Have you noticed the repetition and predictability that occurs when you discuss your atheism with a religious friend? Are you starting to feel a sense of deja vu? I am. After yet another back-and-forth with a passionate theist, I have concluded that there is a pattern here. Does this sound familiar?
Atheist hints at nonbelief during some random conversation. Theist picks up on it, smells an opportunity, and bites. Theist, with a kind, approachable smile, gently inquires about Atheist's beliefs. Atheist either dodges and says something bland like, "I don't go to church anymore, but I'm still spiritual," or blatantly asks, "I'm an atheist, you got a problem with that?" Theist uncontrollably envisions Satan standing before him.
Theist proposes that Atheist is, in fact, really Agnostic. Asserts that Atheists believe just as dogmatically that there is no god as the fundamentally religious, and that perhaps Atheist is more open and suggestible to Theist's religious teachings than that. Atheist explains the difference in terms, and directs Theist to the nearest Wiki entry on the words.
Theist composes himself. Nods and shows pitying expression, then offers, "But you realize you cannot disprove god." Atheist cites burden of proof, and that to have fantastical claims is to assume the responsibility to prove them.
Theist chuckles and misses the point, then describes strong internal conviction. Confuses "knowing" with verifiable knowledge, when instead Theist's sense of "knowing" is actually a subjective feeling and internal conversation. Confuses faith with evidence.
Atheist points this out. Theist asks, "How does anyone know anything, then?" Theist veers off into existential discussion and asks how Atheist even knows that they are "real." Makes up bizarro-world scenario to show life may all just be an illusion or a test!
Atheist focuses conversation back to the here and now, and redefines evidence and knowledge versus faith and dogma. References how it is very likely that said Theist is probably an adherent to the same religion he was born into.
Theist discounts this. Atheist quizzes Theist on world religions, past and present. Theist fails, but continues to claim that he has the one, true answer to all of life's mysteries and the trials of existence for all humanity through the religion he adopted when he was seven years old.
Atheist becomes irritated because Theist seems to be talking past Atheist, rather than respecting his right to believe any way he sees fit. Asks for mutual respect and awareness that there are many "answers" in life. Theist then, either directly or indirectly, labels Atheist angry, militant, smug, and/or belligerent.
Theist calls on Pascal's Wager in desperation. Atheist busts this argument as flimsy, and posits that if this is the true reason Theist worships god, an omnipotent, omniscient diety would surely be able to see through this false allegiance. States that the admirable reason to worship a god is not for an eternal payoff or a promise, or even the fear of damnation.
Theist introduces the morality compass. Says without said holy book, there are no rules or reasons for morality. References holy condemnation of current controversial social issues like abortion or homosexuality. Atheist notes the shitty things like murder and infanticide that occur in holy texts without condemnation, and scoffs that these books are not exactly morality tales or ideal examples of a divine, inspired, perfect message. Suggests that morality must come from within, not from threat of a great overseer. Atheist then further refers to scientific studies about morality and childhood development of empathy and consideration of others.
Theist misses point again, and unconsciously discloses his fear of death by pleading that there "must be something more." Atheist agrees, there is something more, it is just found in the beauty of the natural world and universe, and in the amazing strength of human virtues. It does not have to be magic.
Theist sighs and rolls eyes, and admits that he feels sorry for how "closed minded" the Atheist must be. Theist then refers to the holy text because the holy text is true because the holy text says it is true.
Atheist calls circular reasoning. Theist sighs sanctimoniously and finally says, "I will pray for you to find the Truth." Grits teeth, crosses arms, and steps back in judgment.
Atheist changes subject, having no more tolerance for this same conversation that occurs over and over again. Wishes, "Please give me something new. Anything?"
Yeah that pretty much sums it up, though I have occasionally "won" by getting them to admit "it's a matter of faith" and there's no real reason to believe it other than wanting to or being part of a culture that believes it.
ReplyDeleteI'm too soft to tell them that Buddhism is probably correct and in the next life they'll be a cockroach because of their arrogance to presume their feelings are cosmic facts, and I'll be a human again and I'll squish them to help them hurry up getting back to the next-higher level.
