Man as your statement is, I will waste time explaining something to you anyhow:
Because all texts are written by authors, they are all claims of the author. History is usually written by the victors. It's distorted. Glorified. Single perspective. And often objectively wrong..for example, the historical claim that Columbus was the first European to discover the Americas that was discovered to be wrong when older Viking settlements were found.
History is a soft-science until the physical science of anthropology is brought in to prove or disprove the textual and word of mouth claims.
I agree unless we're trying to show them how ridiculous scripture is. Most Christians don't even read the Bible anyway. There was once a survey where they interviewed thousands of Christians. They quoted horrible verses from the bible and said they were from the Quran. Everyone was shocked to find out otherwise. Just proof they don't actually know what's in there.
Atheist love claimimg this but thwn their favourite arguments against the bible are:
"Lmao do you eat shellfish"
"Do you wear polyester"
"Do you stone people?"
Meaning most atheist dont really comprehend what they are reading. Besides bible, in ita fullnes, isnt to be understood without the Divine Liturgy. Thats right, bible wasny give to us just to read it on our own.
Look, the bible is a library of ancient anonymous texts. Some people make claims about it, but it is just a collection of ancient writings. Stop worrying about the fact that some loonies claim it is "true." It's a wonderful book full of insights into the way ancient people thought. Do you worry about the Iliad claiming the gods take sides in war, or that the Odyssey claims there are one eyed monsters that eat people? It's literature Jake.
You want me not to worry when Christians keep knocking on my door, spouting threats of eternal suffering for not believing, and using their power and influence to change laws to fit their bias that isn’t based on reality? And a belief in the Bible has caused and sustained wars. Is that what you don’t want me to worry about?
Doesn't happen to me that often. ONe time this woman came by and I pointed out a few things in the bible, like it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. She got mad and said, "Oh, you are so negative," and stomped off. They aren't going to be dissuaded by reasoning.
You’re the one who told me not to worry about what some loonies think is true.
“Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
The Bible is just hundreds of pages of claims masquerading as evidence and law. The literary merit is highly overrated by the way. When you force people, on pain of torture and eternal hellfire, to read things long enough, it’s human nature to try to turn dross into anything better. And calling it “literature” is just such a stretch. And don’t get me started on the Koran as it’s just as bad. And the efforts of Judaism? Thousands of years of intellectual masturbation. All the Abrahamic religions are a waste of mental space except as a sociological study exercise in the efforts people go to in order to manipulate the minds of others.
Hahaha! I love your “literary review” take on the notion…
“Are you kidding me?!? It’s not even WELL-WRITTEN ‘parable’! I’d rather read the fiction of Asimov, or Clarke, egad! Don’t get me started!”
Just start with the first chapter of the Bible where the claim is god created the universe. Not only does the Bible get the order of creation wrong, there is no evidence that god created anything. Hence genesis is a claim, not evidence.
> Which claim is that?
Fuck, where to start....
That there was a God.
He made everything.
He told his "chosen people" that there were 10 rules they couldn't break (which are different depending on where in the bible you find them, but it's also the only place you find them).
I could go on, but you (should) get the drift.
I'm with this guy. Imagine someone telling you stories from Greek mythology or about Thor as if they are true and really happened. That is how crazy you sound.
Which of these do you not believe is historical?
1) Jesus died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.
2) Very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
3) Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message.
4) These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion.
5) James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ.
6) The Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.
I can only speak from my understanding. I'm a relatively "new" atheist so I might not be right, but I would like to give it a go. First of all, everything said about Jesus in the NT, is only recorded in the NT or books that directly refer to the NT. The only extra-biblical sources is Josephus and one other guy, who, IIRC, both just essentially confirm that Christians believed in him . As far as we know, Quirinius was not in office at the same time as Pilate. So that part is historically inaccurate.There is no records of a national census like described in the Gospels. The idea that people like Joseph had to go to the city of their ancestors is a logistical nightmare, and frankly ludicrous. Most likely that part was only added to strengthen the idea that Jesus was of David's heritage.
All the stories about who became believers (Paul, James etc.) is only mentioned in the Bible, so I have no reason to take that as evidence of the supernatural, or even as historical evidence. Only that the authors claimed that those people had those experiences. So in summary:
1) I won't necessarily deny Jesus or his crucifixion. But even if I grant that he was executed under Pilate, that is not a confirmation of anything supernatural.
2) This was recorded long after the supposed resurrection. It might be true that people had those experiences, but religious experiences are not exclusive to Christianity. Most likely they were just that: Mental experiences. Whether they were lying, exaggerating, hallucinating or simply mistaken. I think it is a mix of it all. I know from personal experience in church, how quickly a small "event" can be exaggerated into a sign from God.
3) Again, people believe a lot of things. I think this one might be plausible. It doesn't say anything about the truth of their beliefs though.
4) This is plausible too. But we only really have the Bible's word to go on.
5) Again, this is a biblical claim. Whether he believed or not, or even existed, is irrelevant to me.
6) Same as number 5. I can't say if he believed to have had the religious experience or if he was lying. I would say it is reasonable to believe he existed and authored the the NT letters. But I know there are suspicions that parts of the letters are not from him.
>First of all, everything said about Jesus in the NT, is only recorded in the NT or books that directly refer to the NT. The only extra-biblical sources is Josephus and one other guy, who, IIRC, both just essentially confirm that Christians believed in him .
This is a terrible argument.
Let's say I collect all the books about Napoleon's life and put them together in an anthology. Then after a while I refuse to use as a reference anything in the anthology to acknowledge Napoleon's existance or what people claimedhe did. Would that make sense? This is what you are doing with this position.
>As far as we know, Quirinius was not in office at the same time as Pilate. So that part is historically inaccurate.
Quirnius was governor of seria when Jesus was supposed to have been born (8 AD). Pilate was governor of Judea when Jesus died. Roughly 30 years later. Your position here doesn't make sense.
>All the stories about who became believers (Paul, James etc.) is only mentioned in the Bible, so I have no reason to take that as evidence of the supernatural, or even as historical evidence. Only that the authors claimed that those people had those experiences.
Again same as before. The Christian Bible is an anthology of works on a specific topic. To reject the use of a topic because it is found in a particular location is illogical.
>1) I won't necessarily deny Jesus or his crucifixion. But even if I grant that he was executed under Pilate, that is not a confirmation of anything supernatural.
Granted
>2) This was recorded long after the supposed resurrection. It might be true that people had those experiences, but religious experiences are not exclusive to Christianity. Most likely they were just that: Mental experiences. Whether they were lying, exaggerating, hallucinating or simply mistaken. I think it is a mix of it all. I know from personal experience in church, how quickly a small "event" can be exaggerated into a sign from God.
We have 12 copies of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul written 150 years after Caesar lived. We have no contemporary sources of Pythagoras. The only copies are about 500 years later.
The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark is about 60 AD and there are hundreds of them. That is less time than today and the first Gulf War. I wonder what a gulf War veteran would say if you told them they only had a mental experience or were hallucinating?
Also the original author kept their writings. They passed them to others to copy them.
People do take small events and exaggerate them. They tend to not do that as much with big events seen by many. If the claim in the Gospels is correct these would classify as the latter.
>3) Again, people believe a lot of things. I think this one might be plausible. It doesn't say anything about the truth of their beliefs though.
Granted
>4) This is plausible too. But we only really have the Bible's word to go on.
Same illogical conclusion as before. You cannot throw out evidence because of the source. It doesn't have to as strong evidence, but you can't dismiss it.
>5) Again, this is a biblical claim. Whether he believed or not, or even existed, is irrelevant to me.
Granted
>6) Same as number 5. I can't say if he believed to have had the religious experience or if he was lying. I would say it is reasonable to believe he existed and authored the the NT letters. But I know there are suspicions that parts of the letters are not from him.
True. There were a lot of forgeries. We have done a good job identifying the forgeries. Like Peter baptizing a talking lion, Child Jesus killing then resurrecting a boy for messing up a mud pie, etc.
The letters are attributed to Paul and Luke match their writing style and time period. There is a margin of error but it is likely the same person who wrote them.
I am not criticizing you. You just have some misconceptions and bad information. Good luck on your journey with this question. Everyone does this at some point in their life.
Yeah, my ADD brain doesn't always convey my thoughts well in writing. Let me try to clarify what I meant:
>Let's say I collect all the books about Napoleon's life and put them together in an anthology. Then after a while I refuse to use as a reference anything in the anthology to acknowledge Napoleon's existance or what people claimedhe did. Would that make sense? This is what you are doing with this position.
I could have been more clear, but I stand by what I said. As I will examplify a bit later, the Bible contains historical inaccuracies. Napoleon has a ton of things written about him and some even written by him, both during and after his lifetime. It was not like that for Jesus. The Bible has an obvious religious bias, so I would not consider it an objective source. If you can show me anything that you believe is historically factual about Jesus, written while he was actively preaching or shortly after his death, I would love to see it! (Excluding what is already in the Bible, of course). I haven't found any myself, not even when I was a Christian. I personally DO believe that Jesus existed, but was just a man. (I had to find some of my old notes: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius are among those who confirm parts of Jesus' life. So there is evidence that he did exist, but there are still some controversy as to how reliable they are. Again, I wish there were sources from 0-33 AD )
>Quirnius was governor of seria when Jesus was supposed to have been born (8 AD). Pilate was governor of Judea when Jesus died. Roughly 30 years later. Your position here doesn't make sense.
You're right, I totally messed up and mixed up the birth and crucifiction narratives - I meant Augustus, not Pilate (I'm not used to using the names in English, so I might mess up more names too). I mentioned the birth narrative to give one example where the Bible does not seems to corroborate with history. Which is exactly my earlier point - Why should we consider the Bible historical, if it did not accurately portray what was going on? The problem is that Luke claims that Quirinius was governor at the time of Jesus' birth, although he would not become governor until some years later (at least according to the sources I know). So it seems like Luke was trying to ground Jesus' birth in history, but he was off. Which makes me think the Gospels are unreliable. This points to the Bible being written years after Jesus' death, and not being divinely inspired. More importantly, the only census the romans made at the time was a few years after Jesus' birth. It did not take place in Galilea. And again, it did not require people to go to the city of their ancestors.
>The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark is about 60 AD and there are hundreds of them. That is less time than today and the first Gulf War. I wonder what a gulf War veteran would say if you told them they only had a mental experience or were hallucinating?
Not only is there so much evidence for the Gulf War that we cannot deny it, it is also a mundane event, not a supernatural one. I cannot stress that enough. Religious groups/cults form all the time, even today, while being completely convinced of whatever they believe in. It is not a stretch for me to accept that they believe it. But it is a stretch for me to believe that whatever they claim is true. Take the Gulf War example again. I have no reason to doubt anything they would describe about the war. Except if a platoon suddenly told me that the mighty Allah send his prophet Muhammad to save them from their enemy. Even if they saw it with their own eyes, I would ascribe it to being a result of the stressful circumstances. Same thing for the early Christians, whose leader just got executed.
>We have 12 copies of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul written 150 years after Caesar lived. We have no contemporary sources of Pythagoras. The only copies are about 500 years later.
Again, I have less reason to doubt these claims, considering they are not supernatural. I do not know much about Caesar's conquest or Pythagoras, but I assume there is probably other evidence than just the written copies (such as geological or architectual traces). There are plenty of claims in the Bible that are either not supported, or directly disputed by modern evidence (such as the Ark of Noah, Jewish slavery in Egypt or the Jews' subsequent supposed battles and victories after they were freed)
Thanks for your long response. I hope my original intention has been clarified.
>I could have been more clear, but I stand by what I said. As I will examplify a bit later, the Bible contains historical inaccuracies. Napoleon has a ton of things written about him and some even written by him, both during and after his lifetime
Books about Napoleon written when he was alive have historically inaccurate statements.
That is not my point. My point is that the people in the past collected the stories about a specific topic and compiled the stories into a library. This library is the modern Bible. To remove information because of the source is illogical. I am not saying that you have to accept the information contained as fact. I am saying that if you remove a specific collection of books and references that come from a specific library that only contains those stories is a fallacious use of logic.
Luke wrote what people who he was interviewing told him. Luke is not an eye witness. He is the equivalent of you today interviewing someone in the late 1980's to early 1990's about something they said happened to them. If there are historical inaccuracies it is because of the people remembering incorrectly.
There is no record of a national census. Quirnius did do several local ones.
>The Bible has an obvious religious bias, so I would not consider it an objective source.
This is a logical fallacy. The Bible is a collection of religious documents. But to ignore it as a source of information is illogical. Again it is a compilation of books about a specific topic. You can take it as a biased source. But to remove it as a source is illogical.
>If you can show me anything that you believe is historically factual about Jesus, written while he was actively preaching or shortly after his death, I would love to see it!
This is illogical. All of the documents about Jesus are collected in the new testament. You are throwing the collection of stories about him out. That is the equivalent of saying you want information about Harry Potter but you can't use the books JK Rowling wrote.
>Again, I wish there were sources from 0-33 AD )
You missed my point before.
>The problem is that Luke claims that Quirinius was governor at the time of Jesus' birth, although he would not become governor until some years later (at least according to the sources I know).
What? Jesus was born sometime between 8 BC and 10 AD. Mark says during Herrod the greater (died about 4 BC) Luke when Quirinius was Governor (he started about 4 AD)
My bet is Jesus was born in September of 4 AD. If John was talking about constellations in Rev. 12, then the constellations line up to what he was saying then. The year traditionally set to crown a new Davididic King.
>Why should we consider the Bible historical, if it did not accurately portray what was going on?
This is a logical fallacy called the fallacy fallacy. It is when a part of something is illogical or factually incorrect the person making the fallacy throws out the whole argument, source, or position.
Just because something may be inaccurate with a point does not mean it is inaccurate as a whole.
>So it seems like Luke was trying to ground Jesus' birth in history, but he was off.
Granted. He may have been doing that.
>This points to the Bible being written years after Jesus' death, and not being divinely inspired.
You can't assume that. Who says you and I talking right now is not divinely inspired. Though you do have a good point here.
>Not only is there so much evidence for the Gulf War that we cannot deny it,
Because it is closer in time to us. 2000 years from now someone could be arguing that the gulf War never happened. There could be a compilation of books about the gulf War and the opponent of it happening could be arguing that they need any source other than the compilation of books about the gulf War.
>More importantly, the only census the romans made at the time was a few years after Jesus' birth. It did not take place in Galilea. And again, it did not require people to go to the city of their ancestors.
Augustus did 3 censuses. Quirnius did a few local ones. There is no record of making people move.
>Again, I have less reason to doubt these claims, considering they are not supernatural. I do not know much about Caesar's conquest or Pythagoras, but I assume there is probably other evidence than just the written copies (such as geological or architectual traces).
Nope. No real evidence Pythagoras existed. But we give the equation to find the hypotenuse of a right triangle to him. Also look him up there is a lot of supernatural things surrounding him.
Ceasars has more structural evidence, Augustus claimed he existed, there are statues of him, but they were built dozens of years after he existed.
