Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?


Guest Moljinir

Recommended Posts

It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence.

 

LNC, There was a case several years ago of a boy admitted to the hospital with burns covering his entire body because his mother had poured gasoline on him and set him on fire. In the hospital, he incessantly called out, "Mama..! Mama...!"

 

Belief: Mother is the source of comfort.

 

Evidence to the contrary: Well... pretty evident evidence.

 

**************************

 

Belief: Christianity is the source of comfort.

 

Evidence to the contrary: Burns covering entire brain because Christianity unrelentingly poured contradictory mutually-exclusive cognitively-dissonant emotionally-laden crap into it which set it on fire.

 

("Mama church...! Mama church....!")

 

People aren't robots. Excepting yourself, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I understand where you are coming from:

 

You believe that a struggle to reject an idea or belief is indicative of the objective truth of that belief.

 

Conversely, if one does not struggle when discarding a belief, then that is indicative that the discarded belief is, indeed, invalid, and the new belief, objectively true.

 

Is that right?

 

If I have it wrong, I am willing to try again until I have it right to your satisfaction.

 

Phanta

 

No, I did not say that. I am saying that if one has a struggle to abandon a belief that is grounded in good evidence, then one should re-examine the evidence. It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence. I have done that in my life and not felt any regret or angst. I am saying that evidence should lead us in the direction of truth and when we operate in this manner, then we should not regret or struggle with abandoning false beliefs as they have been shown to be false. However, when someone struggles to abandon a belief, then they clearly have not established enough evidence to move them from that belief. In essence, they may be making a leap of faith.

 

Now, I am not saying that we always have completely conclusive evidence in one direction or another, there is faith involved whether one is a Christian or an atheist; however, we should be able to establish good evidence to ground our belief, and when that ground is weak or shakey, we should continue to pursue truth until we see the pieces fit together as consistently and coherently as possible. I hope that makes sense.

I believe I have found excellent evidence to show that Christianity is not the truth. I definitely have no feelings of guilt. Occassionally the thought of Hell bothers me a bit. That is the only issue. But yet when I think about the evidence against Christianity, the fear quickly evaporates.

 

What you are not taking into consideration is that when someone has been indoctrinated to believe in something, it's very hard to break some of the feelings. It's an irrational fear. Lika a phobia. We see phobias all the time, people terrified of things that noone should be afraid of. They know there is no reason to fear, but they still do. To break this sort of fear, it can take a long time. I have a fear of heights. I have walked across the glass plate at the top of the Auckland Sky tower grasping the railing due to vertigo. I have parachuted out of an airplane several times (and being the biggest guy always had to sit right by the door to the plane (which was always open). You had to climb out on the wing of the plane as it flew before you let go. And I am still terrified of heights even though I have faced them many times and even when I know I am perfectly safe. Just standing at the railing overlooking a one story drop is hard. Climbing a ladder onto the roof, then coming back down. Horrible.

I know a guy who is terrified to walk on sand because of the way it makes his feet feel. These things don't just pass with evidence. It takes time. Religion (and I include Christianity in that because it most definitely is a religion) is so insidious in the way it indoctrinates people. Especially when that indoctrination has been done at birth.

 

Guilt is another emotion that doesn't just pass due to evidence. People feel guilt for long periods of time even knowing deep down they are not to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that a person's thinking wouldn't change. That seems to be a given as they are going from one worldview to another. Yet, you mention that a person has to reject what they learned in science, history and other classes. What were you thinking there? Are you implying that a person has to deny truth to follow Christianity? If so, you are mistaken. However, my point stands that I have never met a convert from atheism who has ever struggled with that change.

Two parts to this response. First the struggle aspect. My bringing up the difficulty of changing views was in defense of the topic starter's expression of the programmed fears left in her/him from their former beliefs. That's understandable, and I am correct in saying that "shaking loose" from a former belief goes both ways: to and from Christianity. So you were incorrect in trying to make her look unique in this because of the direction of her conversion.