...but I always wish I weren't too soft to say that!
Good post :-)
ReplyDeleteI've got my most of my class to admit that they don't know, and cannot proof if god exists. In a catholic high school. (but they were pretty intelligent and always questioning already, it was quite a good high school) That was the win of my life so far. :)
ReplyDeleteD'oh
ReplyDeleteTide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.
ReplyDeleteI still can't believe they actually televised that - you'd think someone in the studio would have caught it and said "Urgh, they will think we are all idiots".
Delete[Moon, dude!]
Personally, I always approach these arguments as a psychologist. I ask people how, if I can reliably predict behavior in given scenarios, can free will exist? If I can show that people form beliefs based on knowledge attained first, and those beliefs are only tempered when held up to counter-points, how can one really say those beliefs were chosen "freely" and "freely" remain held?
ReplyDeleteMost of the time people miss the point completely, but, in a few blessed instances, they accept my premise that free will is a complex illusion. Then I am able to ask them why they believe a loving God will condemn them to eternal bliss or torment for something they couldn't do any differently. Of course, they then deflect and dodge like they're Jedi with crazy theological lightsabers. *facepalm*
Sigh, one of my best friends has been one of those nice Young Earth Creationist/Inerrant Bible types. No really he is a great guy, although he did tell me I was too smart to not believe in "god" or the Inerrancy of the "bible". Once I started pointing out inconsistencies, the argument went to the "Well some parts are the absolute way things happened, some are allegorical, and some are not meant to be understood by man." At which point I countered with:"If parts are allegory, and parts are not meant to be understood, how are you supposed to know which is which? Wouldn't an all knowing "god" know how something as small as the solar system really works? Wouldn't he make sure that every thing in 'his' book was accurate and understandable to anyone who read it?"
ReplyDeleteI really am not making fun of this guy... he really has been one of the best friends I ever had, and I would do anything I could to help him out... Hell I've even gone so far at times as to fix a lunchtime work meal for him, buy his lunch, or even run him on errands, and I know that if things were reversed he would do the same for me. He just can't believe that maybe there is better evidence for the lack of a "god" than there is for the existence of same.
Yeah, this pretty much captures the essence of every theist-atheist debate ever. It's the oldest story ever told, at least since the "god question" first came up. And what better way to tell the story than through Homer Simpson?
ReplyDeleteExcellent summary. One variation I like to make is that when the theist offers to pray for me I request that they direct their prayers to Odin or Athena. I greatly prefer deities associated with wisdom over those known for petty jealousy, temper tantrums and genocide.
ReplyDelete"Theist" is not a synonym for "Christian", "Catholic", or anyone else who brings up the Bible in these arguments. Using it that way basically invalidates this article because it's such an easy and fallacious way out.
ReplyDeleteCatholics believe in the Biblical God.
Catholics are theists.
Ergo, theists believe in the Biblical God and can be portrayed as, and disproven with the same arguments against, Catholics(or any organized religion)?
Call what you're talking about the "organized religious" or something, but roping the entire concept of theism under this layout is transparently self-conscious and thin.
You really don't get the whole point of the article do you? This does not invalidate the article, because all OP would have to do is change one word and it would be fixed. To invalidate an article, it would have to be a mistake so large that there would be no way to fix it. This mistake is fixable, therefore your argument is invalid.
DeleteAtheist then posts here, without even being approached by a theist, just to create atheism as a new religion rather than let people think and not act as dumb as SOME theists.
ReplyDeletehaha, awesome.
ReplyDeleteGreat post
ReplyDeleteNice, although the theist often trots out the Stalin Argument right after the "Atheist notes the shitty things like murder and infanticide..." part.
ReplyDeleteAtheist uses "Hitler was catholic and did everything he did in the name of God argument". They then agree that the actions of one person who just happened to belong to a certain group, should not condemn the entire group.
DeleteALL the German SS and Nat.Soc uniforms carried a "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") insignia.
DeleteThe catholic church helped 100s of German Nat.Socs escape Europe after the war.