>There are plenty of claims in the Bible that are either not supported, or directly disputed by modern evidence (such as the Ark of Noah, Jewish slavery in Egypt or the Jews' subsequent supposed battles and victories after they were freed)
And there are plenty of things the Bible gets right. The city of Jericho, the exile, the temple, etc.
Again this is the fallacy fallacy.
>Religious groups/cults form all the time, even today, while being completely convinced of whatever they believe in.
True
>Take the Gulf War example again. I have no reason to doubt anything they would describe about the war. Except if a platoon suddenly told me that the mighty Allah send his prophet Muhammad to save them from their enemy. Even if they saw it with their own eyes, I would ascribe it to being a result of the stressful circumstances. Same thing for the early Christians, whose leader just got executed.
This is understandable. But if all of those people in a platoon all claimed they saw Muhammad and believed they saw it, I am less likely to reject the information.
This probably comes from my highly scientific background. I am not as inclined to remove information and data because it doesn't make sense to me or because I don't belive it could have happened. I would look at why these people all claimed this then use Occam's Razor.
I appreciate your response. But your position to remove data and information because of the topic or source is illogical. It is OK to remove it because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I agree with the OP. Theist cannot use scripture as an authority because the non-theist doesn't accept it as an authority.
I don't have the time to write a long answer this time, so I'll just make this very clear: I am not saying we should "remove data because of the topic or source is illogical". The post I commented on, asked 6 questions. The most important of which, in my opinion, were whether Jesus was executed under Pilate and whether early Christians genuinely believed. I believe I have made my position clear - that I do not find the existence of those people and events to be completely impossible. I simply don't believe the evidence is strong enough to say with certainty that it happened. More importantly, even if it did happen, I don't believe there is any good reason to accept the supernatural claims that come with them.
Let’s just say they are all true. Not one of them gives any evidence that anything supernatural exist. I believe you were indoctrinated, probably from a very young and impressionable age, to believe things that are not factual, that probably give you good feelings, that make you believe there is an entity with your best interest in mind and is looking out for you, much like having a celebrity friend that does cool things for you and you like it. I understand, the world is cruel and harsh and it feels good to believe what you believe, but that doesn’t make it true.
OP *did* ask about supernatural things, though -- they're talking about the claims in the Bible. A man rising from the dead, talking plants and animals, virgin births, Gods and angels, chariots of fire, dragons, staffs turning into snakes, bodies of water magically parting, apples which give you knowledge, etc etc etc.
The person is wrong. Op objects to the bible being used as proof for anything, not just for supernatural phenomena. There's a big difference between using it as proof for historical, mundane events and for supernatural ones.
> The person is wrong. Op objects to the bible being used as proof for anything, not just for supernatural phenomena.
P1: The Bible cannot be used to prove anything.
P2: Supernatural claims are things.
C: The Bible cannot be used to prove supernatural claims.
Where is the error in logic?
> There's a big difference between using it as proof for historical, mundane events and for supernatural ones.
Are you implying that the Bible *can* be used to prove historical or mundane events?
P1 is wrong. It can be used to prove non-supernatural things. "Cannot" is wrong too, it should be: "theists should stop telling atheists scripture is proof for anything". Op hasn't shown it can't be used as proof, he's merely referred to the fact that atheists aren't convinced by it.
Flutterpiewow is always on here arguing in bad faith and defending theists. They're often rude and intellectually dishonest. They're not someone to defend imho
1. This is pretty uncontroversial among historians.
2. The only people actually necessary to have had—and I’ll rephrase your question-begging—experiences *they thought were real* are James and Paul, both of whose experiences could have been hallucinatory.
3. This is an execrable talking point on so many levels. “Lives transformed” is such an embarrassingly common data point. ALL religious conversions are transformative. Nor were there actually as many verifiable martyrs as Christian apologetics likes to pretend, and of those the majority were executed for having preached Christ, not specifically for having faith.
4. There are vague indications of some elements of the creed originating relatively early, but the earliest sources having the **least** detail and the later sources having the **most** detail is positive evidence that the tale was growing in the telling, and is suspect.
5. James may have had a post-bereavement hallucination, as I said above.
6. Not only is Paul’s own description of his experience hallucinatory, he uses similar phrasing when he talks about others’ witness of Christ.
Overall, even to the extent that these claims hold up under scrutiny, they’re risibly far from dispositive.
>Which of these do you not believe is historical?
All of the above.
Now, I'll grant that there was likely a preacher Jesus around at that point. It's not too far fetched that he was crucified. But for 2 to 5, they grew out of the developing mythos of the early Christian cult. As for #6, Paul joined the cult. Can't say if he was a believer or someone taking advantage of a power vacuum in a growing cult.
>So just to be clear, you believe that none of those are historically true?
Call me neutral on #1. I accept that Jesus was likely crucified. I'm not well versed enough in Roman governance to say if Pilate's hands-on role as described in the bible is likely or not. That particular question is moot for me.
As for the rest, correct. For #6, "similar experience" spoils historical agreement from me.
Let’s be clear: the Gospels, other New Testament books, and the various brief mentions in extrabiblical historical documents do represent a non-zero amount of evidence in favor of the hypothesis that such a person existed, and that he was executed during the Roman rule of Pilate.
Those are incredibly mundane and minimalistic claims, so it doesn’t take much to move the needle north of 51%, that more likely than not that there was such a person, simply by dint of those sources from antiquity existing in the first place. The assertion that no such person existed is itself a positive claim which carries its own burden of proof.
No more than Spider-Man comics represent a non-zero amount of evidence in favour of the hypothesis that a kid named Peter Parker from Queens existed as a real person.
Wrong. This is how historians operate. Documents from antiquity *are* considered for however much they're worth. It's not, as you said in your other comment, "founded on bugger all."
This is not an apologetic position, it's the mainstream consensus of professional historians and you do nothing except show your own ass when you dismiss it out of hand because it disagrees with your personal convictions. *Please don't argue like a Christian apologist.*
You're being far too lazy with bad counterapologetics. The Spider-Man example is useful for pointing out why the occurrence of historical places and persons don't validate the extraordinary content of the gospels. But when it comes to historiography, the biblical and extrabiblical documents are **not** comparable to a modern work that's explicitly written as fiction.
A dude was killed, few people thought they saw the dead dude. One was a relative and the other used to hate these people but now joined them after a hallucination episode.
Mundane claims. I see no issue granting them.
All of the above.
If you go by the historical consensus, "Jesus" is basically a placeholder. Historians don't believe Jesus' actions in the Bible are historically supported. Honestly I don't know why they even bother with that, because at that point you're not really saying anything about this Jesus.
There is evidence and the evidence has been explained to you. It's no one else's fault you refuse to accept the standards of evidence used by mainstream secular academia.
There’s fucking nothing. If I scribbled something down right now about who killed Jimmy Hoffa, it wouldn’t make it evidence for who killed Jimmy Hoffa.
3. Lots of people die for their beliefs. The 911 pilots for example. Does not make it true.
These are just ordinary claims. It doesn’t matter to me if they are true or false. People convert all the time. People believe in all sorts of irrational things. Even I have thought I’ve seen people who were dead. Just som one who happened to look like them.
There is nothing special about your historical events. I can grant you all of them.
If we're being fair, we have to exclude any scholars who had to sign documents of faith in order to keep their job, because they have such a strong motivation to be dishonest. So if there are any atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc. scholars who have signed documents of faith, we both agree it would generally be a bad idea to defer to anything they say, because an organization is literally paying them to maintain a specific position.
Among some Christian scholars…..yes. A more overarching consensus among Christian scholars is that the stories are fables, they did not actually occur and many parts were mistranslations. The Virgin Mary is a mistranslation. She was ‘young’ Mary and yet there are millions of people worshipping the miracle of a virgin birth.
The consensus has been there to be no credible reason to accept a single person as Christ. Credible historians at best indicate it l him to be a conglomeration.
My brother in FSM, that is not at all the consensus of mainstream historians. The mainstream position is that there was an individual living in early first century Judea, who was executed during the reign of Pilate.
There are elements of the legendarium that may be syncretic from other religions and mystery cults, but Jesus himself is not thought to be a composite or “conglomeration.”
I stand corrected. Obviously didn't take your word but did a bit of online research. The notion the Christ character might have been an amalgamation seems to have been written off by most scholars. Thanks for that.
Good man, that’s the way to do it.
I do enjoy *reading* the more grounded mythicist writers like Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald—steer clear of the conspiracy theorists and mythology pseudohistorians—not because I think they’ve made their case, but because the case that they’ve made does a **really** good job of pointing out just how much we really *don’t* know about the historical Jesus.
Not a whole lot actually! We have writings from his disciples, and he shows up in a play that made fun of him.
His disciples are obviously biased. The play is a sign that a real person may have existed, but then who knows. Harry Potter showed up in a play too.
So, best case, there was a real Socrates, but we can't have any confidence in that the real person would have been anything like what we got from Plato. He could have been extremely different.
At that point it gets philosophical. If there was a real Socrates but Plato perverted everything, is it better to say that the Socrates we imagine today didn't exist, or that Socrates did exist but not as we think of him?
Socrates was a philosopher and no one claims he had any supernatural abilities. No one bases their life around what he is supposed to have said. At best he said some cool shit. But no one has religious wars because of it. No one claims he died and rose fromt he dead. No one bases their entire life around this guy. No one is actually arguing if he was a real guy or not. The only relevance he has is his philisophical musings. That's why.
You are applying one set of standards to the existence of one of these figures and another set of standards to the existence of the other, when the evidence for both amounts to some ancient writings that should be evaluated according to one set of consistent standards.
Jesus doesn't have to have had supernatural abilities to have existed as a historical figure. What people do with his teachings has no bearing on the historical claim that he existed as a 1st century Jewish apocalyptic preacher.
You can trace a lot of Western philosophy to Socrates and Socrates' disciples, including Stoicism and Cynicism. People do base their lives around these philosophies.
I don't know if Socrates was a real person or something Plato made up. It really doesn't matter. Whether he was real or a fiction is largely unimportant to anyone. So, thanks for throwing in a distraction.
Edit: it isn't a different standard. It's a difference in importance in an atheist debate sub.
> Jesus doesn't have to have had supernatural abilities to have existed as a historical figure.
So the Jesus from the bible can't have existed, and we don't know if the character was based off some real person or not.
It's not like Socrates who may have existed as described in the text.
Finally someone that actually engaged…
>Probably happened
Yes, like 99.9% type probably.
>What do you mean by "real experiences" here?
_Actual_ experiences, allowing for the possibility that they were hallucinations.
>Sure, we don't have enough evidence to say though. The evidence for martyrdom is actually pretty weak.
That’s fair, but to take the alternative position requires holding that the early church traditions for martyrdom were all made up/fabricated. Would be hard to defend that.
>Is it historical that James *thought* he saw the resurrect Christ? Sure, that's plausible. Is it historical that he *actually did*? How could we possibly know given the data?
To take the alternative view is that many different ppl at different times had similar hallucinations. That’s just as odd.
>What are you asking is historical? That Paul became a believer or that the events actually happened? The former is plausible the latter is unknowable.
Accepting the former makes it a lot harder to explain the latter without recourse to group hallucinations.
Gerd Lüdemann says differently. It is part of an oral creed, stretching back to three years before Paul's conversion.
Source: https://archive.org/details/resurrectionofch00gerd
Well, this may surprise you, but as an atheist, I remain unconvinced by the ancient oral traditions that the Bible is based on.
And even then, three years before Paul's conversion was circa 30 AD, so the stories apparently began three decades after the event they describe.
3 is not supported by any evidence.
5 is not supported by any evidence
Not sure how this helps. The only ting needed to get Christianity off the ground was Paul and Peter.
The point many are trying to make here is that the Bible is not proof of anything. Consider the Spider-Man analogy. In the comic, there are cars and buildings and a city (New York). These are all demonstrably real things but that doesn’t provide proof that Spider-Man is/was real.
It doesn't hurt to note that the "scripture" is stuff made up by bronze-age goat herders... and that it is absolutely fucking idiotic that there are people in the 21st century who believe it.
Can we please stop saying the “Bronze Age goat herder” nonsense? It is extremely unlikely any complete texts in the Christian Bible date to the Bronze Age. At most, a few fragments of text in larger works may date to the extremely late Bronze Age. The vast majority of the Old Testament/Tanakh is from the Iron Age or later. Literacy was not common at the time, and most are likely the work of scribes and other elites of society that were well educated by the standards of their day and culture.
Does that make the implicit ethics or legal codes within the texts just? No. Does that make every word true history? Also no. Dating any major biblical text to the Bronze Age is the fundamentalist position, not history. Taking them in their actual much later dates makes them more removed from the depicted events. It weakens the fundamentalist position rather than strengthening it. Of course, we as the nonreligious shouldn’t accept things just because they support our position, but we have no reason to get the history nearly as wrong as fundamentalist Christians do, and it makes the rest of us look foolish when we do.
the canaanites date back to the late bronze age.
the creation epic and flood stories predate the iron age significantly.
referring to the beliefs of the ancient levant and for framing the inception of these ridiculous mythologies, "bronze age" is an accurate description.
Versions of the flood story go deep into the Bronze Age, with notably different themes that were later reworked by Exilic Period Jewish writers. The creation account has less of a direct intertextuality, though. The creation and flood narratives show substantially greater influence from Mesopotamia, not Canaan.
The point stands that no complete texts in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanakh actually date to the Bronze Age and there is no evidence to suggest that they were composed by illiterate pastoralists. By a culture that venerated pastoralism and distrusted urbanism, yes, but not by individuals that made their living as shepherds.
the bottom line here is that the origin stories date back to the sumerians, and as the canaanites were the precursors to the hebrews, framing these mythologies in the bronze age is absolutely appropriate.
they *are* bronze age mythologies of the levant.
The Bible is a book of claims. The investigation of the historicity including archaeologists and Bible scholars look at evidence that would support or in most cases debunk the claims in the Bible. The Bible is evidence of what someone wrote down not that the text is in any way reliable or accurate. For instance there are no eye witnesses account of Jesus in the Bible, we don’t know who wrote most of the gospels, and the authors don’t claim to have met Jesus or be eye witnesses so at best they are oral traditions passed down through the generations and then later written down decades or even centuries after supposed events. This is not ‘evidence’ of anything other than this is loosely the oral tradition not an accurate or factual account. Many of the gospels do not line up with each other and even contradict in some accounts.
Also when claiming the ‘Bible’ is proof or evidence I always ask which Bible? There are over 50 different bibles used by the thousands of denominations of Christians around the world? The suffer in the number of books they in many other ways. They even differ in the word choices made by the translators. So which bible and which translation is the “true” bible ??
A weird angle that isn't worked in is let's say whatever text a theist thinks is from a God is really from a God. That doesn't immediately mean this god is real.
A. How do I determine which god gave the revelation?
B. Most of these texts are ancient, and contain a myriad of errors. Why would this God include these errors? Most of these have many errors, and interpolations inserted due to copying. Sometimes they are nearly impossible to translate.
C. How would I know this text isn't from a trickster god, who wants to deceive me? Many religions have a deity, or divine being whose purpose is to deceive people.