 

However, if you are referring to the change of social situation, then I would say you have some point to this. It is more difficult to leave a social group than it is to join one. But this has nothing to do with an ideological belief system. It has to do with community and feeling compelled to say goodbye to one. In this sense, I would say that someone joining up has a far less difficult choice to make than one leaving one. So, you're argument that knowing the truth makes the choice easier is also incorrect. Your argument indicates that becoming Christian is less fraught with hard choices, and therefore less of a commitment. Honestly, the people here who leave Christianity are far more "seekers" than those who sign up for the club. You should revere them.

 

Secondly, am I imply that a person has to deny truth to follow Christianity? It's not an implication, I've stated so directly on many occasions. However to qualify that, I don't see all forms of Christianity as equaling that of the sort you seem to be coming from, viz., the relatively small but vocal American conservative evangelical wing of Christianity (relatively small in comparison to the 1.2 Billion Christians world-wide).

 

Rather than my making a case here, I'll just ask you to make my case for me by asking for your answer to these questions. Do you accept that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that our species, the human species, is a result of the process of evolution; or have you come to dispute and deny this knowledge that comes from the vast majority of the world's scientists, spanning nearly every field of the sciences, on the basis of a few mainly non-scientists who hold the Bible up (their reading of it to put a sharp point on it) as trumping what comes out of the labors of the scientific community?

 

Answer that truthfully and then we can embark on a discussion of my thoughts about this.

 

You seem to confuse Chritians with existentialists. Christianity is steeped in truth claims that are falsifiable. The events recorded in the Bible are recorded as history and therefore can be falsified in untrue. Jesus' life, which was the basis of the original post, is verifiable by extra-Biblical sources. If you have counter arguments that you would like to present, I will entertain them. However, so far no one on this thread has posted any, you included.

Actually I have a greater respect for Christian existentialists than I do for those who have to force-fit scientific, historical pursuits into what is otherwise a matter of faith. If someone says they know these things make no logical sense, but believe for the sake of belief, I can respect that. The reason I can is because it is honest, unlike those who rehash that tired apologetics from Josh McDowell that on the surface sounds so convincing, so persuasive (I was taken by his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict too when I was a young, green Christian apologist myself). However as we'll see in a moment, he is less than the scholar one might wish to believe, and all the extra-biblical sources you cite are hardly "evidence" of a historical Jesus.

 

I didn't respond to this before, merely for reason of I just started reading this thread last night, and frankly this is an involved topic you bring up. So I'll just quote in totality someone else in here to address each and every one of your "sources" you cited back here:

 

Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real. So, you may want to go back and reexamine that evidence and follow it where it leads. If you don't want to start with the Bible, go to sources outside of the Bible, most of whom were not even Christians:
Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, and Lucian
would give you a good start.

 

Before we begin, I will toss a small wrench into this here. I in fact do lean towards Jesus having been an actual historic person, but for reason other than the ones you are holding up as evidence. However, Jesus the Christ as portrayed in the narrative gospels is the result of the processes of myth-making and is not a historical record at all. The Jesus I believe likely existed was a human being, who was later transformed into a myth by communities that cropped up adhering to his essential teachings, teachings like those of other common-place sage-like teachers of the day.

 

The real "history" that can be found in it (besides the bits and pieces used as backdrops for the "narrative") is that of emerging and evolving communities identifying themselves as followers of "Jesus" and followers of "Christ" as evidenced within the layers of traditions. Another involved discussion for a later time. So in essence I don't conclude as this following author does, but I value is critique of McDowell's Evidence and the criticism of your cited external references, and it does quite nicely to dismantle the misuse of these sources to prop up an apologetic like McDowell's.

 

I'm including everything, including the opening editors notes regarding more contemporary views of Josephus' Testimonium. It is valid to say the Testimonium is a later editing, but not so much that is was a full forgery in total. What he says regarding it is valid for the most part. I'm highlighting each of the names you citing for quick and easy references.

Library: Modern Documents: Gordon Stein: The Jesus of History

The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell

Gordon Stein, Ph.D.

 

Editor's Note: The following essay was written by the late Gordon Stein in 1982. It is a slightly-modified version of an article that appeared in the July/August 1982 issue of The American Rationalist under the same name. In this essay, Stein claimed that anyone who relies on Josephus' Testimonium is "dishonest," "fooled," and "ignorant." Even if those statements were true in 1982, they are definitely not true today. While there is no doubt among the majority of scholars that the Testimonium has been tampered with (and thus the entire passage cannot be authentic), a decent number of scholars believe the Testimonium is based upon an authentic core. In other words, on their view, Josephus really did write a passage referring to Jesus on which the modern Testimonium is based, but that passage was embellished by later Christians. Since that view has attracted a number of scholars, it is simply fallacious to claim that anyone who relies on the Testimonium is "dishonest," "fooled," or "ignorant."

