The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[Zakath]

In reply to Z Man's questions.

In reply to Z Man's questions.

Originally posted by Z Man
Dear Zakath,
You have yet to answer my question:

Originally posted by Zakath
But you claim extreme miraculous powers for one Jesus of Nazareth. That's a big difference and one that requires a different kind of evidence.

Originally posted by Z Man
What kind of evidence? And why don't you ask the same of the historical claims made on Alexander's conquering of the world at age 33? That seems to be an extremely extraodinary claim, don't you think?

I seem to count three questions there, Z Man.

Answer to question #1: When someone makes claims that appear to violate what are commonly called physcial laws, the burden is on the claimant to produce believable evidence to show that something paranormal or extraordinary has indeed happened. If you claim that a human being, Jesus of Nazareth, demonstrated paranormal abilities, you need to furnish evidence. Since that human being died almost twenty centuries ago, we cannot hop into your auto and drive over to see him in action to verify the truth of those claims. We must rely on documentary evidence. To accept a claim that a particular individual engaged in paranormal activity I would look to evaluate a variety of evidence, including the following:

• 1. Original eyewitness accounts - by this I mean the original autographs written by the observers in the original languages. To the best of my knowledge, no such accounts exist for anything done by Jesus of Nazareth.
  
  2. Specific accounts of the individual events factually described by others outside the religious movement. Again, to the best of my knowledge, no such accounts exist.

Even when presented with such evidence, it would need to be critically evaluated for accuracy and bias.

Answer to questions #2 & #3: There are two reasons that historical claims about the exploits of a particular general are not subjected to similar levels of scrutiny as your claims about your deity.

First, the claim is made about a human being carrying on frequently observable human activities (i.e. a general conquering nations). There is no paranormal activity claimed that violates any observable so called "phyisical laws", so the level of proof is not extraordinary.

Second, there are consequences alleged for belief (or disbelief) in religious figures and their messages that are seldom, if ever, claimed for generals. For example, Christians tell me that if I do not believe as they assert I should that I am doomed to eternal torment. While the most I've ever heard claimed for those who disagree with scholars about Alexander is that they're ignorant. Thus the stakes, from my point of view, are much higher for religious issues than merely historical ones.

 

[shima]

Good post, Zakath

 

[RogerB]

When you find the book or set of keys that you've been looking for, you stop searching.

Followers of Christ have this same kind of resolution and satisfaction.

By all means, KEEP SEARCHING!

 

[RogerB]

When someone makes claims that appear to violate what are commonly called physcial laws, the burden is on the claimant to produce believable evidence to show that something paranormal or extraordinary has indeed happened.

Did you find this in the "Great big Book of Proving the Impossible" or did you just make it up?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
Did you find this in the "Great big Book of Proving the Impossible" or did you just make it up?

Are you saying that Zakath's statement is untrue? That the burden is on the doubter to prove that something paranormal or extraordinary didn't happen?

Consider your answer carefully, because the answer that often comes from believers in ghosts, psychic powers and flying saucers is "yes".

I mean, someone once asked me "If psychic powers don't exist, how does Uri Geller bend spoons?"

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Did you find this in the "Great big Book of Proving the Impossible" or did you just make it up?

Roger, if I came to you stating that the universe was created and run by an Invisible Pink Unicorn (TM) with all kinds of miraculous powers, what kind of proof would you require before believing me?

 

[RogerB]

...if I came to you stating that the universe was created and run by an Invisible Pink Unicorn (TM)...

But you didn't. So how was the universe created and what proof (not theories) can you offer?

 

[Zakath]

Hey, I'm just a poor dumb atheist. I don't claim to know everything.

As far as the beginnings of the universe: It's so far out of my area of study that I'm ignorant and apathethic.

(Translation: I don't know and I don't care.)

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
So how was the universe created...

"I don't know." "I haven't the faintest idea."

Both are perfectly valid responses.

...and what proof (not theories) can you offer?

Now there's a meaty challenge: to prove that one does not know something...

 

[Gerald]

Hmmm...

Perhaps RogerB could pick up where One-Eyed Jack left off.

How about we flip off the Way-Back Machine and return to the present?

All this talk about origins of the universe is wasted on the average unbeliever (Zakath and I being cases in point); why not show examples of how the existence of supernatural entities or events has been conclusively demonstrated?

Much closer to home, that...