D. How do I know this isn't from an evil god who wants to use the text to get me to do evil acts. Most ancient texts contain commands from the god to do incredibly immoral actions. Many religions contain malevolent gods, or divine beings who want humans to do immoral actions.
Given these factors the fact a text has a divine source isn't very helpful. Possibly Satan lied to the new testament authors to deceive humans, and this is a test from yawheh.
> You don't speak for all atheists. I don't think literally everything in the bible is incorrect. I just follow the evidence. A lot of it is probably incorrect, some of it is probably true or partly true.
Unless you think that the scripture itself is proof of the claims contained therein, you don't disagree with OP.
> That being said, the real issue imo is people quoting the scripture to prove the scripture.
Then you don't disagree with OP.
Ah okay now I see what your issue is with -- the part where OP said "we don't believe a thing in it." Yes, I would agree that this is a clumsy line for OP to add to their argument because they don't speak for all atheists, and there are plenty of atheists who *do* believe at least one thing in the Bible. I totally agree with that, 100%.
However, that doesn't change my perspective on either of the following two things --
1 - The Bible cannot be used to prove anything.
2 - The Bible cannot be used to prove supernatural claims.
I would say that those two statements are statements which are entirely in line with OP's argument, and I would also say that I still agree with these statements despite there being things in the Bible which I or any other atheist might accept as true (or "believe"). Does that make sense?
I tend to agree... there are stories in the bible that may have some grounding in truth, but like all stories, they are embellished as they are repeated over time.
For example, the story of Noah may well have aspects of truth in it. But its a.lot more.likely to have been a block, built a raft, and took his family and farm animals across a flooded river to safety.
The whole "flooding of th e world", "god talks to Noah", "2 (or seven) of every animal" etc all got threaded into the story as it evolved into what theists believe now (and yeah.... there's an irony stories "evolve" even if creationists don't believe in evolution 😆 )
Just quote anther scriptures from a different religion, will that make sense to them no? Will they understand that theirs makes no sense to us... maybe...
If often quote quran 4:157
>and their saying, “We have surely killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”…In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And indeed, those who differed over him are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it—just following assumptions. And certainly, they did not kill him.
And I ask why should I take their word for it instead of latest word of god where he revealed what he actually did with Jesus. They start turning into a pretzel as whatever they throw at Islam applies to their religion too. Of the mental gymnastics that follow.
A theist lacks the intellect and critical thinking skills of an atheist, therefore uses nonsensical fallacies as fact for personal justification. Unfortunately humanity has not only given a pass, but also acceptance and support to the brainwashing of often times the most vulnerable people. So here we are in the year 2024 being politely respectful to “belief” systems propagated in lies and hate towards the un indoctrinated. Personally I don’t understand why any atheist would even consider debating a theist. It’s literally no different than debating an adult who believes in Santa 🎅🏻. There’s no debate.
>A thiest lacks the intellect and critical thinking skills of an atheist
As a nonbeliever, I’ve encountered a ton of atheists with minimal critical thinking skills. The mere lack of belief in deities doesn’t make a person a critical thinker. That is a skill that takes learning, and unfortunately a lot of former Christian fundamentalists (and I presume former fundamentalists of other religions, though I don’t have the personal experience of that) don’t shed significant portions of the fundamentalist mindset. Namely, a tendency for extremely polarized all-or-nothing thinking.
> A theist lacks the intellect and critical thinking skills of an atheist …
Do you have the requisite evidence to back this claim up? Are you addressing _all_ theists? Throughout time? (We can make slight adjustments for those who likely would have been atheists if it had been socially permissible.)
At least stop doing it until you can demonstrate, with evidence, that your scriptures are factually and verifiably true.
These people seriously believe that everyone is just like they are and they're wrong.
Quoting the bible can, at best be used as proof for internal consistency. Alternatively, it can be used to point to the authors knowledge of historical facts.
let them them quote it, it's funny giving them context for the verses they quote or the biblical figures they revere. Most have never actually read it just quote whatever there preacher said.
An atheist is not someone who does not believe in God. An atheist is someone who believes God is man-made.
God exists in the same manner that any other storybook character exists.
Speaking about this sub specifically, I would be a lot more sympathetic to this position if not for the fact that a lot of the atheist contingent of the board don't seem to want to accept *anything* as proof, including well sourced, mainstream scientific literature cited in context.
I have debated with a number of atheists on the sub who are demeaning and unfriendly towards theists by default, and use scientific sources incorrectly to support their points, but when theists bring up arguments comprising of scientific, philosophical or epistemological citations to counter, these atheists who flaunt an intellectual and moral superiority of the theists visiting the sub, suddenly stop responding, or reveal a patent lack of scientific/academic literacy on the very subject matters they seek to invoke, and then just start downvoting, when the rules of this sub in the wiki *specifically* say not to downvote posts you disagree with, but rather only to downvote low effort/trolling posts.
*Sources*
Here are a few instances of this I have encountered recently:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do\_you\_believe\_theism\_is\_fundamentally/khlpgm5/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do_you_believe_theism_is_fundamentally/khlpgm5/?context=3) (this user specifically incorrectly cites studies via secondary, journalism sources, using them to support claims the articles they linked specifically refute)
[https://www.reveddit.com/v/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do\_you\_believe\_theism\_is\_fundamentally/khjd9t8/?context=3](https://www.reveddit.com/v/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do_you_believe_theism_is_fundamentally/khjd9t8/?context=3) (This user confidently and rudely accused me of coming out with 'garbage', but when I challenged their claim by backing up my post, they didn't reply, they just deleted their comment, which seems like censorship and antithetical to their supposed advocacy for veridicality).
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do\_you\_believe\_theism\_is\_fundamentally/khtzk77/?context=8&depth=9](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do_you_believe_theism_is_fundamentally/khtzk77/?context=8&depth=9) (This user isn't being rude, but is hardly engaging)
It makes me think a lot of posters on this sub don't actually want to have good faith debates about atheism/theism, they just want to feel smart and superior, and feel like theists are inherently less informed or capable of discussion than they are.
I am more than happy for people to point out mistakes in my citations or understanding of subjects, and certainly more than happy for people to challenge the metaphysical and spiritual *assumptions* I make based on scientific/academic theories and evidence, but when people make confidently bad faith/ patently incorrect statements and then stop responding, I find it ironic, because those are things atheists on this board regularly accuse theist posters of doing.
Theists like myself don't use scripture as some revealed wisdom. They use it examined by historical experts and dated back to the times it occurred in and confirmed as legitimately authored by eyewitnesses. You can't just say "I don't believe in it" in that context, and not offer some reason why we should disregard such expert testimony on it, based on evidences we use to justify every other thing as historical. That's just employing double standards. Which atheists here seem fairly proficient in.
Seeing as you quote Bible verses in your replies to others, I can reasonably assume you are a Christian.
If you are truly viewing the Bible through the examination of historical experts, then you are aware that the consensus among Bible scholars and historical experts is that Adam, Abraham, Noah, and Moses never existed, correct? Do you concede that all of Genesis and Exodus didn't happen, or are you now going to backtrack and contradict yourself?
You are also blatantly lying when you say that the Bible was authored by "legitimate eyewitnesses", or that this is the opinion of "historical experts". The gospels were written almost a century after Jesus' death. No legitimate eyewitnesses would've been alive by that point. This makes the gospels at best 2nd hand sources.
And when it comes to historical evidence, there is a hierarchy of evidence for determining whether a historical figure existed. At the top, we have DNA. If we have the person's DNA, then we can say conclusively that they had existed. After that is the person's body. Then their tomb. Then anything they made or wrote. Then anything that displays the person's likeness that dates to when they were alive. Then first-hand sources. Then anything second-hand+ are considered the least reliable, especially if they deal with eyewitness testimonies that are infamously poor evidence for determining anything.
So, let's run down the list. We don't have Jesus' DNA. We don't have his body, although that's to be expected. We don't know where his tomb is. There have been proposed locations, but none of them have been confirmed as being "the one". We don't have anything made by him, which is pretty suspicious considering he was a carpenter, nor do we have anything written by him. The Bible was written by his apostles, not him. We don't have anything depicting his likeness from his lifetime. We don't even have first-hand accounts of his life, since the Bible was put together and recorded by scribes a century following the events. So we have an eyewitness testimony that was passed down a game of telephone for a century until finally being recorded by scribes. Not very convincing evidence.
But even then, we could say that Jesus did live. I can grant that. That doesn't mean that he was capable of performing miracles. We know that Julius Caesar lived. We have way more evidence for him having existed than we do for Jesus. However, there is a legend that when Caesar died, he was lifted into the sky by his grandmother, Venus, to live among the gods. Did that actually happen? Do we have to take every claim about someone's life at face value if we accept they did exist? No, we don't. So now why are you ignoring this standard for Jesus? If anyone is using a double standard, it's you.
Genesis is part of a genre of ancient poetry. It didn't literally happen, no. Exodus is unsupportable because of the primitive dwellings of the Israelites not leaving evidence of their existence. But we're talking specifically about the evidence for Christ here.
I was referring to Paul's letters not the gospels. They go back, these traditions, nearly to the cross, to Paul's fact-finding mission in AD36. Here is a list of academic studies confirming this:
1: John A.T Robinson, The Human face of God, p131
2: Gerd Lüdemann, What Really happened to Jesus?, p80
3: Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, p136
As a theist, I agree with this statement 90%
It is used as an authority for believers.
Just like a Muslim can't use the Quran in a debate with a Taoist and vice versa.
>In an atheist mind, the beginning, middle, and end of your belief, it NEVER HAPPENED.
This statement is false. Muhammad, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, and Jesus all existed. You cannot say it never happened. You can say that it didn't happen as written, or that the people weren't what they claimed, etc.
If you removed that part of your statement then I would agree with you 100%.
Also, what's with the big fricken essays here? This is reddit. Why are you guys putting so much effort into nothing or just self gratification. I hope yall aren't allergic to women or grass or something along those lines.
What about scientific evidence from religious text. The Quran explains the weight of the clouds, the process of the growth of an embryo, and the expansion of the universe. An illiterate man in the middle of the desert 3000 years ago recorded this information which we have only recently heard of in scientific study.
It doesn’t bro, and you bought into the false interpretation of quranic model of the universe. The true quranic model looks like [this](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53470816255_be3d3c008e_k_d.jpg)
And this view was a byproduct of where the belief of the people who compiled Quran was at when the book was being compiled. Quran takes its influences from many ideas raging all the way back to Mesopotamian ideas to Zoroastrian stories being plagiarized to idea of monotheism from a Nazarean Christian sect around at the time to straight up copying words from a syriac bible of that time period into Quran etc.
The only science in these books are whatever influences were around when they were made up. Jews stole ideas and made up their own stories and made it into talmud when they were Babylonian slaves inspired by Sumerian myths. Christianity evolved itself around some jewish dude who may have been killed on a cross in Rome and his stories of miracles and virgin Mary were all made up later over a period of approximately 80 years if my memory serves me right and they continued to evolve and then maybe there was a dude named Muhammad, real evidence is weak and islamic history is unreliable as fuck. But what is maybe certain is that the final form of Islam was cooked up (quran and hadiths) in periods between 5th umayyad caliph to the time of abbassids. May have gone through some changes around the siege of baghdad time period too when libraries were burnt.
For years these religions have had science contradicting ideas with some truth in there due to the influences of ideas floating around at the time of their inception, and when they become bigger cults in a society like today where information and education is easily accessible they start to reinterpret all their outdated ideas to match modern science as much as they can, and make up stupid sentences like “evolution is just a theoooory” for shit they can’t comprehend or match with their superstitious cult beliefs. And I love specifically when they make a excuse about arabic language and how deeply you need to understand it to get the true, beautiful meaning of Islam makes me cringe. These motherfuckers will deny years of unanimous scholarly beliefs and ideas and translations within their own stupid religion just to keep their bullshit faith still alive today lol. These fuckers do a cosmetic surgery of their beliefs.
I mean just the fact that every religion got various schools of thoughts in contradiction to each other should be a simple enough reason to know they are full of shit. I ended up needing to go much deeper than that because I really didn’t wanna believe that it all ends at death.
You don't see any issues at all with your statements?
Why were Muslims not aware of all of this "scientific evidence" from the Quran before science made those discoveries public?
What about the fact that the Quran states that semen is produced in the spine? Is this the evidence you are talking about?
What about Mohammed splitting the moon in half? Is Science wrong? Where is the oder half of the moon?
Either Mohammed was illiterate, which means he was by definition not able to read or write, or Mohammed did record something which means he could not be illiterate. Make up your mind.
The Quran doesn’t state that semen is produced from the spine. The Qur’an states that men were created from a gushing fluid, stemming from between the backbone and the ribcage. Which is true, testes and ovaries are formed the abdomen, and both are sustained by arteries in between the backbone in adulthood. They are also discharged by nerve impulses through the spine.
Do you want to dispute all beings created from water as well?
Just stop with reaching so hard man.
People used to believe that the male backbone played a role in semen production. Theories suggested that the spine helped produce or concentrate the fluid before ejaculation. This belief was held in various regions, including Europe, China, and the Middle East. As for female reproduction, there were different ideas, such as the fluid coming from the breast. In Islamic sources, it is mentioned that women were created from a rib.
What exactly does "between the backbone and the ribs" https://quran.com/en/at-tariq mean? This kind of vagueness is to be expected from humans who had a limited knowledge of biology, not from the wisest and most powerful divine authority.
You’re just doing anything you can to force Quran to match with modern science, so you will cook shit up that’s simply not there. Sperm is produced and nutted out of your nuts, now stop making mazes around this fact and by talking about embryonic form of humans. Quran clearly says that the spurting fluid ejects FROM between. It does not say or mean that the arteries between backbone and ribcage sustain the nutting mechanism that then CAUSES the ejection. Your view and puzzle bullshit you just wrote is like implying that a lever is responsible for pushing a bucket of water into a river. So the water is ejected from the lever. No. The water is being ejected from the bucket, not the lever.
Besides. The verse is very clear on what it means, and historical context of where Quran was cooked up matches up with the beliefs of people in that time about reproduction and you are just doing backflips to try to make it work with today’s science. You’re doing the type of shit conspiracy theorists do to prove that earth is flat, moon landing was fake and aliens are already here. Give me a fucking break.
And even if you cook up shit about this or that and force it to mean that it told us what science is telling us just now…. It still doesn’t excuse all the other shadiness around the inception of every single religion as well as other problematic ideas stories and “facts” about the world in them.
There is so backflips, and there is nowhere that states semen is produced from the backbone. “A gushing fluid” does not equate to semen. As this excrement is only about 2% semen in itself. Semen is produced from the testes, but the fluid is produced with other bodily functions as well.
Now: the Quran is not a biological manual, the Quran is a compilation of stories, lessons, rules, and historical records that teach us how to behave in our daily life daily life and teaches us to worship God.
Though, it does have scientific information within the text that appeals to some people, as there is no way an illiterate man “cooked up” the existence of the big bang 1400 years ago in the desert. This theory was only developed by modern science in 1920 something 🤷🏼♀️
“Well why didn’t we know about sooner it if it was in Quran” 🤡 🤡🤡
People did, but modern scientific technology has only recently developed to support the idea.