 

 

 

The old adage of the computer business, "Garbage in, garbage out," has applications in other fields as well. Nowhere is it better seen to be true than when applied to the chapter "Jesus-A Man of History" in Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

 

McDowell is careful to list his sources, and for that we can be grateful. This listing is a two-edged sword, however. We can see that he has used publications of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, almost exclusively throughout the book. Surely he could quote some of the many Bible authorities who have written books and articles not published by the IVCF? He could, but he won't for the simple reason that they (the non-IVCF authors) would not support his viewpoints. The reasons are not hard to find. Most of McDowell's points about Jesus (and about other matters in the book, but I must leave that to others) are simply not supported by modern scholarship.

 

Another of McDowell's favorite tricks is to say "So-and-so says that Jesus was an historical figure...." So-and-so turns out to be another fundamentalist writer. This is the old argument from authority, although in this case there is no authority being quoted. It is a weak "proof." Let me give a specific example of how McDowell uses this quotation system to his advantage, but in disregard of the facts and the truth of the thing we are trying to investigate. On page 84 of Evidence, he quotes "What, then, does the historian know about Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of Him. And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presupposition, or literary maneuvering." The quote is from John Warwick Montgomer's History and Christianity . As it turns out, there is not one factual statement in the entire quotation given above. That doesn't bother McDowell, of course, who just acts as if the fact that Montgomery said it makes it so.

 

Among the most blatant of these points (and a fine example of McDowell's basic dishonesty with the evidence) is the way in which he treats the Josephus quote about Jesus. McDowell does say that the quotation is "hotly contested," but he never tells us what he means by that, and he then goes on to treat the quotation as authentic. What "hotly contested" means (although I would say it differently) is that the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars . Of course, that doesn't bother McDowell, who has little respect for the truth anywhere in his writings. The most thorough examination of the validity of this particular paragraph in Josephus was made by Nathaniel Lardner in 1838. Lardner's findings are presented in his work called Jewish Testimonies, which forms volume 6 of his collected Works. We will examine Lardner's critique of the Josephus passage in some detail, both be cause it is the most important single reference to Jesus as an historical character outside of the New Testament itself, and because it is a good example of how a fundamentalist treats evidence which he doesn't like.

 

Lardner's work on the
Josephus
passage was merely the first detailed analysis of that passage. Many other scholars have written about it since Lardner, so McDowell can't plead ignorance of their findings. In fact, the very phrase McDowell uses hotly contested") indicates that he is at least aware of the fact that most scholars do not accept the genuineness of the passage. Let us look at the passage in full (Antiquities XVIII, Ch. 3, sec. 3):

 

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of christians, so called from him, subsists to this time." (Lardner s translation)

 

Why should we suspect that this passage is a forgery? First because, although the church fathers were quite fond of quoting passages which supported Christianity, and though these early church fathers were quite familiar with the works of Josephus, not one of them quotes this passage in defense of Christianity until Eusebius does in the fourth century. We also know Eusebius to be the man who said that lying for the advancement of the church was quite acceptable. He was probably the one who inserted this suspect passage into Josephus' works. Origen, the famous early Christian apologist, even quotes from other parts of Josephus, but somehow neglects to quote our passage. Origen wrote his book Contra Celsus in about 220 A.D.

 

Secondly, the passage comes in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities- which have befallen the Jews. This would not be a calamity. Thirdly, the passage has Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, saying that Jesus was the Christ. That is a highly unlikely statement for him to have made. The whole passage reads as if it had been written by a Christian. Josephus is made to call the Christian religion "the truth." He would hardly have said that. Although Josephus reports the miracles of a number of other "prophets," he is silent about the miracles attributed to Jesus. Again, this makes no sense when compared to Josephus' known genuine writings. The last phrase in the quotation, ". .. subsists to this time," referring to the Christians, would not make any sense unless it were written quite some time after Jesus had died. Josephus, on the other hand, wrote the Antiquities in about 90 A.D.