Does "actions of one person who just happened to belong to a certain group" also apply to Josef Ratzinger?
Ian: Atheist invokes Hitler after that
ReplyDeleteAnd at the end as Theist leaves, determined to get the last word, he uses the quote about "shaking the dust off your sandals."
ReplyDeleteYou pretty much nailed a conversation between my husband and his fundie brother a couple of years ago.
"Ian: Atheist invokes Hitler after that"
ReplyDeleteThen theist says that Hitler was an atheist. Augh! >_<
Fave Homer quote: Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to all of life's problems.
ReplyDeleteanonymously :) I use to be on the wrong side of that conversation for lack of direction from my community and so blindly by my parent while growing up. Don't question just do, robot sheep baaaaa. :( I was brainwashed by those who were brainwashed. Sigh, don't give up on them.
ReplyDeletePure, unadulterated win.
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
ReplyDelete"I will pray for you to find the Truth."
ReplyDeleteAt this point, Atheist should say, "And I will think of you during sodomy. We'll get the same result, but my process is MUCH more fun!". Theist will most likely leave, never to come back.
@Parker
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no you don't get it. It's an allegory!
@Oscar.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to be rude and crude. These people are rarely being deliberately and knowingly obnoxious. They mistakenly think they are doing and saying the right thing. Those of us who once believed this nonsense understand that we are not any more willingly polite and intelligent these days, we are just more educated.
Definitely had this conversation way too many times. Except I often end up citing a recent survey that, among other fun results, show the majority of Catholics don't know what transubstantiation is, let alone believe it.
ReplyDeleteThis is just spot on
ReplyDeletewhile this diatribe does contain the usual cantankerous theist debate, which lets be honest, you may simply say born again christian as you have never had this debate with a Hindu Brahmin who is equally a theist. But lets play two way street while we're at it; the atheist in this argument is just as emotionally charged as the theist in this debate and the logical steps are equally as driven by anger as by reason. what is the difference between a man who belligerently believes there is a God and a man who belligerently believes there is no God? while you say the burden on proof is on the "fantastical" belief, does the burden of proof lie on every member of the argument? Are you as rightous enough to assume that you have the all knowing word? That you are positive that nothing else could exist? one does not need to be spiritual; one should simply accept that he cannot know either way. While I'm sure that even this rant will fall on deaf ears I can only hope the same reason and logic that drew you away from theism can now show you the errors of your logic.
ReplyDeleteThis is almost how these conversations go when I talk to my religious friends. I am only 14 and I am an atheist. I find it incredibly sad that teenagers my age have been brainwashed into believing that their is a nigher power that they must devote their lives too. Subsequently this makes them miss out on having their own opinions and it even meddles with their education. My one close friend thinks that everything in the universe was invented by god and that the bible is always right. She even thinks that the only thing sex is meant for is to make children and nothing more. It honestly depresses me seeing young kids with a life full of experiences ahead of them already fallen slave to a fantasy.
ReplyDeleteBy your reasoning, the "it's true because my belief says it is" argument is just as based in reason and logical thought as scientific studies proving the atheist's point. I agree though, that you can't really prove a religion wrong using scientific fact, because by their definitions science and religion can't be mixed. I need to say though, that even though I can't disprove the existence of a god (or gods), the same is true for the tooth fairy, who - last time I checked - does not have any followers looking to her for the answer to life's question. I can't say I have the all knowing word, but I'm pretty damn sure I do.
ReplyDeleteMost are people who never really accomplished anything in their life. Church is sort of like an insurance policy so that at the very end, they can look down from some cloud and laugh and point and tell all of us heathens .. I Told You So.
ReplyDeleteI'm an Atheist, but I've never had a conversation like this. A lot of my friends are religious, but we don't talk about religion, we respect that what we believe is no one else's business. Even if we do, I've never felt in conflict with them. Maybe it's just where I am or the people I'm friends with, but I have never in my life encountered aggressive religion directly.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I don't think aggression is good on any side. Don't meet militant theism with militant Atheism, you're just sinking to their level. You can split biblical hairs until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make a difference to people who really believe.