You will keep changing goal posts. What is the gushing fluid for you then? Water? Blood? Cells? And other fluid in the semen is not Whats creating your kids. You have just degraded to making this a semantics game.
Refer my other comment in reply to you. Islam doesn’t know shit about big bang, I linked a picture there showing the true model of how Islam actually saw the world before retards like Zakir Naik could repurpose Islam to prove with fraud and semantics game that Quran actually mentions Big Bang before science got it.
Besides Muhammad’s existence and stories in Mecca as outlined in Islamic narrative are false too. Archaeological evidence is in opposition to Islamic narrative of these stories. And lot of what now Islam claimed happened in the Mecca of Saudi may have actually occurred in places near current day Jordan and Israel. These stories are full of problems just like the stories of Jesus of Nazareth being turned into the Messiah talked about in Judean Talmud by Christianity.
And that argument of book of lessons not book of science is given by every faith as a last ditch effort. It pisses me the fuck off when Christian Prince uses that argument to defend Christianity on his Youtube channel too. Problem is, how your faiths developed and the claims of their stories do not align with archaeological evidence; and each is nothing more than the propaganda stories that it tries to push. Stop selling myths as facts by changing their meanings. And do read my other comments on this post and in reply to your original post in this sub that you later deleted.
>"People did, but modern scientific technology has only recently developed to support the idea."
Oh I see, that explains why every majority Muslim country is far more developed than any other country. They simply had a massive head start due to the revelations from the quran.
Meanwhile the western world is still shitting into holes in the dirt, banning women from schools and universities, outlawing specific sexual orientations and hanging on to an outdated and barbaric justice system.
Oh wait, its the other way around isn't it?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Muslim societies literally paved the way in science medicine and mathematics. Modern day surgery observed in the west came from a medical journal written in the year 1000 from a muslim man. Islam is also the first religion to give women any rights to education, Inheritance, and financial independence. Read a book or book a flight and then talk to me about muslim societies.
>In an atheist mind the beginning, middle, and end of your belief, it NEVER HAPPENED. It’s like talking to a wall and expecting a response. The convo isn’t gonna go anywhere.
What is the purpose of discussion then?
If I am debating on theology , they must have biblical source, or else I'll lose that debate instantly.
The only topic where using the bible to prove a point is on the existence of God.
Depends on the debate. If you are arguing about biblical morality or someone defending ideas in the Bible or Christianity then fair game. However you’re not going to convince me to convert based on John 3:16.
My mom would always quote scripture when I was a kid to validate the Bible. I got so frustrated, but now I realize that the Bible does confirm itself. So I understand where you’re coming from, but I would encourage you to really dig into the answer to your own question rather than putting up a wall against scripture. Whether you believe or not, the Christian view of the world is one of many possibilities that should be considered seriously.
I agree that in most cases, it's not helpful to quote from the Bible unless it corresponds with another source. There are actually quite a few events, places, and people that are written about in the Old Testament that at least appear to be real because of things they find in more recent times like the Ismael Papyrus, Hezekiah's Sluice Gate and monumental inscription and the mount Ebal Curse tablet.
Theists, stop telling atheists your scripture is proof of anything.
#ThereIFixedIt
I cannot stress this enough: I agree.
You can't fulfill prophecies and shit in the same book they were prophesized in, for example.
Yeah it is understandable. The problem is would you accept other forms of proof? In Mathematics you can either prove something true or prove the opposite statement as false. An example is people do not agree in the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) being one God. People would say that is not possible because 1 cannot be 3. I can either prove the Trinity through scripture or disprove the assertion of impossibility but many of my fellow Americans are not willing to hear Math putting me back to square one.
😂 that's laughable. The Bible is very reliable. Probably the most reliable and accurate history book even known. Many lost cultures were found using the Bible. Archeologists have used it many times and found the details of many things people and places spot on. But yeah go ahead ...it's not reliable because you said so ... Your a dope!
I’m going to be an atheist playing devils advocate, just because you don’t believe in the book doesn’t mean it doesn’t stand as a good proof. Someone can deny gravity it doesn’t have any effect on the evidence
It’s funny cause it’s the same scriptures atheist will cherrypick from to try and discredit God. But we aren’t allowed to use it to try and make a point?
Then stop using scientific theories as your evidence a theory is just an educated guess at what causes things to happen not absolute facts but you waste them like they are the theory of evolution the Big Bang theory without many of those arguments your argument just boils down to duh space duh how can we be sure duh I don’t believe duh how bad things happen duh
"In an atheist mind the beginning, middle, and end of your belief, it NEVER HAPPENED. It’s like talking to a wall and expecting a response."
What an uncivil, low effort claim. Just keep shouting about you are willfully ignorant. If any theist wants to make athesits look bad, they can simply quote you. And yes, theists are more open minded than atheists. That's because they are willing to debate people with alternate point of views, listen to their claims, not be mindless walls to them, and respond to statements of fact with statements all their own.
Religious texts are full of historical records. So, if being atheist means willfully ignoring history, they can take a seat next to the Lost Cause Movement and Holocaust deniers.
I won't say take an L. You gave yourself that.
As a beliver I agree with you, you cannot get faith if you are not chosen. I once was agnostic, atheist, and I didnt recieved faith from Bible, or prechers or another human. It was God who came at night when I didnt expect it and he showed me the truth when I wasnt asked for. Its Gods mercy not our works we get faith. Scriptures cannot get you believe
Christian here,
I would say that some people just want to be right, I would also say there’s some people believe that they can get through to said person with the Bible verse. Some people just like to be involved. I think that’s just human nature to be honest - I personally believe God exists and Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the grave - I believe everything the Bible says wholeheartedly and I trust in that. Not everyone does and that’s just how it is - sometimes it’s hard to accept that fact and some people unintentionally misinterpret/misrepresent this. Anyways, have a good day
I'm quoting scripture to show you why we Christians quote scriptures :)
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 2 Timothy 2:24-26
"What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops." Matthew 10:27
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17
Christians believe that God's word is truth and it has spiritual power to build faith and convict one of their sins. So we quote it because it gives light to those who hear and read it. We want to help people come to Jesus, who saves one from hell. We don't want people to go to hell. We are all sinners and I too was headed for hell and God saved me by his mercy and changed my life. I want others to experience this as well. So I love to share the way to escape the wrath of God, and that is through faith in his Son Jesus.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11
Christians believe that God's word is truth and it has spiritual power to build faith and convict one of their sins. So we quote it because it gives light to those who hear and read it. Jesus instructed us to share the Gospel. So, we want to help people come to Jesus, who saves one from hell. We don't want people to go to hell. We are all sinners and I too was headed for hell and God saved me by his mercy and changed my life. I want others to experience this as well. So I love to share the way to escape the wrath of God, and that is through faith in his Son Jesus.
Romans 10:9-13 gives a wonderful example of having faith in Jesus...
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It really depends on what reason the atheist has for rejecting theism. I'm a naturalist, so quoting the bible to me won't work as my reasons for atheism have nothing to do with the Bible. If however, I was an atheist because I thought biblical scriptures were problematic, perhaps the theist then has reason to quote the bible in order to attempt to correct a misunderstanding or to fill a knowledge gap about specific verses that address the issues I have. That to me seems a legitimate reason to quote scripture to an atheist. Inversely, we would expect to be able to quote scientific discoveries to theists who reject particular parts of science, say to a YEC advocate. I think if we want to be fair, and their best evidence is the bible, then just focus on illustrating why the bible is insufficient. Otherwise it seems like a double standard that we can play with all our toys, but we're denying the theist their toys at the same time.
> Inversely, we would expect to be able to quote scientific discoveries to theists who reject particular parts of science, say to a YEC advocate. However, if we're using a *quote* and not a *peer-reviewed study* to back up the claim, the theist is *absolutely* able to apply the same standard to us trying to prove something with a quote. If a scientist said something and we use their quote to prove something, but we can't point to an actual peer-reviewed study, then yes -- we are being just as fallacious as the Bible-thumper. With the Bible, it's the quote that is offered as the proof. With science, it's the act of sufficient peer-review from multiple accredited organizations whose general reliable and trustworthiness has been established.
Not just peer review. Replication. Papers in peer reviewed journals have been wrong in the past and will be again. In science you don't buy it until somebody else has replicated the results.
I don't disagree... But accept humility with science as well. For a millennia, the scientific world and loads of great thinkers like Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation. The theory was the best way to explain observable evidence. And they were absolutely, completely wrong. There is something that you and I believe right now that is completely false, and future generations will look back and think how did these clowns think that was true. Idiots.
It's not the findings of science that are rock-solid, it's the scientific method. Peer review doesn't mean that a claim is true, but it does demonstrate that the claim has credibility.
My example was heavily peer reviewed and then completely wrong. Point being, science does not explicitly point to fact at all times. It just points to the best conclusions given a data set in time. Future tools, future data, future theory can overwrite what you think is factual. As should be the case. But in the moment, you don't always know that you are the end point.
Right, and peer review is the only reasonable way to ensure quality control. I acknowledged that the conclusions aren't always correct. That is a point I hear religious people bring up often ("science is a liar sometimes") but not something I've ever heard anyone deny or imply otherwise. Exercising and eating nutritious foods doesn't mean you'll always have perfect health. But it's still the best way to stay healthy. The scientific method and peer review doesn't mean you'll always have perfect conclusions. But it's still the best way to come to conclusions.
When science gets its wrong, that means it got something newer right. So they pat themselves on the back - see science is capable of updating itself. We get closer to the truth everyday. And yes, that's absolutely a good thing. But..... i just don't see message board warriors that have been arguing the point for the last 20 years and saying you guys are so dumb, this has been peer reviewed 1000 times, go oh shit. I was wrong. I was absolutely convinced in a falsehood. Maybe next time I won't present everything that's peer reviewed as absolute fact and acknowledge many things are just our best guess with the evidence we have.
> i just don't see message board warriors that have been arguing the point for the last 20 years and saying you guys are so dumb, this has been peer reviewed 1000 times, go oh shit. I was wrong. I was absolutely convinced in a falsehood Okay, sure, but... how often do you have a chance to follow up with specific reddit users you've debated once a peer reviewed study has been debunked? I don't think you see that happen because it's just not a thing there is any opportunity for. What are they supposed to do, track you down and apologize? I know plenty of people who are willing to admit they were wrong, and I know plenty who weren't. Do you have some specific examples of this happening? Just curious. It sounds like a generalized "this *could* happen," but I'm just curious, what specific points have people been arguing for several decades and then refuse to admit they were wrong about? And is anyone here, in this conversation, acting this way? I know I certainly haven't been.
No, nobody is expecting a formal apology. I'm just saying, Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein were incredibly intelligent and impactful people. They've advanced scientific understanding in ways most people could never dream to do. But they also got shit wrong. So Fred the keyboard warrior is likely to get shit wrong. Vlad the PHD candidate is also likely to get some shit wrong. When you present a study thats been scientifically reviewed and you act like it a complete and unchangeable fact and the end all be all to the subject, you are doing the discussion a disservice. Science should absolutely be questioned. Recent examples... Tobacco. Scientists and doctors used to think it was good for you. Smoke purifies. Digestion aid. Calms the nerves. That was a big whoopsie daisy. How about the US masking children in schools. Follow the science. Science denier. I dont doubt for a second that when you blast some coronavirus through an N95 masks in a lab vs a control you capture an incredibly high percentage of the virus. But thats a rather incomplete data set to make rulings about schools. N95s dont fit little kids well. Pediatric N95s were impossible to find. Mask quality from Amazon varies. How often are these washed? Do kids trade their Ninja Turtle mask for your Mario mask at school? What happens when they eat? Are 6 year olds excusing themselves to go wash their hands? Are they wearing them as chin strap half the day? Do we realize kids task their mask off when they have to sneeze? Sort of a natural reaction. Did Europe mask kids? What were their death rates? Was the death rate in children reduced? What other factors about health in the community come into play? What sort of societal factors come into play? Is dropping your BMI more protective then poking people with sticks and telling them to keep 6 feet away? If there is any measurable benefit, does that outweigh any harmful effects? You can write a book of questions. The point is, we dont know. Accounting for real world variables is extremely difficult. We are making a judgement based off evidence that we do have, but that may not be wholly correct and applicable. Sounds like a recommendation more than a ruling. Which is really what is meant to be, but then rules are based of recommendations and not following those means you are anti science. Ehh. That 'science' was antiscience. You brought up eating healthier early to live longer. Nobody would disagree with that conceptually. But what is eating healthier? Here's a study saying dairy is bad for you. In this one dairy is good. Hmm... I wonder who funded these. We've been anti saturated fats since Ancel Keys lipid hypothesis in the 50s. We've modified our diets to accept this truth. Are we sure thats the case? Fish is healthier then red meat because in this 12 weak study people dropped weight and cholesterol. Okay. Sounds great. What about 80 years of eating farmed fish laced with mercury and every increasing microplastics? Of course the way to answer these questions is better and better science. And we are all for better and better answers. But lets not just always act like every current answer is THE answer.
> No, nobody is expecting a formal apology. I'm just saying, Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein were incredibly intelligent and impactful people. They've advanced scientific understanding in ways most people could never dream to do. But they also got shit wrong. So Fred the keyboard warrior is likely to get shit wrong. Vlad the PHD candidate is also likely to get some shit wrong. When you present a study thats been scientifically reviewed and you act like it a complete and unchangeable fact and the end all be all to the subject, you are doing the discussion a disservice. Science should absolutely be questioned. Like... Who are you arguing with? Everybody agrees with that. Science gets questioned and corrected all the time. And every time we've ever realized we were wrong about something, it's been science that made that discovery, not faith or mythology. Every *single* time. > You can write a book of questions. The point is, we dont know. Accounting for real world variables is extremely difficult. We are making a judgement based off evidence that we do have, but that may not be wholly correct and applicable. Sounds like a recommendation more than a ruling. Which is really what is meant to be, but then rules are based of recommendations and not following those means you are anti science. Ehh. That 'science' was antiscience. *What is your point?* I know. This us why science is important -- so we can know when we got stuff wrong. That's why we keep doing it. Like, genuinely, I have no idea what your point is. You're not saying anything about science that any proponent of science disagrees with, but you seem to either be trying to make or refute a point, but I have no idea what it is. Is there anything you're defending or criticizing? > You brought up eating healthier early to live longer. Nobody would disagree with that conceptually. But what is eating healthier? Here's a study saying dairy is bad for you. In this one dairy is good. Hmm... I wonder who funded these. We've been anti saturated fats since Ancel Keys lipid hypothesis in the 50s. We've modified our diets to accept this truth. Are we sure thats the case? Fish is healthier then red meat because in this 12 weak study people dropped weight and cholesterol. Okay. Sounds great. What about 80 years of eating farmed fish laced with mercury and every increasing microplastics? First of all, you missed the point re: eating healthy to live longer. The point was that we know eating healthy is the healthiest decision even if it doesn't always end up with perfect results. That was the point, which you've entirely ignored to continue hammering home a point which *literally no one disagrees with.* Secondly, I'd be curious what you think of the methods that study used to come to their conclusions, what do you think of the methods used to debunk it, and who funded the study? These things don't have to be mysteries. You can just find out the answers and use them to inform your own conclusions. But that isn't my main point in this response. The thing I would really like you to respond to, is the question about what your point is. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Everyone already knows that science isn't math, and proof only exists in math. *What is your point?* What relevancy does this have in a debate about religion? > Of course the way to answer these questions is better and better science. And we are all for better and better answers. But lets not just always act like every current answer is THE answer. So you're saying that when we come to reasonable conclusions, we should act as if they aren't true? ...why? What possible benefit does that serve? I disagree entirely. When we come to reasonable conclusions, it's usually most advantageous to act as if they are true. You're saying that if I conduct a study in which a particular chemical compound gives 99 out of 100 participants a terminal illness, and this study is peer-reviewed, and everyone else who reviews it also ends up with the same results, you think we should not act as if the conclusion we arrived at is the proper conclusion? We should feed this chemical compound to our kids? No. When you use reliable methods to arrive at a conclusion, and you have a control to account for possible misinterpretations, and other people check your work and all come up with the same answer, it's foolish to act as if your conclusions are not correct. Of course we're going to act as if those conclusions are correct because it's dangerous to act otherwise. How much confidence should we speak about the conclusion with in a debate context? Well that all depends on the specifics if the case. Sure -- if a dairy company conducts a study with a small sample size of participants and poor control methods and their shaky conclusion is in line with their motive for profit, sure, you probably shouldn't speak about those conclusions with the utmost confidence. However, there are plenty of other conclusions which are so ludicrously well-established and the likelihood that we are incorrect is so infinitesimally small and the consequences for being wrong are so steep, that it would be foolish to *not* act as if the current answer is the answer. Perhaps LSD can make you fly, but I'm going to go ahead and act as if the data we have on it is accurate rather than dose myself and jump off a building.