 

[RogerB]

So ignornace is bliss? Is that what it means to be an atheist? Arms folded, grumpy look on your face, asserting nothing, demanding what you yourself refuse to provide....:thumb:

Party on, Zak!

 

[Z Man]

Re: In reply to Z Man's questions.

Re: In reply to Z Man's questions.

Originally posted by .Ant
great posts Z Man :thumb:

Thanks .Ant. :up:

Originally posted by Zakath
I seem to count three questions there, Z Man.

Answer to question #1: When someone makes claims that appear to violate what are commonly called physcial laws, the burden is on the claimant to produce believable evidence to show that something paranormal or extraordinary has indeed happened. If you claim that a human being, Jesus of Nazareth, demonstrated paranormal abilities, you need to furnish evidence. Since that human being died almost twenty centuries ago, we cannot hop into your auto and drive over to see him in action to verify the truth of those claims. We must rely on documentary evidence. To accept a claim that a particular individual engaged in paranormal activity I would look to evaluate a variety of evidence, including the following:

• 1. Original eyewitness accounts - by this I mean the original autographs written by the observers in the original languages. To the best of my knowledge, no such accounts exist for anything done by Jesus of Nazareth.

• 
  
  Ummmm....we have the Bible, hello? The Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote about Jesus's resurrection and they were eye-witnesses. So what if the Bible has gone through numerous language translations; dosn't mean the message was changed a bit. If a translator had tried to change the message, there would have been countless people who would have objected otherwise. You gotta keep in mind that the bible wasn't tooken to someones cave to be translated by one person so that they could put what ever they wanted in there; it went through countless scrutiny under the highest scholars in the church to undergo a translation. That's it, just a language translation!
  
  The point is, something dramatic happened back then that caused these disciples and numerous other people to begin a huge religious movement that has changed the world as we know it. And back then, it wasn't easy. Christians were slaughtered like swine for there faith. Most of them were alive during Jesus' time and they witnessed either, a) His miracles, or b) His empty tomb (which, by the way, you can still go witness to this day ) All of these people wouldn't have died for a lie.
  
  

  2. Specific accounts of the individual events factually described by others outside the religious movement. Again, to the best of my knowledge, no such accounts exist.

This would never happen, because if they had witnessed for themselves the risen Christ, they would have been part of the religious movement. Besides, I know that not everyone believed in Jesus in His time, even when He performed miracles before their eyes. So if they were to document His life and the events that took place, would they have been bias? They hated this guy with all their guts, mainly becuase He declared to be God. So would the very ones who put Him on the cross have made an accurate documentation of His life? I think not...

Even when presented with such evidence, it would need to be critically evaluated for accuracy and bias.

In other words, no matter what is presented before you as evidence of Christ's existence and miraclous claims, you will never believe...

Answer to questions #2 & #3: There are two reasons that historical claims about the exploits of a particular general are not subjected to similar levels of scrutiny as your claims about your deity.

First, the claim is made about a human being carrying on frequently observable human activities (i.e. a general conquering nations). There is no paranormal activity claimed that violates any observable so called "phyisical laws", so the level of proof is not extraordinary.

Second, there are consequences alleged for belief (or disbelief) in religious figures and their messages that are seldom, if ever, claimed for generals. For example, Christians tell me that if I do not believe as they assert I should that I am doomed to eternal torment. While the most I've ever heard claimed for those who disagree with scholars about Alexander is that they're ignorant. Thus the stakes, from my point of view, are much higher for religious issues than merely historical ones.

Blah, blah, blah... Like I posted earlier:

If it is true about Alexander the Great, no big deal. It won't have any effect on anyone and it won't change anything in anyone's life outside of just having the information that he conquered the known world by age 33. But, if it is true about Jesus, then that is completely different. Jesus claimed to be divine and He had a message for people about heaven and hell and that salvation is only through Him. Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, such as a resurrection from the dead. This would have a profound effect on people and it can make them uncomfortable. Therefore, people will not want it to be true and will desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions; hence, the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Matthew J. Slick
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by shima
>>But Christianity teaches that man cannot save themselves, only God can, and He did, displaying the most powerful presentation of love that this world has ever seen. As for Judaism, I believe they are still God's people and He will save them in the end.<<

Every religion teaches different things. In what way does this make Christianity any different from the millions of other religions?