Well I think it is important to talk to Theists about Atheism. I read somewhere that as much as you argue with them, they tend to just tune you out. But if you mock them, they start to feel embarrassed about what they are saying so far as to actually do some research. Instead of trying to convince them, we ought to mock them until they are compelled to actually find out for themselves. This comes from a guy who said that he himself could not be swayed by arguments, but that he found the more people made fun of him, the more he questioned himself. It doesn't have to be a humiliating mockery, but more like a poking fun, humorous way. Don't make them cry, haha that's not the point, but it has proven to work! The more people question themselves, the more they are compelled to educate themselves. It's easy to read one book and go with it, but to actually look into other things would really be beneficial. I was born without religion and I wanted to find out for myself what felt right. I took religious studies as more of an objective viewpoint and by the end, the best religions were Taoism and Buddhism, I even enjoyed Hinduism to an extent. But none of these religions were able to show me what I was looking for. I found it when I looked into Atheism and realized how unnecessary religion has always been for me, and how it could be for everyone else. Do you really believe you have to be religious in order to be a good person? I don't think anyone can truly believe that, at least not anyone who's recieved a decent education.
ReplyDeleteExcellent - you've got the whole thing distilled down to exactly what happens.
ReplyDeleteI only ever get into such debates online - if there is anyone religious round here they keep it very quiet. All my friends and family are athiests, so I never get into the debate in person.
The Pascal's Wager point is a good one. That argument fails immediately because faith is NOT a choice. I can decide I "should" believe something then suddenly really believe it.
Please always remember that being concise and defining the positions of both sides of any argument is supremely important. As Parker points out, not all theists are Christians. Additionally not all atheists are the same either.
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins discusses a atheism-agnosticism-theism spectrum well in "The God Delusion". Basically: 1. There is no way to really know so anyone who is truly rational will understand that technically we can only really be agnostics. 2. The 'God of the Gaps' shrinks as science advances but that does not mean some form of deity does not exist, merely that religious interpretations/views of it/them are probably false. 3. Not believing in a god/gods is not the same idea as believing one does not exist.
I think the only theists you know are christians (and the crazy christians at that)
ReplyDeletethis is why you don't get into such discussions.....
ReplyDeleteThis does a good job of pointing out common flaws in theist argument, but I think it reveals some flaws in common atheist argument as well. Take this section:
ReplyDelete[[Theist asks, "How does anyone know anything, then?" Theist veers off into existential discussion and asks how Atheist even knows that they are "real." Makes up bizarro-world scenario to show life may all just be an illusion or a test! Atheist focuses conversation back to the here and now, and redefines evidence and knowledge versus faith and dogma.]]
Okay, so, in my mind, there is some subjective bias here about what is "bizarre." For someone who has a strong sense of their own spiritual existence, the idea that reality is ONLY physical can seem just as strange as the idea that the physical world does not exist.
That doesn't mean it’s not true that the physical world is the only reality. A sense of strangeness certainly is subjective, and it is no evidence for a spiritual reality. But the point is still valid that the same subjectivity can apply to the physical reality.
Science is complex and wonderful thing. But it does ultimately rest on the credibility of the physical senses, and I think it is reasonable to question that credibility.
When person has both spiritual senses and natural ones, and are told that only the natural ones are valid as evidence, the instinctive reaction is to ask why, and expect an answer.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but when you say, "Atheist focuses conversation back to the here and now," I hear, "Atheist takes a hint from the theist, and starts talking past them instead of reasoning with them." Like many of the theist flaws you pointed out, it's an escape from responding to what the other person actually said.
Anyway, thanks for the post. I had fun reading it. LOVE the Simpsons. The commenters on this blog seem particularly reasonable and nice, so I might stick around.
Wow, deja vu.
ReplyDeleteActually, these days I've been changing the whole flavor of these arguments by taking the whole thing to it's logical conclusion: first cause. As background, I call myself a Bright, rather than an Atheist, because I'd prefer to deny *ALL* supernatural phenomena, rather than just gods. I also have a lifelong habit of somehow becoming associated with religious or religiously affiliated groups, which doesn't bother me as long as we can all stay respectful of each other. The last time I got in this argument with a deeply religious Catholic friend of mine, I simply boiled it down to the end, after explaining that I don't believe in "witches, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, magic, or gods".