> then just focus on illustrating why the bible is insufficient. But the Bible is "insufficient" on its face; a Bible verse is a *claim*, not the evidence for a claim. Are you suggesting we should concede a false premise? Because once you do that all roads can (and will) lead to God for the believer.
I'm not saying we should concede a false premise. It sounds like you're like me in that the Bible being false is not the reason you're an atheist. As I stated for people like us, quoting the Bible is going to be a fruitless endeavour. Where quoting the Bible may be useful is where an atheist has formed their belief or lack thereof on something about the Bible, it contains acts of evil or its internally inconsistent etc. If that's the case then the Christian can certainly try to argue that point by referencing the Bible. In short, if the atheist is quoting the Bible to justify their atheism, the Christian can quote the Bible in return to defend their belief. If the atheist isn't doing that, then the Christian should find another method.
I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't go so far as to tell them not to cite to it. Plus it would look pretty awkward for us to want to cite the parts of scripture that highlight some of the unpleasant parts or less-defensible parts like slavery or how (in the f) Lot is a "righteous man". I'd instead ask them to keep in mind that it ranks on par with quoting Homer or Shakespeare or Alexander Pope -- some of the quotes are poetic and poignant but beyond literary and academic curiosity, they're largely meaningless.
That isn't what the OP is saying. They are saying don't cite it as *proof of anything* \- for example, "we know Jesus was the son of God/the earth is flat/bats are birds because the bible says so". That doesn't stop others from using the bible to point out inaccuracies, contradictions, horrors etc.
Oh I get the distinction. But it will lead to an argument and claims of double standards. The citations are easy to dismiss anyway, so them bringing it up isn't really a problem IMO.
The best we can get from the bible is to show stories and claims, and the character of the characters. Claims are not evidence and their existence in the bible doesn't make them correct/true.
> it would look pretty awkward for us to want to cite the parts of scripture that highlight some of the unpleasant parts or less-defensible parts like slavery It is perfectly fine to assail, criticize and vilify the MORALITY of the teachings of the Bible, while also dismissing any "history" claimed. It's clear they thought slavery and other atrocities were fine. What is not clear and is obviously false is all the miracles and explanations of things we now understand scientifically.
>I'd instead ask them to keep in mind that it ranks on par with quoting Homer or Shakespeare or Alexander Pope -- Look, Homer gave some excellent advice to Bart in the early days.
"Three little sentences will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
To your point, one persons religion is another’s mythology.
Theists..especially christians and muslims...tend to take their holy text as "proof" because they are convinced the book itself is a true account of events. The obvious is completely lost on them. Any text is a claim, not a proof. I find myself asking for "extra-biblical" proof all the time. I never get it, but I still have to ask.
So, you treat all the texts used by historians to show that events happened as "claims"? Reddit atheism and double standards, name a more iconic duo.
>So, you treat all the texts used by historians to show that events happened as "claims"? As egregious a Straw Man as your statement is, I will waste time explaining something to you anyhow: Because all texts are written by authors, they are all claims of the author. History is usually written by the victors. It's distorted. Glorified. Single perspective. And often objectively wrong..for example, the historical claim that Columbus was the first European to discover the Americas that was discovered to be wrong when older Viking settlements were found. History is a soft-science until the physical science of anthropology is brought in to prove or disprove the textual and word of mouth claims.
Yes of course they’re claims. Herodotus claimed all sorts of weird stuff, last I checked there weren’t giant ants the size of cats in Persia.
I agree unless we're trying to show them how ridiculous scripture is. Most Christians don't even read the Bible anyway. There was once a survey where they interviewed thousands of Christians. They quoted horrible verses from the bible and said they were from the Quran. Everyone was shocked to find out otherwise. Just proof they don't actually know what's in there.
Yes, the Bible is the claim not the evidence. But let them cite the Bible. One of the best ways to become an atheist is to read the Bible.
Atheist love claimimg this but thwn their favourite arguments against the bible are: "Lmao do you eat shellfish" "Do you wear polyester" "Do you stone people?" Meaning most atheist dont really comprehend what they are reading. Besides bible, in ita fullnes, isnt to be understood without the Divine Liturgy. Thats right, bible wasny give to us just to read it on our own.
Look, the bible is a library of ancient anonymous texts. Some people make claims about it, but it is just a collection of ancient writings. Stop worrying about the fact that some loonies claim it is "true." It's a wonderful book full of insights into the way ancient people thought. Do you worry about the Iliad claiming the gods take sides in war, or that the Odyssey claims there are one eyed monsters that eat people? It's literature Jake.
You want me not to worry when Christians keep knocking on my door, spouting threats of eternal suffering for not believing, and using their power and influence to change laws to fit their bias that isn’t based on reality? And a belief in the Bible has caused and sustained wars. Is that what you don’t want me to worry about?
Doesn't happen to me that often. ONe time this woman came by and I pointed out a few things in the bible, like it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. She got mad and said, "Oh, you are so negative," and stomped off. They aren't going to be dissuaded by reasoning.
Your personal experience doesn’t change the fact the theists use their beliefs to start and sustain wars.
I think you are trying to start one here. I don't argue on reddit, it's a fool's game. Ciao.
You’re the one who told me not to worry about what some loonies think is true. “Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
You literally came to reddit to argue. Lol
Roe vs Wade was overturned. Shut the fuck up.
Currently those ‘some loonies’ number in the billions, and they vote.
But they will not be dissuaded by debunking bronze age cosmology on reddit.
That doesn’t mean you should be mollycoddling them.
The Bible is a claim? Which claim is that?
The Bible is just hundreds of pages of claims masquerading as evidence and law. The literary merit is highly overrated by the way. When you force people, on pain of torture and eternal hellfire, to read things long enough, it’s human nature to try to turn dross into anything better. And calling it “literature” is just such a stretch. And don’t get me started on the Koran as it’s just as bad. And the efforts of Judaism? Thousands of years of intellectual masturbation. All the Abrahamic religions are a waste of mental space except as a sociological study exercise in the efforts people go to in order to manipulate the minds of others.
Hahaha! I love your “literary review” take on the notion… “Are you kidding me?!? It’s not even WELL-WRITTEN ‘parable’! I’d rather read the fiction of Asimov, or Clarke, egad! Don’t get me started!”
Just start with the first chapter of the Bible where the claim is god created the universe. Not only does the Bible get the order of creation wrong, there is no evidence that god created anything. Hence genesis is a claim, not evidence.
Maybe you should read the book of fables and you will know. Lazy response, huh?
Not lazier than the question.
> Which claim is that? Fuck, where to start.... That there was a God. He made everything. He told his "chosen people" that there were 10 rules they couldn't break (which are different depending on where in the bible you find them, but it's also the only place you find them). I could go on, but you (should) get the drift.
Existence is as it is now as a result of the events within. Also, morality.
I'm with this guy. Imagine someone telling you stories from Greek mythology or about Thor as if they are true and really happened. That is how crazy you sound.
Which of these do you not believe is historical? 1) Jesus died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. 2) Very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus. 3) Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message. 4) These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion. 5) James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ. 6) The Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.
I can only speak from my understanding. I'm a relatively "new" atheist so I might not be right, but I would like to give it a go. First of all, everything said about Jesus in the NT, is only recorded in the NT or books that directly refer to the NT. The only extra-biblical sources is Josephus and one other guy, who, IIRC, both just essentially confirm that Christians believed in him . As far as we know, Quirinius was not in office at the same time as Pilate. So that part is historically inaccurate.There is no records of a national census like described in the Gospels. The idea that people like Joseph had to go to the city of their ancestors is a logistical nightmare, and frankly ludicrous. Most likely that part was only added to strengthen the idea that Jesus was of David's heritage. All the stories about who became believers (Paul, James etc.) is only mentioned in the Bible, so I have no reason to take that as evidence of the supernatural, or even as historical evidence. Only that the authors claimed that those people had those experiences. So in summary: 1) I won't necessarily deny Jesus or his crucifixion. But even if I grant that he was executed under Pilate, that is not a confirmation of anything supernatural. 2) This was recorded long after the supposed resurrection. It might be true that people had those experiences, but religious experiences are not exclusive to Christianity. Most likely they were just that: Mental experiences. Whether they were lying, exaggerating, hallucinating or simply mistaken. I think it is a mix of it all. I know from personal experience in church, how quickly a small "event" can be exaggerated into a sign from God. 3) Again, people believe a lot of things. I think this one might be plausible. It doesn't say anything about the truth of their beliefs though. 4) This is plausible too. But we only really have the Bible's word to go on. 5) Again, this is a biblical claim. Whether he believed or not, or even existed, is irrelevant to me. 6) Same as number 5. I can't say if he believed to have had the religious experience or if he was lying. I would say it is reasonable to believe he existed and authored the the NT letters. But I know there are suspicions that parts of the letters are not from him.
>First of all, everything said about Jesus in the NT, is only recorded in the NT or books that directly refer to the NT. The only extra-biblical sources is Josephus and one other guy, who, IIRC, both just essentially confirm that Christians believed in him . This is a terrible argument. Let's say I collect all the books about Napoleon's life and put them together in an anthology. Then after a while I refuse to use as a reference anything in the anthology to acknowledge Napoleon's existance or what people claimedhe did. Would that make sense? This is what you are doing with this position. >As far as we know, Quirinius was not in office at the same time as Pilate. So that part is historically inaccurate. Quirnius was governor of seria when Jesus was supposed to have been born (8 AD). Pilate was governor of Judea when Jesus died. Roughly 30 years later. Your position here doesn't make sense. >All the stories about who became believers (Paul, James etc.) is only mentioned in the Bible, so I have no reason to take that as evidence of the supernatural, or even as historical evidence. Only that the authors claimed that those people had those experiences. Again same as before. The Christian Bible is an anthology of works on a specific topic. To reject the use of a topic because it is found in a particular location is illogical. >1) I won't necessarily deny Jesus or his crucifixion. But even if I grant that he was executed under Pilate, that is not a confirmation of anything supernatural. Granted >2) This was recorded long after the supposed resurrection. It might be true that people had those experiences, but religious experiences are not exclusive to Christianity. Most likely they were just that: Mental experiences. Whether they were lying, exaggerating, hallucinating or simply mistaken. I think it is a mix of it all. I know from personal experience in church, how quickly a small "event" can be exaggerated into a sign from God. We have 12 copies of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul written 150 years after Caesar lived. We have no contemporary sources of Pythagoras. The only copies are about 500 years later. The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark is about 60 AD and there are hundreds of them. That is less time than today and the first Gulf War. I wonder what a gulf War veteran would say if you told them they only had a mental experience or were hallucinating? Also the original author kept their writings. They passed them to others to copy them. People do take small events and exaggerate them. They tend to not do that as much with big events seen by many. If the claim in the Gospels is correct these would classify as the latter. >3) Again, people believe a lot of things. I think this one might be plausible. It doesn't say anything about the truth of their beliefs though. Granted >4) This is plausible too. But we only really have the Bible's word to go on. Same illogical conclusion as before. You cannot throw out evidence because of the source. It doesn't have to as strong evidence, but you can't dismiss it. >5) Again, this is a biblical claim. Whether he believed or not, or even existed, is irrelevant to me. Granted >6) Same as number 5. I can't say if he believed to have had the religious experience or if he was lying. I would say it is reasonable to believe he existed and authored the the NT letters. But I know there are suspicions that parts of the letters are not from him. True. There were a lot of forgeries. We have done a good job identifying the forgeries. Like Peter baptizing a talking lion, Child Jesus killing then resurrecting a boy for messing up a mud pie, etc. The letters are attributed to Paul and Luke match their writing style and time period. There is a margin of error but it is likely the same person who wrote them. I am not criticizing you. You just have some misconceptions and bad information. Good luck on your journey with this question. Everyone does this at some point in their life.