Every religion in the world teaches that man must achieve his/her own salvation, except Christianity. Christianity displays the greatest power of love ever demonstrated between a perfect Supreme Being and His creation. The message that God loves me so much that He was willing to die for my mistakes, is the only solution in any religion to completely elleviate the problem of humankind. No other religion can compare...

Remeber, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship.

 

[mindlight]

When someone makes claims that appear to violate what are commonly called physcial laws, the burden is on the claimant to produce believable evidence to show that something paranormal or extraordinary has indeed happened. If you claim that a human being, Jesus of Nazareth, demonstrated paranormal abilities, you need to furnish evidence. Since that human being died almost twenty centuries ago, we cannot hop into your auto and drive over to see him in action to verify the truth of those claims. We must rely on documentary evidence. To accept a claim that a particular individual engaged in paranormal activity I would look to evaluate a variety of evidence, including the following:

1. Original eyewitness accounts - by this I mean the original autographs written by the observers in the original languages. To the best of my knowledge, no such accounts exist for anything done by Jesus of Nazareth.

The Bible is documentary evidence written by eyewitnesses to the events described:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty.' (2 Peter 1:16)

`The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also might believe.' (John19:35)

`Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.' (Luke 1:1-4)

The credibility of this document can be affirmed in a host of ways including the circumstantial and occasionally direct support of non Christian writers like Josephus.

Regarding evidence that Jesus did miracles or things which defy normal explanation the Bible is a credible and should be the primary source. It is quoted and affirmed by numerous other commentators not that far from the period of writing itself and we have fragments dating back to the within a generation of its writing.

There are non Christian sources which also appear to affirm the notion for instance that Jesus performed paranormal actions:

JOSEPHUS:
"Testimonium Flavianum" (Josephus - Jewish Antiquities- Book 18 - Chapter 3 ( 63-64).

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the ) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him are not extinct at this day."


Jewish Talmudic literature

"Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray"


I think the way a person approaches evidence is the key issue here though;

From my own resources I can honestly say that I could not find out answers to questions that include within their scope things outside my own experience. Since my experience is limited to several decades of the late C20 /earlyC21 that excludes most of history and of the universe also. Thus anybody who will never accept evidence that is not in some sense validated by analogy to their own experience will in the end be able to say little about some of the most fundamental questions human beings can and do ask:

Questions like: where do I come from?
When did the Universe begin, and how and why.
Who am I
What happens when I die?
Is there any thing more to life than the experience we have of this life here on Earth in this time period?

Given our finitude and imperfection we cannot answer these questions with anything but "I don't or even cannot know!"

However a Christian can answer these questions with integrity because they have been given answers by someone who could credibly answer the questions posed - God Himself. We can quote the revelation that we have received in the scriptures. Many believers have been converted by the quality and presence of God in the Bible. We can know, to the limits that a human can know, what we need to know about God and the Universe because God Himself became a man , shared our experience of history and demonstrated what it means to know Him within space and time.

An Atheist or agnostic can in fact say little with any authority except perhaps:

" I was wrong O Lord - please forgive me and help me to see what I have been blind to for all my life - so that I may know You and live forever in Your Light."

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Z Man
Ummmm....we have the Bible, hello? The Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote about Jesus's resurrection and they were eye-witnesses...

So say the theologians and bible scholars who make a comfortable living selling the idea to each generation. The question I have for you, Z Man is simple.

How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you believe is true?

Think about what you are saying: you are willing to stake your eternal destiny on alleged eyewitness accounts allegedly recorded in documents that no longer exist. All that do exist are fragments of alleged translations of those documents, written in languages you can't read, and translated into your language by people you've never met.

So what if the Bible has gone through numerous language translations; dosn't mean the message was changed a bit. If a translator had tried to change the message, there would have been countless people who would have objected otherwise.

Not necessarily. There are currently more that fifty extant english translations of the Bible. Why? Because no two groups of translators can agree on exactly the same wording from the parent languages.

You gotta keep in mind that the bible wasn't tooken to someones cave to be translated by one person so that they could put what ever they wanted in there; it went through countless scrutiny under the highest scholars in the church to undergo a translation. That's it, just a language translation!