ReplyDeleteI simply explained to him that we both have the same problem, namely First Cause. He's inclined to believe in God because his upbringing has led him to espouse the idea that Something must have created Everything. I retorted that I think that Science can explain everything. "So," he says, "where did Science and the Universe come from?" "What created God?" I replied. Stalemate.
^^^@Latest Anonymous: Unfortunately, to this last question, "What created God?" (I've suggested First Cause, too) I usually get the 'God Works in Mysterious Ways' response. I get the answer, "God always has been and always will be." They pull out the alpha/omega thing.
ReplyDelete@Lady Atheist: I disagree that getting a believer to admit that their faith is a matter of faith is actually winning the argument. Faith is a good thing to a theist.
ReplyDeleteI've never been sure at what point destroying someone's comfortable belief in an afterlife does open you up to legitimate claims of anger, militancy, smugness, and/or belligerence. I think it's a game where the only winning move is not to play.
To quote Minchin: "We might as well be ten minutes back in time for all the chance you've changed your mind"
I'm a Christian, and I enjoy most of these conversations. But a lot of the same ridiculousness that y'all say can be said from my end to yours. Granted, I hope y'all make illiterate Christians feel dumb for not being able to back up their faith with REASON and PROOF. Most of those professed Christians probably only "believe" because their parents tell them to and not because they think for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say this. When I talk to atheist friends, I always start with Jesus. Jesus is the whole center of Christianity, and so I want to start with Him and then go from there. So the question I have for you guys is. Did Jesus exist. This is the most important question, if you and I can agree yes, then we can go from there. However, if we disagree with this answer, then I'm afraid there is no sense in arguing.
Did Jesus exist? I think there's a more fundamental question: is the Bible reliable? Because everything you or anybody else knows about Jesus comes from that single source. If you think it's more likely an inspired work than simply the collected historical and religious writings of Bronze Age Jewish tribes, translated and copied by unreliable Medieval scribes centuries after Jesus's death, then you might have some additional critical thinking to do before we even get to discussing Jesus. But for the record, my tendency is to see Jesus as a legendary figure, probably based on a historical person, but whose exploits are clearly more myth than fact. Much like King Arthur or Gilgamesh.
ReplyDeleteOn an unrelated note, when I last had a religion conversation with a Christian friend, he concluded, "I have my beliefs, you have yours," to which I replied "Actually, I would say that you have your beliefs, and I don't buy them." I recommend that as a closer because it's not quite a satisfying conclusion like the one my friend was trying to offer. It invites them to contemplate the nature of atheism and the burden of proof on their own.
There are several things wrong with this article.
ReplyDeleteFirst off: Theists got nothing to do with the image of religious believers you are drawing in this article.
Then again: atheism IS a believe. You can't prove or disprove god with logical arguments (e.g. with science), because god is and has to be irrational. There can't be, as someone posted above, more hints to the non-existence than hints to the existence of god.
Also you seem very arrogant and selfcentered like any other "theist" you want to discredit here.
I would consider myself agnostic, but that's just too narrow. I don't think, there's a right view on religion and believe. What counts, is how you handle it and what moral you derive from it. And you seem just as narrowminded as many believers, atheist, theists or whatever.
Please considere these things, maybe we can all learn more tolerance and accept, that neither of us KNOWS ANYTHING about god or his nonexistence or any other spiritual being.
And also I'm sorry for my bad english, I'm no native speaker.
Burden of proof, I feel, shouldn't even exist in these conversations. There is no proof one way or the other, hence the term faith. Neither party can truly prove or disprove the existence of a divine being. "“Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.”" - Kahlil Ghibran
ReplyDeleteAs to the origin's of God, well, God is energy. God is life. God is everything. Imagine a colored sheet of paper, draw a circle on the paper. Everything existing within that circle comprises our reality. The colored paper is God. There is no creation, or end. This divine energy simply exists as a great infinite. It lives within everything and everyone.