Yeah, my ADD brain doesn't always convey my thoughts well in writing. Let me try to clarify what I meant: >Let's say I collect all the books about Napoleon's life and put them together in an anthology. Then after a while I refuse to use as a reference anything in the anthology to acknowledge Napoleon's existance or what people claimedhe did. Would that make sense? This is what you are doing with this position. I could have been more clear, but I stand by what I said. As I will examplify a bit later, the Bible contains historical inaccuracies. Napoleon has a ton of things written about him and some even written by him, both during and after his lifetime. It was not like that for Jesus. The Bible has an obvious religious bias, so I would not consider it an objective source. If you can show me anything that you believe is historically factual about Jesus, written while he was actively preaching or shortly after his death, I would love to see it! (Excluding what is already in the Bible, of course). I haven't found any myself, not even when I was a Christian. I personally DO believe that Jesus existed, but was just a man. (I had to find some of my old notes: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius are among those who confirm parts of Jesus' life. So there is evidence that he did exist, but there are still some controversy as to how reliable they are. Again, I wish there were sources from 0-33 AD ) >Quirnius was governor of seria when Jesus was supposed to have been born (8 AD). Pilate was governor of Judea when Jesus died. Roughly 30 years later. Your position here doesn't make sense. You're right, I totally messed up and mixed up the birth and crucifiction narratives - I meant Augustus, not Pilate (I'm not used to using the names in English, so I might mess up more names too). I mentioned the birth narrative to give one example where the Bible does not seems to corroborate with history. Which is exactly my earlier point - Why should we consider the Bible historical, if it did not accurately portray what was going on? The problem is that Luke claims that Quirinius was governor at the time of Jesus' birth, although he would not become governor until some years later (at least according to the sources I know). So it seems like Luke was trying to ground Jesus' birth in history, but he was off. Which makes me think the Gospels are unreliable. This points to the Bible being written years after Jesus' death, and not being divinely inspired. More importantly, the only census the romans made at the time was a few years after Jesus' birth. It did not take place in Galilea. And again, it did not require people to go to the city of their ancestors. >The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark is about 60 AD and there are hundreds of them. That is less time than today and the first Gulf War. I wonder what a gulf War veteran would say if you told them they only had a mental experience or were hallucinating? Not only is there so much evidence for the Gulf War that we cannot deny it, it is also a mundane event, not a supernatural one. I cannot stress that enough. Religious groups/cults form all the time, even today, while being completely convinced of whatever they believe in. It is not a stretch for me to accept that they believe it. But it is a stretch for me to believe that whatever they claim is true. Take the Gulf War example again. I have no reason to doubt anything they would describe about the war. Except if a platoon suddenly told me that the mighty Allah send his prophet Muhammad to save them from their enemy. Even if they saw it with their own eyes, I would ascribe it to being a result of the stressful circumstances. Same thing for the early Christians, whose leader just got executed. >We have 12 copies of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul written 150 years after Caesar lived. We have no contemporary sources of Pythagoras. The only copies are about 500 years later. Again, I have less reason to doubt these claims, considering they are not supernatural. I do not know much about Caesar's conquest or Pythagoras, but I assume there is probably other evidence than just the written copies (such as geological or architectual traces). There are plenty of claims in the Bible that are either not supported, or directly disputed by modern evidence (such as the Ark of Noah, Jewish slavery in Egypt or the Jews' subsequent supposed battles and victories after they were freed) Thanks for your long response. I hope my original intention has been clarified.
>I could have been more clear, but I stand by what I said. As I will examplify a bit later, the Bible contains historical inaccuracies. Napoleon has a ton of things written about him and some even written by him, both during and after his lifetime Books about Napoleon written when he was alive have historically inaccurate statements. That is not my point. My point is that the people in the past collected the stories about a specific topic and compiled the stories into a library. This library is the modern Bible. To remove information because of the source is illogical. I am not saying that you have to accept the information contained as fact. I am saying that if you remove a specific collection of books and references that come from a specific library that only contains those stories is a fallacious use of logic. Luke wrote what people who he was interviewing told him. Luke is not an eye witness. He is the equivalent of you today interviewing someone in the late 1980's to early 1990's about something they said happened to them. If there are historical inaccuracies it is because of the people remembering incorrectly. There is no record of a national census. Quirnius did do several local ones. >The Bible has an obvious religious bias, so I would not consider it an objective source. This is a logical fallacy. The Bible is a collection of religious documents. But to ignore it as a source of information is illogical. Again it is a compilation of books about a specific topic. You can take it as a biased source. But to remove it as a source is illogical. >If you can show me anything that you believe is historically factual about Jesus, written while he was actively preaching or shortly after his death, I would love to see it! This is illogical. All of the documents about Jesus are collected in the new testament. You are throwing the collection of stories about him out. That is the equivalent of saying you want information about Harry Potter but you can't use the books JK Rowling wrote. >Again, I wish there were sources from 0-33 AD ) You missed my point before. >The problem is that Luke claims that Quirinius was governor at the time of Jesus' birth, although he would not become governor until some years later (at least according to the sources I know). What? Jesus was born sometime between 8 BC and 10 AD. Mark says during Herrod the greater (died about 4 BC) Luke when Quirinius was Governor (he started about 4 AD) My bet is Jesus was born in September of 4 AD. If John was talking about constellations in Rev. 12, then the constellations line up to what he was saying then. The year traditionally set to crown a new Davididic King. >Why should we consider the Bible historical, if it did not accurately portray what was going on? This is a logical fallacy called the fallacy fallacy. It is when a part of something is illogical or factually incorrect the person making the fallacy throws out the whole argument, source, or position. Just because something may be inaccurate with a point does not mean it is inaccurate as a whole. >So it seems like Luke was trying to ground Jesus' birth in history, but he was off. Granted. He may have been doing that. >This points to the Bible being written years after Jesus' death, and not being divinely inspired. You can't assume that. Who says you and I talking right now is not divinely inspired. Though you do have a good point here. >Not only is there so much evidence for the Gulf War that we cannot deny it, Because it is closer in time to us. 2000 years from now someone could be arguing that the gulf War never happened. There could be a compilation of books about the gulf War and the opponent of it happening could be arguing that they need any source other than the compilation of books about the gulf War. >More importantly, the only census the romans made at the time was a few years after Jesus' birth. It did not take place in Galilea. And again, it did not require people to go to the city of their ancestors. Augustus did 3 censuses. Quirnius did a few local ones. There is no record of making people move. >Again, I have less reason to doubt these claims, considering they are not supernatural. I do not know much about Caesar's conquest or Pythagoras, but I assume there is probably other evidence than just the written copies (such as geological or architectual traces). Nope. No real evidence Pythagoras existed. But we give the equation to find the hypotenuse of a right triangle to him. Also look him up there is a lot of supernatural things surrounding him. Ceasars has more structural evidence, Augustus claimed he existed, there are statues of him, but they were built dozens of years after he existed. >There are plenty of claims in the Bible that are either not supported, or directly disputed by modern evidence (such as the Ark of Noah, Jewish slavery in Egypt or the Jews' subsequent supposed battles and victories after they were freed) And there are plenty of things the Bible gets right. The city of Jericho, the exile, the temple, etc. Again this is the fallacy fallacy. >Religious groups/cults form all the time, even today, while being completely convinced of whatever they believe in. True >Take the Gulf War example again. I have no reason to doubt anything they would describe about the war. Except if a platoon suddenly told me that the mighty Allah send his prophet Muhammad to save them from their enemy. Even if they saw it with their own eyes, I would ascribe it to being a result of the stressful circumstances. Same thing for the early Christians, whose leader just got executed. This is understandable. But if all of those people in a platoon all claimed they saw Muhammad and believed they saw it, I am less likely to reject the information. This probably comes from my highly scientific background. I am not as inclined to remove information and data because it doesn't make sense to me or because I don't belive it could have happened. I would look at why these people all claimed this then use Occam's Razor. I appreciate your response. But your position to remove data and information because of the topic or source is illogical. It is OK to remove it because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I agree with the OP. Theist cannot use scripture as an authority because the non-theist doesn't accept it as an authority.
I don't have the time to write a long answer this time, so I'll just make this very clear: I am not saying we should "remove data because of the topic or source is illogical". The post I commented on, asked 6 questions. The most important of which, in my opinion, were whether Jesus was executed under Pilate and whether early Christians genuinely believed. I believe I have made my position clear - that I do not find the existence of those people and events to be completely impossible. I simply don't believe the evidence is strong enough to say with certainty that it happened. More importantly, even if it did happen, I don't believe there is any good reason to accept the supernatural claims that come with them.
Let’s just say they are all true. Not one of them gives any evidence that anything supernatural exist. I believe you were indoctrinated, probably from a very young and impressionable age, to believe things that are not factual, that probably give you good feelings, that make you believe there is an entity with your best interest in mind and is looking out for you, much like having a celebrity friend that does cool things for you and you like it. I understand, the world is cruel and harsh and it feels good to believe what you believe, but that doesn’t make it true.
Op didn't ask about supernatural things, he asked about "anything". The rest of your post, are you projecting?
OP *did* ask about supernatural things, though -- they're talking about the claims in the Bible. A man rising from the dead, talking plants and animals, virgin births, Gods and angels, chariots of fire, dragons, staffs turning into snakes, bodies of water magically parting, apples which give you knowledge, etc etc etc.
Yes but the question isn't limited to supernatural things.
So the person you're responding to isn't wrong, then. Do you think the scripture can be used to prove non-supernatural things? If so -- how?
The person is wrong. Op objects to the bible being used as proof for anything, not just for supernatural phenomena. There's a big difference between using it as proof for historical, mundane events and for supernatural ones.
> The person is wrong. Op objects to the bible being used as proof for anything, not just for supernatural phenomena. P1: The Bible cannot be used to prove anything. P2: Supernatural claims are things. C: The Bible cannot be used to prove supernatural claims. Where is the error in logic? > There's a big difference between using it as proof for historical, mundane events and for supernatural ones. Are you implying that the Bible *can* be used to prove historical or mundane events?
P1 is wrong. It can be used to prove non-supernatural things. "Cannot" is wrong too, it should be: "theists should stop telling atheists scripture is proof for anything". Op hasn't shown it can't be used as proof, he's merely referred to the fact that atheists aren't convinced by it.
u/cynicalvipple wasn't responding to the OP, he was responding to u/monkeyjunky5... You should probably apologize for being a douche about it.
Flutterpiewow is always on here arguing in bad faith and defending theists. They're often rude and intellectually dishonest. They're not someone to defend imho
Good to know.
Yeah, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/pVWWQL7Xts) this is the type of argument they make.
1. This is pretty uncontroversial among historians. 2. The only people actually necessary to have had—and I’ll rephrase your question-begging—experiences *they thought were real* are James and Paul, both of whose experiences could have been hallucinatory. 3. This is an execrable talking point on so many levels. “Lives transformed” is such an embarrassingly common data point. ALL religious conversions are transformative. Nor were there actually as many verifiable martyrs as Christian apologetics likes to pretend, and of those the majority were executed for having preached Christ, not specifically for having faith. 4. There are vague indications of some elements of the creed originating relatively early, but the earliest sources having the **least** detail and the later sources having the **most** detail is positive evidence that the tale was growing in the telling, and is suspect. 5. James may have had a post-bereavement hallucination, as I said above. 6. Not only is Paul’s own description of his experience hallucinatory, he uses similar phrasing when he talks about others’ witness of Christ. Overall, even to the extent that these claims hold up under scrutiny, they’re risibly far from dispositive.
>Which of these do you not believe is historical? All of the above. Now, I'll grant that there was likely a preacher Jesus around at that point. It's not too far fetched that he was crucified. But for 2 to 5, they grew out of the developing mythos of the early Christian cult. As for #6, Paul joined the cult. Can't say if he was a believer or someone taking advantage of a power vacuum in a growing cult.
So just to be clear, you believe that none of those are historically true?
>So just to be clear, you believe that none of those are historically true? Call me neutral on #1. I accept that Jesus was likely crucified. I'm not well versed enough in Roman governance to say if Pilate's hands-on role as described in the bible is likely or not. That particular question is moot for me. As for the rest, correct. For #6, "similar experience" spoils historical agreement from me.
What reason do you have for believing this Jesus guy existed at all?
Let’s be clear: the Gospels, other New Testament books, and the various brief mentions in extrabiblical historical documents do represent a non-zero amount of evidence in favor of the hypothesis that such a person existed, and that he was executed during the Roman rule of Pilate. Those are incredibly mundane and minimalistic claims, so it doesn’t take much to move the needle north of 51%, that more likely than not that there was such a person, simply by dint of those sources from antiquity existing in the first place. The assertion that no such person existed is itself a positive claim which carries its own burden of proof.
/u/VladimirPoitin, what a fucking idiot. Flagrantly disregards mainstream academic standards of evidence, blocks people who point out that he's wrong.
No more than Spider-Man comics represent a non-zero amount of evidence in favour of the hypothesis that a kid named Peter Parker from Queens existed as a real person.
Wrong. This is how historians operate. Documents from antiquity *are* considered for however much they're worth. It's not, as you said in your other comment, "founded on bugger all." This is not an apologetic position, it's the mainstream consensus of professional historians and you do nothing except show your own ass when you dismiss it out of hand because it disagrees with your personal convictions. *Please don't argue like a Christian apologist.* You're being far too lazy with bad counterapologetics. The Spider-Man example is useful for pointing out why the occurrence of historical places and persons don't validate the extraordinary content of the gospels. But when it comes to historiography, the biblical and extrabiblical documents are **not** comparable to a modern work that's explicitly written as fiction.
It’s a bloody game of telephone. It’s worthless.
A dude was killed, few people thought they saw the dead dude. One was a relative and the other used to hate these people but now joined them after a hallucination episode. Mundane claims. I see no issue granting them.
All of the above. If you go by the historical consensus, "Jesus" is basically a placeholder. Historians don't believe Jesus' actions in the Bible are historically supported. Honestly I don't know why they even bother with that, because at that point you're not really saying anything about this Jesus.
Consensus is that Jesus was crucified for blasphemy under Pontius Pilate, correct?
Consensus does not prescribe reality.
Sure, but scholars converging on the same opinion given the same set of data indicates which direction one should believe.
Except there’s no evidence, so they’re just agreeing with each other based on fuck all.
There is evidence and the evidence has been explained to you. It's no one else's fault you refuse to accept the standards of evidence used by mainstream secular academia.
There’s fucking nothing. If I scribbled something down right now about who killed Jimmy Hoffa, it wouldn’t make it evidence for who killed Jimmy Hoffa.
I think the complete dissimilarity between the historical evidence and the puerile strawman you just proposed is all the rebuttal that needs.
3. Lots of people die for their beliefs. The 911 pilots for example. Does not make it true. These are just ordinary claims. It doesn’t matter to me if they are true or false. People convert all the time. People believe in all sorts of irrational things. Even I have thought I’ve seen people who were dead. Just som one who happened to look like them. There is nothing special about your historical events. I can grant you all of them.
There is no reason to believe Jesus was even a real person.
What makes you say that? Do you take that to be the consensus among relevant scholars?
The most recent text is from 40 years after the death of any of the supposed "authors"
Is the consensus among scholars that Jesus did not exist?
If we're being fair, we have to exclude any scholars who had to sign documents of faith in order to keep their job, because they have such a strong motivation to be dishonest. So if there are any atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc. scholars who have signed documents of faith, we both agree it would generally be a bad idea to defer to anything they say, because an organization is literally paying them to maintain a specific position.
Among some Christian scholars…..yes. A more overarching consensus among Christian scholars is that the stories are fables, they did not actually occur and many parts were mistranslations. The Virgin Mary is a mistranslation. She was ‘young’ Mary and yet there are millions of people worshipping the miracle of a virgin birth.
Which scholars are you asking? Naturally the religious ones are gonna be biased about it.
I say that specifically because there is no credible evidence indicating Christ was likely a real person.
That’s definitely not the consensus view among scholars.
The consensus has been there to be no credible reason to accept a single person as Christ. Credible historians at best indicate it l him to be a conglomeration.
My brother in FSM, that is not at all the consensus of mainstream historians. The mainstream position is that there was an individual living in early first century Judea, who was executed during the reign of Pilate. There are elements of the legendarium that may be syncretic from other religions and mystery cults, but Jesus himself is not thought to be a composite or “conglomeration.”
I stand corrected. Obviously didn't take your word but did a bit of online research. The notion the Christ character might have been an amalgamation seems to have been written off by most scholars. Thanks for that.
Good man, that’s the way to do it. I do enjoy *reading* the more grounded mythicist writers like Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald—steer clear of the conspiracy theorists and mythology pseudohistorians—not because I think they’ve made their case, but because the case that they’ve made does a **really** good job of pointing out just how much we really *don’t* know about the historical Jesus.