 

In spite of all the negative evidence against this passage, evidence of which McDowell seems aware, he still uses the passage to try to support his case for the historicity of Jesus. Such a procedure is both dishonest and futile. The only people who are fooled by this are the ignorant. Scholars will only wince at the dishonesty involved and disregard this "evidence."

 

The next major ancient historian who supposedly mentions Jesus, and thus provides us with evidence that he was an historical character is
Tacitus
. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his Annals after 117 A.D. Their exact date of composition is not know, but we do know that it was at least 70 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere in the extant works of Tacitus. There is one mention of "Christus" in Book XV, Chapter 44, as follows:

 

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race." (D.R. Dudley's translation)

 

While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

 

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.

 

McDowell is on even shakier ground when he tries to promote the short mention of "Chrestus" in
Suetonius
. First, any scholar ought to learn to at least spell the name of the person he is writing about correctly. McDowell spells it incorrectly as "Seutonius." Then he makes the unforgivable and dishonest statement that "Chrestus" is "another spelling of Christus." This is not correct. "Chrestus" means 'The Good" in Greek, while "Christus" means "The Messiah." Actually, Chrestus was not an uncommon name in ancient Rome. Since Jesus was admittedly not in Rome instigating the Jews, we are almost definitely talking about someone other than Jesus here. I should mention that the entire relevant quotation from Suetonius which is involved here reads as follows: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." The "he" is Claudius. As just mentioned, not even McDowell claims that Jesus was at Rome in 55 AD, when this incident is alleged to have occurred. It is also difficult to see why Jews would be led by Jesus. That is pretty strong evidence that this passage does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all, and so is irrelevant to our discussion of whether Jesus ever lived. We can, however, add the lack of a mention of Jesus in Suetonius to our list of "negative" evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical person. The reference in Suetonius is Life of the Caesars (Claudius 25:4).

 

We now come to the issue of mention of Jesus in the
Jewish Talmud
. Here McDowell's lack of scholarship is again painfully evident. In fact, we are again tempted to say that because the correct information is so readily available, perhaps his failure to provide it is a deliberate attempt to mislead. We must first explain that the present Talmud contains virtually no mention of Jesus. This is because there was much persecution of the Jews during the Middle Ages, and many Jews were afraid that the presence of the numerous unfavorable references to Jesus which existed in the Talmud of the time would bring down the additional wrath of the Christians. These references were gradually eliminated, by agreement, during the many subsequent recopyings of the Talmud which occurred over the years. However, most of these references to Jesus have not been lost to our view, since they have been collected by scholars from ancient copies of the Talmud and republished several times. Of course, McDowell is blissfully unaware of all of this. If we look at the materials con-cerning Jesus which had been removed from the later copies of the Talmud, we can see that they say that he was a bastard and a magician who learned magic spells in Egypt or else stole the secret name of God from the temple and used it to work magic or miracles. The father of Jesus is also claimed to be a soldier named Pantera. At any rate, authorities are agreed that most of this Talmudic material derives from the period from 200 to 500 A.D., and represents Jewish attempts to deal with the growing strength of Christianity. It makes no attempt to be historically accurate and, in fact, is of no use in determining if Jesus was an historical person. McDowell, of course, mentions none of this, and is also in error (or purposely misleads) when he says that "Comments in the Baraila are of great historical value:" and then gives a quote which leaves off the initial few words, namely "And it is tradition ...". This means that the Talmudic scribe was merely reporting what had been said by Christians (and this is in about 300 A.D.). The passage describes how Jesus was stoned and hanged for practicing magic. That doesn't quite sound like the New Testament account.

 

McDowell again misleads when discussing the "evidence" found in Tertullian's works. What he doesn't tell you is that Tertullian is taking his information (to the effect that Tiberius is supposed to have received a report from Pontius Pilate on Jesus) from Justin, and Justin is merely assuming that there must have been such a report. Later, (about the 5th Century) someone forged the actual report containing what purported to be Pilate's words to Rome about Jesus. McDowell, in one of his few attempts at honesty, does admit that "Some historians tread " nearly all'] doubt the historicity of this passage.