You're wrong. Z Man. You seem to have forgotten, or never heard of, a fellow named Jerome. Over a period of about 15 years, during the late fourth century, he performed the first full translation of some of the texts you call "the bible" into a single language, Latin. Remember that, until Jerome's translation there was no single book called "the Bible". The original documents don't exist. All that are available are fragments of ancient documents written in languages that are not used today. These fragments are not even believed to be written in the original languages of the texts, particularly in the case of the old testament.

You believe there was no tampering? Aside from divine intervention, I think it is safe to say that there was indeed tampering with the text or at least variant versions of the texts floating around for centuries (the last chapter of Mark being a well discussed example). There are thousands of variant texts in libraries and museums around the world. In addition to text fragments, for centuries, which books made up the bible was a serious debate. The actual canon, the list of books that make up the Bible wasn't fixed until much later. The canon of the NT was fixed in the 16th century and the canon of the Old Testament is still not universally fixed. There still debate between the Catholic/Orthodox churches and the Protestant churches since some churches include books that others do not.

The point is, something dramatic happened back then that caused these disciples and numerous other people to begin a huge religious movement that has changed the world as we know it.

Remember that the movement wasn't huge back in apostolic days. It probably didn't become huge until Christianity became the state religion of the Byzantine empire under Constantine.

...Most of them were alive during Jesus' time and they witnessed either, a) His miracles, or b) His empty tomb (which, by the way, you can still go witness to this day )

Two points:

• 1. You are aware that there are multiple sites that are alleged to be the empty tomb? I can point you to two of the most famous: (see Catholic/Orthodox tomb and Protestant tomb). I have been told there are others...
  
  2. You are aware that Paul, according to history, met neither of the criteria you listed, yet his writings make up a significant portion of the New Testament canon.

All of these people wouldn't have died for a lie.

I have two names to jog your memory in answer to that statement:

• Jonestown (960 dead - suicide and murder)
• Heaven's Gate (39 suicides)

All those people died for a lie. All of them did so during the enlightened twentieth century.

In other words, no matter what is presented before you as evidence of Christ's existence and miraclous claims, you will never believe...

I don't think that's correct. A more correct statement would be, any evidence that I've see, to date, has been insufficient.

Without the NT, is there any other evidence?

If it is true about Alexander the Great, no big deal. It won't have any effect on anyone and it won't change anything in anyone's life outside of just having the information that he conquered the known world by age 33.

This is exactly the point most atheists would make. So what is the big revelation here?

But, if it is true about Jesus, then that is completely different.

But we've discussed, ad nauseum, why I do not think the NT is any more reliable evidence that secular historians evidence for Alexander's conquests.

The greatest difference follows:

Jesus claimed to be divine and He had a message for people about heaven and hell and that salvation is only through Him.

Where did Jesus claim to be divine in the gospels?

Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, such as a resurrection from the dead. This would have a profound effect on people and it can make them uncomfortable. Therefore, people will not want it to be true and will desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions; hence, the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The extraordinary evidence your author proposes is merely hearsay. I can provide you cases of several men from in India (one is even alive today), all claiming to be incarnate deities and all have allegedly healed, multiplied food, and raised the dead.

Following your line of reasoning, shouldn't I believe it's true, merely because these fellows' followers claim it is so? Do you believe that these fellows are an incarnations of deity since they perform these miracles?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by mindlight
Questions like: where do I come from?

I come from Alabama, with a banjo on my knee...

When did the Universe begin, and how and why.

I must be weird, because those questions have never vexed me...

Who am I

I am I, Don Quixote, the lord of La Mancha...ahem...'scuse me, had a Broadway Moment there...

What happens when I die?

I can't speak for everybody, but I get cremated and my remains launched into solar orbit...

Is there any thing more to life than the experience we have of this life here on Earth in this time period?

Again, I must be weird, because this question has never vexed me...

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by mindlight
The Bible is documentary evidence written by eyewitnesses to the events described:

It is more correct to say that the Bible claims to be documentary evidence allegedly written by alleged eyewitnesses to the alleged events described.

Notice the use of the word "alleged"? That's because, eighteen or twenty centuries later, we have no way to assess the veracity of the content of what you and I read in the Bible as regards the fantastic events described about Jesus of Nazareth.

See my response to Z Man about scriptural accuracy.

The credibility of this document can be affirmed in a host of ways including the circumstantial and occasionally direct support of non Christian writers like Josephus.

The veracity of the gloss from Josephus has been debated for centuries. It is generally thought that the reference is an addition by a Christian scribe.