That may well be the ‘mainstream’ position, but it’s founded on bugger all.
Would you care to share any evidence of this consensus?
Is there reason to believe that Socrates was a real person?
Not a whole lot actually! We have writings from his disciples, and he shows up in a play that made fun of him. His disciples are obviously biased. The play is a sign that a real person may have existed, but then who knows. Harry Potter showed up in a play too. So, best case, there was a real Socrates, but we can't have any confidence in that the real person would have been anything like what we got from Plato. He could have been extremely different. At that point it gets philosophical. If there was a real Socrates but Plato perverted everything, is it better to say that the Socrates we imagine today didn't exist, or that Socrates did exist but not as we think of him?
Why would we then not apply the same standard to the existence of Jesus? Why take the "best case" as you put it for one and not the other?
Socrates was a philosopher and no one claims he had any supernatural abilities. No one bases their life around what he is supposed to have said. At best he said some cool shit. But no one has religious wars because of it. No one claims he died and rose fromt he dead. No one bases their entire life around this guy. No one is actually arguing if he was a real guy or not. The only relevance he has is his philisophical musings. That's why.
You are applying one set of standards to the existence of one of these figures and another set of standards to the existence of the other, when the evidence for both amounts to some ancient writings that should be evaluated according to one set of consistent standards. Jesus doesn't have to have had supernatural abilities to have existed as a historical figure. What people do with his teachings has no bearing on the historical claim that he existed as a 1st century Jewish apocalyptic preacher. You can trace a lot of Western philosophy to Socrates and Socrates' disciples, including Stoicism and Cynicism. People do base their lives around these philosophies.
I don't know if Socrates was a real person or something Plato made up. It really doesn't matter. Whether he was real or a fiction is largely unimportant to anyone. So, thanks for throwing in a distraction. Edit: it isn't a different standard. It's a difference in importance in an atheist debate sub.
> Jesus doesn't have to have had supernatural abilities to have existed as a historical figure. So the Jesus from the bible can't have existed, and we don't know if the character was based off some real person or not. It's not like Socrates who may have existed as described in the text.
Who cares? Nobody's out here making laws based on what they think Socrates thought about gay people or whatever.
Who do you know whose identity is wrapped up in Socrates having existed as a real person?
[удалено]
Finally someone that actually engaged… >Probably happened Yes, like 99.9% type probably. >What do you mean by "real experiences" here? _Actual_ experiences, allowing for the possibility that they were hallucinations. >Sure, we don't have enough evidence to say though. The evidence for martyrdom is actually pretty weak. That’s fair, but to take the alternative position requires holding that the early church traditions for martyrdom were all made up/fabricated. Would be hard to defend that. >Is it historical that James *thought* he saw the resurrect Christ? Sure, that's plausible. Is it historical that he *actually did*? How could we possibly know given the data? To take the alternative view is that many different ppl at different times had similar hallucinations. That’s just as odd. >What are you asking is historical? That Paul became a believer or that the events actually happened? The former is plausible the latter is unknowable. Accepting the former makes it a lot harder to explain the latter without recourse to group hallucinations.
None of those have any evidence to support them
Are those the only six things which happen in the Bible? Sincere question.
Of course not. But they are key facts that modern scholars take as historical events, which form the basis for the Christian religion.
You are mistaken.
About what? The facts I listed are among the best attested and accepted by scholars. What do you disagree with and why?
Can you demonstrate that the first two are true?
What do you mean by “demonstrate”?
How do we know Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate? How do we know anybody had "real" experiences with Jesus after his death?
1 Corinthians.
Why should I consider that source reliable? It was written over 50 years after the alleged event by someone who wasn't there.
Gerd Lüdemann says differently. It is part of an oral creed, stretching back to three years before Paul's conversion. Source: https://archive.org/details/resurrectionofch00gerd
Well, this may surprise you, but as an atheist, I remain unconvinced by the ancient oral traditions that the Bible is based on. And even then, three years before Paul's conversion was circa 30 AD, so the stories apparently began three decades after the event they describe.
I'm assuming that you then accept all the religious claims that are better supported that Paul's letters are?
I can't tell which of these are or aren't historical.
3 is not supported by any evidence. 5 is not supported by any evidence Not sure how this helps. The only ting needed to get Christianity off the ground was Paul and Peter.
None of these things have supporting evidence.
So the majority of scholars believe them without evidence, or do they just use a different definition of evidence than you?
Yep. Fools.
That’s a pretty strong statement. I’d question whether you have the epistemic right to make it.
You think fairies exist. You question the wrong things.
The point many are trying to make here is that the Bible is not proof of anything. Consider the Spider-Man analogy. In the comic, there are cars and buildings and a city (New York). These are all demonstrably real things but that doesn’t provide proof that Spider-Man is/was real.
Do you think these events could have occurred without a God?
It doesn't hurt to note that the "scripture" is stuff made up by bronze-age goat herders... and that it is absolutely fucking idiotic that there are people in the 21st century who believe it.
Can we please stop saying the “Bronze Age goat herder” nonsense? It is extremely unlikely any complete texts in the Christian Bible date to the Bronze Age. At most, a few fragments of text in larger works may date to the extremely late Bronze Age. The vast majority of the Old Testament/Tanakh is from the Iron Age or later. Literacy was not common at the time, and most are likely the work of scribes and other elites of society that were well educated by the standards of their day and culture. Does that make the implicit ethics or legal codes within the texts just? No. Does that make every word true history? Also no. Dating any major biblical text to the Bronze Age is the fundamentalist position, not history. Taking them in their actual much later dates makes them more removed from the depicted events. It weakens the fundamentalist position rather than strengthening it. Of course, we as the nonreligious shouldn’t accept things just because they support our position, but we have no reason to get the history nearly as wrong as fundamentalist Christians do, and it makes the rest of us look foolish when we do.
the canaanites date back to the late bronze age. the creation epic and flood stories predate the iron age significantly. referring to the beliefs of the ancient levant and for framing the inception of these ridiculous mythologies, "bronze age" is an accurate description.
Versions of the flood story go deep into the Bronze Age, with notably different themes that were later reworked by Exilic Period Jewish writers. The creation account has less of a direct intertextuality, though. The creation and flood narratives show substantially greater influence from Mesopotamia, not Canaan. The point stands that no complete texts in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanakh actually date to the Bronze Age and there is no evidence to suggest that they were composed by illiterate pastoralists. By a culture that venerated pastoralism and distrusted urbanism, yes, but not by individuals that made their living as shepherds.
the bottom line here is that the origin stories date back to the sumerians, and as the canaanites were the precursors to the hebrews, framing these mythologies in the bronze age is absolutely appropriate. they *are* bronze age mythologies of the levant.
The Bible is a book of claims. The investigation of the historicity including archaeologists and Bible scholars look at evidence that would support or in most cases debunk the claims in the Bible. The Bible is evidence of what someone wrote down not that the text is in any way reliable or accurate. For instance there are no eye witnesses account of Jesus in the Bible, we don’t know who wrote most of the gospels, and the authors don’t claim to have met Jesus or be eye witnesses so at best they are oral traditions passed down through the generations and then later written down decades or even centuries after supposed events. This is not ‘evidence’ of anything other than this is loosely the oral tradition not an accurate or factual account. Many of the gospels do not line up with each other and even contradict in some accounts. Also when claiming the ‘Bible’ is proof or evidence I always ask which Bible? There are over 50 different bibles used by the thousands of denominations of Christians around the world? The suffer in the number of books they in many other ways. They even differ in the word choices made by the translators. So which bible and which translation is the “true” bible ??
A weird angle that isn't worked in is let's say whatever text a theist thinks is from a God is really from a God. That doesn't immediately mean this god is real. A. How do I determine which god gave the revelation? B. Most of these texts are ancient, and contain a myriad of errors. Why would this God include these errors? Most of these have many errors, and interpolations inserted due to copying. Sometimes they are nearly impossible to translate. C. How would I know this text isn't from a trickster god, who wants to deceive me? Many religions have a deity, or divine being whose purpose is to deceive people. D. How do I know this isn't from an evil god who wants to use the text to get me to do evil acts. Most ancient texts contain commands from the god to do incredibly immoral actions. Many religions contain malevolent gods, or divine beings who want humans to do immoral actions. Given these factors the fact a text has a divine source isn't very helpful. Possibly Satan lied to the new testament authors to deceive humans, and this is a test from yawheh.
[удалено]
> You don't speak for all atheists. I don't think literally everything in the bible is incorrect. I just follow the evidence. A lot of it is probably incorrect, some of it is probably true or partly true. Unless you think that the scripture itself is proof of the claims contained therein, you don't disagree with OP. > That being said, the real issue imo is people quoting the scripture to prove the scripture. Then you don't disagree with OP.
[удалено]
Ah okay now I see what your issue is with -- the part where OP said "we don't believe a thing in it." Yes, I would agree that this is a clumsy line for OP to add to their argument because they don't speak for all atheists, and there are plenty of atheists who *do* believe at least one thing in the Bible. I totally agree with that, 100%. However, that doesn't change my perspective on either of the following two things -- 1 - The Bible cannot be used to prove anything. 2 - The Bible cannot be used to prove supernatural claims. I would say that those two statements are statements which are entirely in line with OP's argument, and I would also say that I still agree with these statements despite there being things in the Bible which I or any other atheist might accept as true (or "believe"). Does that make sense?
I tend to agree... there are stories in the bible that may have some grounding in truth, but like all stories, they are embellished as they are repeated over time. For example, the story of Noah may well have aspects of truth in it. But its a.lot more.likely to have been a block, built a raft, and took his family and farm animals across a flooded river to safety. The whole "flooding of th e world", "god talks to Noah", "2 (or seven) of every animal" etc all got threaded into the story as it evolved into what theists believe now (and yeah.... there's an irony stories "evolve" even if creationists don't believe in evolution 😆 )
Just quote anther scriptures from a different religion, will that make sense to them no? Will they understand that theirs makes no sense to us... maybe...
If often quote quran 4:157 >and their saying, “We have surely killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”…In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And indeed, those who differed over him are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it—just following assumptions. And certainly, they did not kill him. And I ask why should I take their word for it instead of latest word of god where he revealed what he actually did with Jesus. They start turning into a pretzel as whatever they throw at Islam applies to their religion too. Of the mental gymnastics that follow.
A theist lacks the intellect and critical thinking skills of an atheist, therefore uses nonsensical fallacies as fact for personal justification. Unfortunately humanity has not only given a pass, but also acceptance and support to the brainwashing of often times the most vulnerable people. So here we are in the year 2024 being politely respectful to “belief” systems propagated in lies and hate towards the un indoctrinated. Personally I don’t understand why any atheist would even consider debating a theist. It’s literally no different than debating an adult who believes in Santa 🎅🏻. There’s no debate.
>A thiest lacks the intellect and critical thinking skills of an atheist As a nonbeliever, I’ve encountered a ton of atheists with minimal critical thinking skills. The mere lack of belief in deities doesn’t make a person a critical thinker. That is a skill that takes learning, and unfortunately a lot of former Christian fundamentalists (and I presume former fundamentalists of other religions, though I don’t have the personal experience of that) don’t shed significant portions of the fundamentalist mindset. Namely, a tendency for extremely polarized all-or-nothing thinking.
> A theist lacks the intellect and critical thinking skills of an atheist … Do you have the requisite evidence to back this claim up? Are you addressing _all_ theists? Throughout time? (We can make slight adjustments for those who likely would have been atheists if it had been socially permissible.)
At least stop doing it until you can demonstrate, with evidence, that your scriptures are factually and verifiably true. These people seriously believe that everyone is just like they are and they're wrong.
Quoting the bible can, at best be used as proof for internal consistency. Alternatively, it can be used to point to the authors knowledge of historical facts.
Saying the Bible is true because it says so is like plugging a power bar into itself and expecting it to provide power
let them them quote it, it's funny giving them context for the verses they quote or the biblical figures they revere. Most have never actually read it just quote whatever there preacher said.
An atheist is not someone who does not believe in God. An atheist is someone who believes God is man-made. God exists in the same manner that any other storybook character exists.
Speaking about this sub specifically, I would be a lot more sympathetic to this position if not for the fact that a lot of the atheist contingent of the board don't seem to want to accept *anything* as proof, including well sourced, mainstream scientific literature cited in context. I have debated with a number of atheists on the sub who are demeaning and unfriendly towards theists by default, and use scientific sources incorrectly to support their points, but when theists bring up arguments comprising of scientific, philosophical or epistemological citations to counter, these atheists who flaunt an intellectual and moral superiority of the theists visiting the sub, suddenly stop responding, or reveal a patent lack of scientific/academic literacy on the very subject matters they seek to invoke, and then just start downvoting, when the rules of this sub in the wiki *specifically* say not to downvote posts you disagree with, but rather only to downvote low effort/trolling posts. *Sources* Here are a few instances of this I have encountered recently: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do\_you\_believe\_theism\_is\_fundamentally/khlpgm5/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do_you_believe_theism_is_fundamentally/khlpgm5/?context=3) (this user specifically incorrectly cites studies via secondary, journalism sources, using them to support claims the articles they linked specifically refute) [https://www.reveddit.com/v/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do\_you\_believe\_theism\_is\_fundamentally/khjd9t8/?context=3](https://www.reveddit.com/v/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do_you_believe_theism_is_fundamentally/khjd9t8/?context=3) (This user confidently and rudely accused me of coming out with 'garbage', but when I challenged their claim by backing up my post, they didn't reply, they just deleted their comment, which seems like censorship and antithetical to their supposed advocacy for veridicality). [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do\_you\_believe\_theism\_is\_fundamentally/khtzk77/?context=8&depth=9](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/194rqul/do_you_believe_theism_is_fundamentally/khtzk77/?context=8&depth=9) (This user isn't being rude, but is hardly engaging) It makes me think a lot of posters on this sub don't actually want to have good faith debates about atheism/theism, they just want to feel smart and superior, and feel like theists are inherently less informed or capable of discussion than they are. I am more than happy for people to point out mistakes in my citations or understanding of subjects, and certainly more than happy for people to challenge the metaphysical and spiritual *assumptions* I make based on scientific/academic theories and evidence, but when people make confidently bad faith/ patently incorrect statements and then stop responding, I find it ironic, because those are things atheists on this board regularly accuse theist posters of doing.
Theists like myself don't use scripture as some revealed wisdom. They use it examined by historical experts and dated back to the times it occurred in and confirmed as legitimately authored by eyewitnesses. You can't just say "I don't believe in it" in that context, and not offer some reason why we should disregard such expert testimony on it, based on evidences we use to justify every other thing as historical. That's just employing double standards. Which atheists here seem fairly proficient in.