 

The "evidence" quoted from
Pliny
Secundus (Pliny the Younger) is also of dubious value for determining whether Jesus was historical. The work (written in about 112 A.D.) states that Christians were singing a "hymn to Christ as to a god...". Of course, that may well have occurred, but how that fact reflects upon the historicity of Jesus, I and the other authorities consulted are at a loss to understand. The fact that believers seventy years later acted as if Christ were a god tells us nothing of whether Jesus was an actual person on this earth. Jesus is neither the same idea as Christ (the messiah) nor is the fact that people believed something to be true any evidence as to whether it was true.

 

In his section on Justin Martyr, McDowell fails to tell us, as was noted previously, that Justin merely assumed that there must be a report from Pilate to Tiberius. In the fifth century, someone forged just such a report, which McDowell gleefully quotes. All it does is show that McDowell is a fool, not that Jesus existed. No one has ever been able to prove that such a report of Pilate ever existed. Without the report, quoting from a much later forgery will not make a case for you.

 

The testimony (supposed, as the work in question is now lost) of
Thallus
is also worthless on the historicity question. Julius Africanus, in a surviving fragment, states that Thallus in the period before 221 A.D., wrote that the darkness which supposedly covered the earth at the time of the Crucifixion was due to the death of Jesus. He is merely telling what the Christians of the time believed. We have no evidence at all that there ever even was an eclipse at the time when Jesus was supposedly crucified.

 

We have no way of dating the fragment quoting the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion. It doesn't mention Jesus or Christ, but merely says that the Jews of the time (which time is uncertain) killed their "wise King." We do not know to what this refers, and neither does McDowell. It is, again, worthless as evidence for an historical Jesus. Likewise,
Lucian
's sarcastic comment, written in the second century, is worth nothing except as evidence that he was aware that the Christians of the time (of which there were a goodly number) felt or thought that there was a man who was crucified in Palestine" as the basis of their sect. This was written far too late to be used as historical evidence, nor is it offered by Lucian as such.

 

I leave McDowell's last piece of "evidence" for last because it is the most laughable of all. He actually says that it is evidence for the historical existence of Jesus that "The latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica uses 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte." This is the entire quote in this section, reproduced verbatim. I assume that the implication is that if the Britannica writes more about a subject than it does about other people whom we know are historical, then the one with the longer article must be just that much more historical. I would refer McDowell to the articles in the Britannica about dragons, unicorns and witches for comparison. In short, the length of an article in the Britannica reflects only the editor's feeling about how important a subject is, not whether that subject was an historical person or not. Surely the role of Christians and the legends about Jesus have been important historically. That doesn't mean that Jesus really existed. I would suggest that McDowell consult the article about Zeus and see if that confirms his idea that Zeus must have been historical because he has an article of his own in the Britannica.

 

In conclusion, we can see that McDowell has failed miserably in his attempt to show that Jesus was an historical character. I am not stating categorically that Jesus was not an historical character, although I think that the evidence for his existence is grossly inadequate to come to any positive conclusion. I think that this lack of evidence makes it quite unlikely that Jesus ever existed. A chapter such as McDowell's, however, does make it quite likely that McDowell is non-existent as a scholar, while quite large as a liar and stretcher of the truth.

 

When you add up all of the following facts, the case for the existence of Jesus as an historical person becomes rather remote: 1) there are no proven, legitimate references to the existence of Jesus in any contemporary source outside of the New Testament (which is really not a contemporary source, as it was written from 30 to 70 years after Jesus supposedly died), 2) There is no evidence that the town of Nazareth, from which Jesus' mother supposedly came, ever existed at the time he was supposedly living there, 3) the existence of Jesus is not necessary to explain the origin or growth of Christianity (were the Hindu gods real'?), 4) the New Testament accounts do not provide a real "biography" for Jesus until you look at the Gospels. The earlier Pauline epistles imply only that he was a god, and 5) the biblical accounts of the trial and death of Jesus are logically self-contradictory and legally impossible. Jesus could not have been executed under either Roman or Jewish law for what he did. Whatever you call what he did, it was not a capital offense under either system. Rather, it looks like someone is trying to make Old Testament prophecies of the death of the Messiah come true by fabricating a scenario which simply doesn't make sense legally.