Stutz....
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, yes the Bible is reliable. The Bible is one of the most reliable historical books we have. Mainly because we have so may copies. In fact there are historical copies of the NT which hold up to the accuracy of the Bible that we use in every day life. No other historical book from it's time even touches this.
Plus your attempt at discounting the tedious translations of the Bible, shows that you haven't even done any sort of study or research on how the Bible is translated. The Bible is trustworthy, you just have to read it to find out.
Also, there are other secular sources that confirm that Jesus lived. And because the Bible is so historically accurate there is no reason not to believe what the Bible says about Jesus is true
So thats why I ask people. Do you believe Jesus existed?
I have become so disgusted and tired of nonsensical theists arguments and statements that I mostly refuse to even try to communicate with them.
ReplyDeleteI tell them that, "You cannot reason a person away from a position that they did not reach through reason." When you add to that the possibility that they are far too unintelligent to even understand facts and rational thinking, why waste your time?
To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."
There will always be a debate back and forth about this. This touches lightly on what I personally have experienced in my life. I grew up Christian and believed most of what was taught to me young (till about 6). Then I started questioning my own faith and that's when things went horribly wrong. Other parents (not mine they were understanding of questions and view points and the only "real" Christians I knew) would openly commend their children ridiculing me for my questions, poking fun, and even in a few instances egged them on to beat me up. I was even still a Christian at the time, I just thought I was the one with the problem. I just wanted answers and I was only answered with bigotry and looked at like a leper. I was even sent away to a "belief camp" by my school. (it was required if I was to continue my "education" there)
ReplyDeleteThe more I learned the more I pushed away from all religions. I renounced my faith by 5th grade and people just treated me worse and worse. I didn't want to be confirmed but this is what the BISHOP said, "Well I understand you're having some doubt. Just get confirmed with your classmates because it will look better for the school. You will eventually come back to the light..." Since that very moment I've turned on the church and never looked back.
I know everyone's experience with theism, in this particular case Christianity, will be different. Some of the worse people I've ever met were righteously theist in their mind set, especially from MY experiences, Christians. I've also met some very rational theists weather Christian or another religion entirely. I fully believe that its up each person to make their faith work for them and learn as much as possibly to be good people with in their religion. I also think its possible for no religion to exist and still have morals. If I stayed the way I was when I was growing up I would probably have burned churches and ridiculed every Christian I could find because that seemed to be all they did to me. Instead I took the high road and forgave WITH OUT A RELIGION.
No matter what your stance is remember we are all humans and we all can get hurt. Just try not to be a complete ass hole and we should be able to get along. That and THINK, LEARN, and THINK!!!!!!
I hope my ramblings were helpful.
In response to anonymous that is arguing with Strutz, All supposedly "confirming" accounts about Jesus outside the bible are either inconsistent with the time period, they use more modern language and words that did not exist at the time they were written, or were written by religious scholars. There is no reliable evidence from the time other than the bible itself. Also you discount his argument about how the bible is translated without any argument. You just say you didn't do any research on it. For you to do this you must site your research. The bible has been translated, summarized, rewritten, and changed so many times it is ridiculous. In the original bible there were 4 commandments and they were nothing like the ones today. Also Jesus's name was originally more like Joseph, but it was decided that Joseph was too common and that it must be changed to be a bit more unique. As just one little piece of evidence against the bible, the pyramids and many other ancient architectual feats were built before god supposedly flooded the Earth, destroying everything. Over time the bible has been changed to try to further prove god's existence and to meet the beliefs of the writer better. I do not take the bible as an even remotely reliable source. Did Jesus exist is a whole new question. Now to discount the bible completely would be just as close-minded as you are. I believe that there was a guy thousands of years ago that did something slightly impressive, and through poor story-telling, time, and lying his story became that of Jesus. This is what I believe about most hero figures from the ancient world. Gilgamesh is a great example. He was probably a king of Uruk that built a wall, and won a battle