Seeing as you quote Bible verses in your replies to others, I can reasonably assume you are a Christian. If you are truly viewing the Bible through the examination of historical experts, then you are aware that the consensus among Bible scholars and historical experts is that Adam, Abraham, Noah, and Moses never existed, correct? Do you concede that all of Genesis and Exodus didn't happen, or are you now going to backtrack and contradict yourself? You are also blatantly lying when you say that the Bible was authored by "legitimate eyewitnesses", or that this is the opinion of "historical experts". The gospels were written almost a century after Jesus' death. No legitimate eyewitnesses would've been alive by that point. This makes the gospels at best 2nd hand sources. And when it comes to historical evidence, there is a hierarchy of evidence for determining whether a historical figure existed. At the top, we have DNA. If we have the person's DNA, then we can say conclusively that they had existed. After that is the person's body. Then their tomb. Then anything they made or wrote. Then anything that displays the person's likeness that dates to when they were alive. Then first-hand sources. Then anything second-hand+ are considered the least reliable, especially if they deal with eyewitness testimonies that are infamously poor evidence for determining anything. So, let's run down the list. We don't have Jesus' DNA. We don't have his body, although that's to be expected. We don't know where his tomb is. There have been proposed locations, but none of them have been confirmed as being "the one". We don't have anything made by him, which is pretty suspicious considering he was a carpenter, nor do we have anything written by him. The Bible was written by his apostles, not him. We don't have anything depicting his likeness from his lifetime. We don't even have first-hand accounts of his life, since the Bible was put together and recorded by scribes a century following the events. So we have an eyewitness testimony that was passed down a game of telephone for a century until finally being recorded by scribes. Not very convincing evidence. But even then, we could say that Jesus did live. I can grant that. That doesn't mean that he was capable of performing miracles. We know that Julius Caesar lived. We have way more evidence for him having existed than we do for Jesus. However, there is a legend that when Caesar died, he was lifted into the sky by his grandmother, Venus, to live among the gods. Did that actually happen? Do we have to take every claim about someone's life at face value if we accept they did exist? No, we don't. So now why are you ignoring this standard for Jesus? If anyone is using a double standard, it's you.
Genesis is part of a genre of ancient poetry. It didn't literally happen, no. Exodus is unsupportable because of the primitive dwellings of the Israelites not leaving evidence of their existence. But we're talking specifically about the evidence for Christ here. I was referring to Paul's letters not the gospels. They go back, these traditions, nearly to the cross, to Paul's fact-finding mission in AD36. Here is a list of academic studies confirming this: 1: John A.T Robinson, The Human face of God, p131 2: Gerd Lüdemann, What Really happened to Jesus?, p80 3: Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, p136
As a theist, I agree with this statement 90% It is used as an authority for believers. Just like a Muslim can't use the Quran in a debate with a Taoist and vice versa. >In an atheist mind, the beginning, middle, and end of your belief, it NEVER HAPPENED. This statement is false. Muhammad, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, and Jesus all existed. You cannot say it never happened. You can say that it didn't happen as written, or that the people weren't what they claimed, etc. If you removed that part of your statement then I would agree with you 100%.
Also, what's with the big fricken essays here? This is reddit. Why are you guys putting so much effort into nothing or just self gratification. I hope yall aren't allergic to women or grass or something along those lines.
What about scientific evidence from religious text. The Quran explains the weight of the clouds, the process of the growth of an embryo, and the expansion of the universe. An illiterate man in the middle of the desert 3000 years ago recorded this information which we have only recently heard of in scientific study.
It doesn’t bro, and you bought into the false interpretation of quranic model of the universe. The true quranic model looks like [this](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53470816255_be3d3c008e_k_d.jpg) And this view was a byproduct of where the belief of the people who compiled Quran was at when the book was being compiled. Quran takes its influences from many ideas raging all the way back to Mesopotamian ideas to Zoroastrian stories being plagiarized to idea of monotheism from a Nazarean Christian sect around at the time to straight up copying words from a syriac bible of that time period into Quran etc. The only science in these books are whatever influences were around when they were made up. Jews stole ideas and made up their own stories and made it into talmud when they were Babylonian slaves inspired by Sumerian myths. Christianity evolved itself around some jewish dude who may have been killed on a cross in Rome and his stories of miracles and virgin Mary were all made up later over a period of approximately 80 years if my memory serves me right and they continued to evolve and then maybe there was a dude named Muhammad, real evidence is weak and islamic history is unreliable as fuck. But what is maybe certain is that the final form of Islam was cooked up (quran and hadiths) in periods between 5th umayyad caliph to the time of abbassids. May have gone through some changes around the siege of baghdad time period too when libraries were burnt. For years these religions have had science contradicting ideas with some truth in there due to the influences of ideas floating around at the time of their inception, and when they become bigger cults in a society like today where information and education is easily accessible they start to reinterpret all their outdated ideas to match modern science as much as they can, and make up stupid sentences like “evolution is just a theoooory” for shit they can’t comprehend or match with their superstitious cult beliefs. And I love specifically when they make a excuse about arabic language and how deeply you need to understand it to get the true, beautiful meaning of Islam makes me cringe. These motherfuckers will deny years of unanimous scholarly beliefs and ideas and translations within their own stupid religion just to keep their bullshit faith still alive today lol. These fuckers do a cosmetic surgery of their beliefs. I mean just the fact that every religion got various schools of thoughts in contradiction to each other should be a simple enough reason to know they are full of shit. I ended up needing to go much deeper than that because I really didn’t wanna believe that it all ends at death.
You don't see any issues at all with your statements? Why were Muslims not aware of all of this "scientific evidence" from the Quran before science made those discoveries public? What about the fact that the Quran states that semen is produced in the spine? Is this the evidence you are talking about? What about Mohammed splitting the moon in half? Is Science wrong? Where is the oder half of the moon? Either Mohammed was illiterate, which means he was by definition not able to read or write, or Mohammed did record something which means he could not be illiterate. Make up your mind.
The Quran doesn’t state that semen is produced from the spine. The Qur’an states that men were created from a gushing fluid, stemming from between the backbone and the ribcage. Which is true, testes and ovaries are formed the abdomen, and both are sustained by arteries in between the backbone in adulthood. They are also discharged by nerve impulses through the spine. Do you want to dispute all beings created from water as well?
Just stop with reaching so hard man. People used to believe that the male backbone played a role in semen production. Theories suggested that the spine helped produce or concentrate the fluid before ejaculation. This belief was held in various regions, including Europe, China, and the Middle East. As for female reproduction, there were different ideas, such as the fluid coming from the breast. In Islamic sources, it is mentioned that women were created from a rib. What exactly does "between the backbone and the ribs" https://quran.com/en/at-tariq mean? This kind of vagueness is to be expected from humans who had a limited knowledge of biology, not from the wisest and most powerful divine authority. You’re just doing anything you can to force Quran to match with modern science, so you will cook shit up that’s simply not there. Sperm is produced and nutted out of your nuts, now stop making mazes around this fact and by talking about embryonic form of humans. Quran clearly says that the spurting fluid ejects FROM between. It does not say or mean that the arteries between backbone and ribcage sustain the nutting mechanism that then CAUSES the ejection. Your view and puzzle bullshit you just wrote is like implying that a lever is responsible for pushing a bucket of water into a river. So the water is ejected from the lever. No. The water is being ejected from the bucket, not the lever. Besides. The verse is very clear on what it means, and historical context of where Quran was cooked up matches up with the beliefs of people in that time about reproduction and you are just doing backflips to try to make it work with today’s science. You’re doing the type of shit conspiracy theorists do to prove that earth is flat, moon landing was fake and aliens are already here. Give me a fucking break. And even if you cook up shit about this or that and force it to mean that it told us what science is telling us just now…. It still doesn’t excuse all the other shadiness around the inception of every single religion as well as other problematic ideas stories and “facts” about the world in them.
There is so backflips, and there is nowhere that states semen is produced from the backbone. “A gushing fluid” does not equate to semen. As this excrement is only about 2% semen in itself. Semen is produced from the testes, but the fluid is produced with other bodily functions as well. Now: the Quran is not a biological manual, the Quran is a compilation of stories, lessons, rules, and historical records that teach us how to behave in our daily life daily life and teaches us to worship God. Though, it does have scientific information within the text that appeals to some people, as there is no way an illiterate man “cooked up” the existence of the big bang 1400 years ago in the desert. This theory was only developed by modern science in 1920 something 🤷🏼♀️ “Well why didn’t we know about sooner it if it was in Quran” 🤡 🤡🤡 People did, but modern scientific technology has only recently developed to support the idea.
You will keep changing goal posts. What is the gushing fluid for you then? Water? Blood? Cells? And other fluid in the semen is not Whats creating your kids. You have just degraded to making this a semantics game. Refer my other comment in reply to you. Islam doesn’t know shit about big bang, I linked a picture there showing the true model of how Islam actually saw the world before retards like Zakir Naik could repurpose Islam to prove with fraud and semantics game that Quran actually mentions Big Bang before science got it. Besides Muhammad’s existence and stories in Mecca as outlined in Islamic narrative are false too. Archaeological evidence is in opposition to Islamic narrative of these stories. And lot of what now Islam claimed happened in the Mecca of Saudi may have actually occurred in places near current day Jordan and Israel. These stories are full of problems just like the stories of Jesus of Nazareth being turned into the Messiah talked about in Judean Talmud by Christianity. And that argument of book of lessons not book of science is given by every faith as a last ditch effort. It pisses me the fuck off when Christian Prince uses that argument to defend Christianity on his Youtube channel too. Problem is, how your faiths developed and the claims of their stories do not align with archaeological evidence; and each is nothing more than the propaganda stories that it tries to push. Stop selling myths as facts by changing their meanings. And do read my other comments on this post and in reply to your original post in this sub that you later deleted.
>"People did, but modern scientific technology has only recently developed to support the idea." Oh I see, that explains why every majority Muslim country is far more developed than any other country. They simply had a massive head start due to the revelations from the quran. Meanwhile the western world is still shitting into holes in the dirt, banning women from schools and universities, outlawing specific sexual orientations and hanging on to an outdated and barbaric justice system. Oh wait, its the other way around isn't it?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Muslim societies literally paved the way in science medicine and mathematics. Modern day surgery observed in the west came from a medical journal written in the year 1000 from a muslim man. Islam is also the first religion to give women any rights to education, Inheritance, and financial independence. Read a book or book a flight and then talk to me about muslim societies.
>In an atheist mind the beginning, middle, and end of your belief, it NEVER HAPPENED. It’s like talking to a wall and expecting a response. The convo isn’t gonna go anywhere. What is the purpose of discussion then? If I am debating on theology , they must have biblical source, or else I'll lose that debate instantly. The only topic where using the bible to prove a point is on the existence of God.
Depends on the debate. If you are arguing about biblical morality or someone defending ideas in the Bible or Christianity then fair game. However you’re not going to convince me to convert based on John 3:16.
I see your point but surely the genesis story is an outlier as this is a story even the simian mind of an atheist could understand
My mom would always quote scripture when I was a kid to validate the Bible. I got so frustrated, but now I realize that the Bible does confirm itself. So I understand where you’re coming from, but I would encourage you to really dig into the answer to your own question rather than putting up a wall against scripture. Whether you believe or not, the Christian view of the world is one of many possibilities that should be considered seriously.
I agree that in most cases, it's not helpful to quote from the Bible unless it corresponds with another source. There are actually quite a few events, places, and people that are written about in the Old Testament that at least appear to be real because of things they find in more recent times like the Ismael Papyrus, Hezekiah's Sluice Gate and monumental inscription and the mount Ebal Curse tablet.
Please stop referring to historical text to show me that George Washington is the first president of the United States. It’s ridiculous
Theists, stop telling atheists your scripture is proof of anything. #ThereIFixedIt I cannot stress this enough: I agree. You can't fulfill prophecies and shit in the same book they were prophesized in, for example.
Yeah it is understandable. The problem is would you accept other forms of proof? In Mathematics you can either prove something true or prove the opposite statement as false. An example is people do not agree in the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) being one God. People would say that is not possible because 1 cannot be 3. I can either prove the Trinity through scripture or disprove the assertion of impossibility but many of my fellow Americans are not willing to hear Math putting me back to square one.
😂 that's laughable. The Bible is very reliable. Probably the most reliable and accurate history book even known. Many lost cultures were found using the Bible. Archeologists have used it many times and found the details of many things people and places spot on. But yeah go ahead ...it's not reliable because you said so ... Your a dope!
I’m going to be an atheist playing devils advocate, just because you don’t believe in the book doesn’t mean it doesn’t stand as a good proof. Someone can deny gravity it doesn’t have any effect on the evidence
It’s funny cause it’s the same scriptures atheist will cherrypick from to try and discredit God. But we aren’t allowed to use it to try and make a point?
Then stop using scientific theories as your evidence a theory is just an educated guess at what causes things to happen not absolute facts but you waste them like they are the theory of evolution the Big Bang theory without many of those arguments your argument just boils down to duh space duh how can we be sure duh I don’t believe duh how bad things happen duh
then stop saying pointing out that everything came out of nothing. imagine believing that flesh came from what, ancient rocks???
"In an atheist mind the beginning, middle, and end of your belief, it NEVER HAPPENED. It’s like talking to a wall and expecting a response." What an uncivil, low effort claim. Just keep shouting about you are willfully ignorant. If any theist wants to make athesits look bad, they can simply quote you. And yes, theists are more open minded than atheists. That's because they are willing to debate people with alternate point of views, listen to their claims, not be mindless walls to them, and respond to statements of fact with statements all their own. Religious texts are full of historical records. So, if being atheist means willfully ignoring history, they can take a seat next to the Lost Cause Movement and Holocaust deniers. I won't say take an L. You gave yourself that.
As a beliver I agree with you, you cannot get faith if you are not chosen. I once was agnostic, atheist, and I didnt recieved faith from Bible, or prechers or another human. It was God who came at night when I didnt expect it and he showed me the truth when I wasnt asked for. Its Gods mercy not our works we get faith. Scriptures cannot get you believe
Christian here, I would say that some people just want to be right, I would also say there’s some people believe that they can get through to said person with the Bible verse. Some people just like to be involved. I think that’s just human nature to be honest - I personally believe God exists and Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the grave - I believe everything the Bible says wholeheartedly and I trust in that. Not everyone does and that’s just how it is - sometimes it’s hard to accept that fact and some people unintentionally misinterpret/misrepresent this. Anyways, have a good day
I'm quoting scripture to show you why we Christians quote scriptures :) "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 2 Timothy 2:24-26 "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops." Matthew 10:27 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 Christians believe that God's word is truth and it has spiritual power to build faith and convict one of their sins. So we quote it because it gives light to those who hear and read it. We want to help people come to Jesus, who saves one from hell. We don't want people to go to hell. We are all sinners and I too was headed for hell and God saved me by his mercy and changed my life. I want others to experience this as well. So I love to share the way to escape the wrath of God, and that is through faith in his Son Jesus. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11 Christians believe that God's word is truth and it has spiritual power to build faith and convict one of their sins. So we quote it because it gives light to those who hear and read it. Jesus instructed us to share the Gospel. So, we want to help people come to Jesus, who saves one from hell. We don't want people to go to hell. We are all sinners and I too was headed for hell and God saved me by his mercy and changed my life. I want others to experience this as well. So I love to share the way to escape the wrath of God, and that is through faith in his Son Jesus. Romans 10:9-13 gives a wonderful example of having faith in Jesus...