 

So there you have it. Your sources, or more correctly stated Josh McDowell's apologetics you listed verbatim, are hardly "evidence that demands a verdict". If a verdict must be handed down it would be this: Bad Scholarship.

 

Remember I talked about intellectual dishonesty necessary for faith that demands evidence? McDowell and his type of apologetics is evidence of that, not evidence for Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence.

 

LNC, There was a case several years ago of a boy admitted to the hospital with burns covering his entire body because his mother had poured gasoline on him and set him on fire. In the hospital, he incessantly called out, "Mama..! Mama...!"

 

Belief: Mother is the source of comfort.

 

Evidence to the contrary: Well... pretty evident evidence.

 

**************************

 

Belief: Christianity is the source of comfort.

 

Evidence to the contrary: Burns covering entire brain because Christianity unrelentingly poured contradictory mutually-exclusive cognitively-dissonant emotionally-laden crap into it which set it on fire.

 

("Mama church...! Mama church....!")

 

People aren't robots. Excepting yourself, of course.

 

 

Pitchu- good one, again, again, again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, mahjong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you changed my statement. I said that agnosticism is a philosophically tenable position as it is mearly a claim of not having enough information to take a position, which is logically possible. Atheism is a claim of knowledge (as classically understood) that God does not exist, which is not a philosophically tenable position as it makes a claim of truth that is not possbile to prove.
This a misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is not a claim of knowledge that God does not exist. Atheism is the disbelief in God, but belief and disbelief are not the same thing as knowledge. You can believe something is true without knowing it's true and you can likewise disbelieve something is true without knowing it's true. Someone can believe their spouse is being faithful to them even though they might not know that their spouse is really cheating on them behind their back. Someone can disbelieve in the existence of aliens without claiming to know aliens do not exist. You're also trying to shift the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one making the extraordinary claim that God exists and the bible is historically accurate, therefore it's your job to present the evidence, and what "evidence" you have presented has been disproved. You're trying to shift the burden of proof onto the atheists and that's intellectually dishonest and proves you have no real evidence for your claims. It's like saying since you technically can't prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist, then that must mean she does exist and you just have to have faith in her existence. The invisible pink unicorn is better than God too because her existence is based on both faith and logic. We have faith that she's pink but logically we know we can't see her because she's invisible! To quote Bertrand Russel
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

On what basis do you draw your conclusion?
The contradictions in the bible?

 

However, my point stands that I have never met a convert from atheism who has ever struggled with that change.
To disprove your claim, Richard Dawkins has stated in video interviews before that his belief in fundamentalist Christianity gradually faded away and that there was no struggle when he deconverted from Christianity. Since Dawkins was able to deconvert from Christianity without any struggle, by your logic, that must mean there is no evidence for the existence of God.

 

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of christians, so called from him, subsists to this time." (Lardner s translation)
Even if we presumed that this writing was authentic, I don't get why Christians suddenly leap to the conclusion that this means the bible is the inerrant word of God and everything in the bible is historically accurate. This writing says nothing about the historical accuracy of the bible as a whole or that Jesus taught all the same beliefs that modern day evangelical Christians believe in. But for some reason, Christians make the leap of faith that if it's possible Jesus could have been resurrected, that must mean the rest of their beliefs are true, even though this writing says nothing about specific Christian doctrines other than the resurrection. I just fail to see how Christians can jump from "Jesus could have resurrected" to "this means fundamentalist Christianity is true!" from this writing, even if it was somehow authentic, and this writing gives no reason as to why non-believers should worship Yahweh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very complicated as it involves a host of philosophical issues, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics.

 

Much simpler is the critique from justice. God, as depicted in the Bible, simply does not behave like a moral person. At the very least, we expect that divine justice comport with what we know about ordinary human justice. Actually we probably expect that divine justice would be better than human justice. But we reject the notion that divine justice is worse, more arbitrary, and more disrepectful of human dignity, than ordinary human justice.

 

But the genocide against the Caananites evidences worse justice--perhaps even injustice--than we expect from our normal court systems.