or two. Now to make Uruk seem more powerful the people started spreading an exaggerated myth. Over time this myth changed and was translated poorly by the Babylonians, etc. thus the story of Gilgamesh was created. This is pretty much exactly what happened with Jesus and the bible. I believe that most epic heroes were some historical figure, in Jesus's case probably a philosopher that had a fairly large following, that had their story exaggerated about and changed through the inconsistencies of word of mouth. The bible was written based only upon word of mouth 300 years after the events. Could you write an accurate story about Christopher Columbus if there were no text books or historical documentations of him. You had to just go based upon what your great great great relative passed down in between horror stories at a camp fire, of course not. I believe in an impressive philosopher named Joseph, that has a very false rumor circulating, not the Jesus that you believe in.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thecrazyleft.com/2009/12/did-jesus-christ-truly-exist-done-for.html
Well I'm not going to argue extra biblical sources, I believe that your line of reasoning is a little off since pliny the younger, josephus and others did in fact write about Jesus.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will start with your point about the bible translations. Again, research how the Old Testament was translated and you will see the diligence that these scribes took to translate it. We even have copies of Old Testament books that date to 150 B.C. that are identical to the books that are in the Bible now. That is pretty solid translating if you ask me. And we are talking word for word translations, we aren't talking about The Message or the TNIV, we are talking NASB, ESV, KJV... translations, like that, which derive from the original Greek and Hebrew.
“Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."
1 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A SURVEY OF OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1974), 25.
Bible critics used to claim that the Hittite civilization mentioned in Genesis did not exist at the time of Abraham because there was no record of it apart from the Old Testament. However, archaeology has discovered that it not only existed but it lasted more than 1,200 years. Now you can even get a doctorate in Hittite studies from the University of Chicago
The Bible is very reliable historically and archaeologically
Jesus' name is Yeshua in Aramaic. That's his name, you can say Joseph, Joshua, or Jesus, I don't care. His name is Yeshua
Also in the bible itself, paul says if you don't believe me to go ask other people and they will testify to it.
Also, if the bible can't be trusted and it is full of lies by original apostles, then why are there multiple instances in the bible, where these same disciples/apostles look like idiots. If it were lies don't you think they would omit the parts that made them look stupid? I mean don't you think Peter would have omitted the part where Jesus calls him "Satan"? or when he denied him 3 times in one night?
I'm not sure your sources about the flood being before the pyramids. I think you mentioned something about sources.
Last, the article you posted at the end I'm not even going to address right now. These claims that Jesus' story was stolen from other god's, holds no weight whatsoever. Some of these claims were discarded 100 years ago and others are such a stretch that most reasonable people don't even use them as evidence against Jesus. Most of the time it's a 20 year old kid who watched Bill Maher's movie or Zeitgeist or googled some ridiculous thing about Jesus.
My go-to argument for the "without the bible there is no moral compass" line is simply to make them back up their own assertion.
ReplyDelete"Really?" I'll say. "Your basic human decency comes from the bible, from the "fact" that a book spells out what you should and shouldn't do, so that is in fact what you do and do not do?"
Invariably the response is, "yes."
"OK," I'll retort, "So if it weren't for the bible telling you not to, you would gladly quit your job and instead make money the easy way; robbing and murdering every schmuck with a wallet foolish enough to cross your path. We are all wicked, awful, deeply flawed sinners at heart, and the ONLY THING stopping you from viciously beating me to death with your bare hands right now for the $20 in my wallet. . .is that the bible says not to. You WANT TO, but the bible says NOT TO."
It's not very long after that exchange that some admission is made that it is in fact quite possible to be a decent human being simply because you are, at your core, a decent human being.
Chuck.....
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian I would argue for your point more than against it. Most Christians I know, would do the same too. You have just argued for, and proved, an objective truth in the world that all humans know, understand, and believe in.
Atheist points out 2Kings 2:23-24. My favourite part of the Bible.
ReplyDelete"I'll pray for you" is basically their passive-aggressive way of saying, "go fuck yourself with a flaming rusty pitchfork." Honestly Christians, we know what you mean by this, and it's not winning you any brownie points.
ReplyDelete