Let me provide you with another version of the same text from Josephus. This text was from an Arabic source dated the tenth century:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

Let's reprint your citation with the disputed text in plain black and the remaining undisputed text in bold. We can now compare the two passages to see how closely they match...

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the ) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Jewish Talmudic literature

"Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray"

This appears to be a very, very loose translation of Talmud Sanhedrin 107b Sotah 47a. "And the master said, "Yeshu (the Notzri) practiceed magic and deceived and led Israel astray." Though without a citation I am not certain.

Several problems with this text:

• First, Yeshu was a common name in Israel.
  
  Second, this is part of a longer passage which provides context. The Yeshu in this particular passage lived about 100 years prior to the time Jesus of Nazareth is alleged to have lived, during the reign of John Hycranus (90's BCE) and was a student of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Perachiah who allegedly made the statement. This Yeshu eventually adopted a pagan religion, and created his own sect of Judaism.
  
  Third, only one of four extant copies of this document have the appelation "HaNotrzi" applied to Yeshu. The other three do not use it.
  
  Fourth, nothing in the actual story in the Talmud fits anything out of the life of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the gospels.

Given our finitude and imperfection we cannot answer these questions with anything but "I don't or even cannot know!"

However a Christian can answer these questions with integrity...

And I believe that type of intellectual pride is the root of much alleged religious belief. Pride in the certitude that you have the answers to life's questions.

As an atheist I do not believe that I must have to have the answers to everything...

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Zakath
How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you believe is true?

Because everything else I've believed in has failed me.

Think about what you are saying: you are willing to stake your eternal destiny on alleged eyewitness accounts allegedly recorded in documents that no longer exist. All that do exist are fragments of alleged translations of those documents, written in languages you can't read, and translated into your language by people you've never met.

Think about what you are saying: you are willing to stake your eternal destiny on rejecting the Truth because of your pride and pleasure in sin. I know, it's hard to give up what we love, but the world (like the "matrix" ) is controlling you like a little puppet on strings. It has you blinded from the Truth so that it can continue to feed of you until there's nothing left. In the end, you'll have to bear your own burden for your fulfillment in sin, which is a hard burden to bear. I pray that God will save you before it's too late...

2. You are aware that Paul, according to history, met neither of the criteria you listed, yet his writings make up a significant portion of the New Testament canon.

Ahem...read the following verses and be educated:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

Without the NT, is there any other evidence?

There are many other historical documents that state and declare Jesus's existence. Either you haven't looked hard enough, or you have ignored them. Other than that, I really don't know what kind of evidence you want. Jesus lived in the past, and the only way to record that history was in written documents. You wanted eye-witness accounts, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John knew this. They recorded the history that they were blessed to witness. They weren't trying to write religious articles, they were merely noting a part of history that was extraordinary at the time. These men weren't stupid either. Luke himself was a physician, and was accumstomed to writing and study, being a doctor. He meticously wrote every part of Jesus's life that He witnessed so that all generations could understand that this man was extraordinary. They recorded history the same way it had been recorded for all of time. There is no difference between the NT claims of Jesus's existence and the historical claims that Alexander the Great conquered the world.

The extraordinary evidence your author proposes is merely hearsay.

All the evidence that we have of history is hearsay!

Zakath, I told you earlier and I'll tell you again, evidence will not save you. The key reason Christians believe in all this "bologna" is faith. Evidence won't save you, the church can't save you, the world can't save you, and you can't even save yourself. The only person who can save you is God. He's the one that holds the "key", which is faith...

 

[RogerB]

Think about what you are saying: you are willing to stake your eternal destiny on alleged eyewitness accounts allegedly recorded in documents that no longer exist.

Think about what YOU are saying: you are willing to turn your back on eternal life based on something you cannot know for a fact does not exist. You will admit, won't you, that you do not know everything there is to know about the universe? Heck, you "don't know and don't care", right? It's just as likely that tomorrow a scientist will discover a new galaxy in the universe as you could discover proof of God's existance.

The atheists destiny is an eternal separation from God. What is it about trying to become more Christ-like that you are affraid of? What material things do you love more than yourself?

 

[RogerB]

The only person who can save you is God.

But it's up to you, not Him. So Zak posting every day "God still hasn't saved me" is like saying "I still only have two eyes". Duh!!!

God is waiting for you to make the next move. He has forever....what about you?