 

It's not the Adam and Eve myth that should lead the atheist to unbelief. Rather, what should lead to atheism are the accounts of genocide, mutilation, butchery, and exploitation that are all underwritten by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because we are incredulous LNC. What you do not comprehend is the basic rule of logic. The person making the positive claim is the one responsible for providing evidence.

 

You just asked for counter-evidence disproving the existence of a character in a book. Why the hell should any of us do that? This is no different than you claiming a unicorn is in orbit around the planet, then trying to claim it is our job to prove otherwise. Nope. Sorry. Burden of proof is on you to establish evidence of your claims. If there are extra-biblical sources for the existence of your character....it is YOUR job to provide it...not OURS to prove otherwise.

 

And by the way...I really hope you have stayed current because some of your likely sources have already been discredited.

 

No, that is not the case. I ask you to provide counter evidence to a historical person who lived and whose life was recorded by many people throughout history. You are the one for whom people should be incredulous as you compare a historical person with a mythical creature. BTW, you are mixing up your metaphors. I believe it is the teapot that atheists claim is orbiting, not the unicorn. I have already given evidence from non-Christian historical sources who wrote about the historical Jesus, it is now up to you to address those sources and impeach them if you think them not to be credible. I haven't introduced Biblcal evidence at this point, so that is not a source that you will have to address at this time. You may refer back to my first post on this thread for the sources.

 

BTW, if you think some of my sources have been discredited, please provide your evidence as I believe that you are mistaken. For your information, you may be referring to parts of Josephus that are in question, I can exclude those sections from my evidence and still have enough in Josephus that is not in question to make my case. As for the other sources, they are not in question by historians. So, yes, I am current on my sources.

 

Hey, I like your boxing cat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had followed it to its logical conclusion you would be an ex-Christian like us. The conclusions you come to can only really be based on faith.

In the end, both of our conclusions are based upon faith, it is just a question of which conclusion better fits the facts of the world, and I believe that my position is the more tenable position.

 

Atheism cannot be compared to a religion. There are no doctrines of atheism, there's no threat of Hell if you become an ex-atheist, no guilt heaped on you for questioning it, no rules that you must adhere to. The type of indoctrination and brainwashing that goes on in religion is the reason why it is so hard to withdraw from it. It is addictive like a drug. That's the reality of it. Truth or the lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

 

I examined the facts of Christianity and lived for God for over 30 years and came to the conclusion it is not truth. I wonder how many years you have studied it and lived it?

 

Atheism is a worldview just as much as Christianity is. You must make certain assumptions about the way that the world is and operates, and you must live by the faith that this is truly the way that the world is as it cannot be proved beyond a doubt to be that way. When you say that there are no doctrines in atheism, that is a doctrine. When you say that there is no threat of hell (and I assume that you mean for an atheist rather than an ex-atheist), that is ultimately a faith statement as well since you cannot prove that there is no hell or threat thereof. Maybe atheist deny the existence of hell, but that doesn't mean that hell doesn't exist. As for guilt, I seem to read the stories of a lot of atheists, both on this site, and elsewhere who are plagued by guilt, so I cannot believe that this is the case. Guilt is a part of who we are and cannot be done away with just be denying its existence or reality in our lives. The question is, what can be done about that guilt? I believe that Christ is the only real answer as he took that guilt and shame upon him and dealt with it on the cross. The other alternative is to carry it and attempt to deny it, but in reality, it is alway there if we are honest enough with ourselves to admit it.

 

I have been a Christian for going on 30 years now myself. I have studied and am studying it now on a graduate level, so I have looked at all the arguments against it and found them lacking in credibility. I have also studied the science of such things as the origin and design of the universe and of life on this earth and find it impossible to conclude that these are purely naturalistic events. In addition, I find it impossible to believe that man is merely the sum of his parts - in essence - a highly sophisticated machine, which is the conclusion one would have to come to apart from God's existence. These are reasons that I find atheism untenable as a worldview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence.

 

LNC, There was a case several years ago of a boy admitted to the hospital with burns covering his entire body because his mother had poured gasoline on him and set him on fire. In the hospital, he incessantly called out, "Mama..! Mama...!"

 

Belief: Mother is the source of comfort.

 

Evidence to the contrary: Well... pretty evident evidence.

 

**************************

 

Belief: Christianity is the source of comfort.

 

Evidence to the contrary: Burns covering entire brain because Christianity unrelentingly poured contradictory mutually-exclusive cognitively-dissonant emotionally-laden crap into it which set it on fire.

 

("Mama church...! Mama church....!")

 

People aren't robots. Excepting yourself, of course.

 

The only problem is that from a purely materialistic worldview, man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA. So, I think it is you that have to explain how man can be anything but a advanced robot from your perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I have found excellent evidence to show that Christianity is not the truth. I definitely have no feelings of guilt. Occassionally the thought of Hell bothers me a bit. That is the only issue. But yet when I think about the evidence against Christianity, the fear quickly evaporates.

 

What you are not taking into consideration is that when someone has been indoctrinated to believe in something, it's very hard to break some of the feelings. It's an irrational fear. Lika a phobia. We see phobias all the time, people terrified of things that noone should be afraid of. They know there is no reason to fear, but they still do. To break this sort of fear, it can take a long time. I have a fear of heights. I have walked across the glass plate at the top of the Auckland Sky tower grasping the railing due to vertigo. I have parachuted out of an airplane several times (and being the biggest guy always had to sit right by the door to the plane (which was always open). You had to climb out on the wing of the plane as it flew before you let go. And I am still terrified of heights even though I have faced them many times and even when I know I am perfectly safe. Just standing at the railing overlooking a one story drop is hard. Climbing a ladder onto the roof, then coming back down. Horrible.

I know a guy who is terrified to walk on sand because of the way it makes his feet feel. These things don't just pass with evidence. It takes time. Religion (and I include Christianity in that because it most definitely is a religion) is so insidious in the way it indoctrinates people. Especially when that indoctrination has been done at birth.

 

Guilt is another emotion that doesn't just pass due to evidence. People feel guilt for long periods of time even knowing deep down they are not to blame.

 

I don't know why you believe that this is sufficient evidence to conclude that Chrisitianity is not true. I never used this as a basis for the truth of Christianity, I simply said that it is hard for one who honestly deals with truth to deny it. I could ask you the question that if you feel that you were indoctrinated by Christianity, how do you know you are not indoctrinated now by atheism? One generally doesn't know when they are indoctrinated, so you will have to show me evidence that what you currently believe is not just another form of indoctrination.

 

If a person feels guilt that has not been dealt with by the cross of Christ, one is not truly a Christian. So, if you were feeling guilt as a Christian, then I wonder whether you truly understood the gospel at all. The great thing about the message of Christ and the cross is that he took our guilt upon him and paid for it on the cross, so we have no reason to continue to feel the shame of guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is a worldview just as much as Christianity is. You must make certain assumptions about the way that the world is and operates, and you must live by the faith that this is truly the way that the world is as it cannot be proved beyond a doubt to be that way. When you say that there are no doctrines in atheism, that is a doctrine. When you say that there is no threat of hell (and I assume that you mean for an atheist rather than an ex-atheist), that is ultimately a faith statement as well since you cannot prove that there is no hell or threat thereof. Maybe atheist deny the existence of hell, but that doesn't mean that hell doesn't exist. As for guilt, I seem to read the stories of a lot of atheists, both on this site, and elsewhere who are plagued by guilt, so I cannot believe that this is the case. Guilt is a part of who we are and cannot be done away with just be denying its existence or reality in our lives. The question is, what can be done about that guilt? I believe that Christ is the only real answer as he took that guilt and shame upon him and dealt with it on the cross. The other alternative is to carry it and attempt to deny it, but in reality, it is alway there if we are honest enough with ourselves to admit it.

 

Okay, let me ask you this. If you are so sure of yourself, why do you enroll at websites like this and try to evangelize to people who are on your intellectual level that haven't been convinced like you have. I am currently reading a rather scholarly work by John W. Loftus and he is firmly convinced that atheism is the most logical point of view there is when it comes to metaphysics. He also admits that his worldview also had its emotional reasons as it did its intellectual reasons. Since he admitted this UP FRONT, doesn't that make your witness fall flat? Doesn't that frustrate you to the point that you might to want to leave us alone with what you believe to be the ultimate conclusion. Last I checked, Christians are supposed to preach and then MOVE ON. You and a lot of other apologists don't seem to comprehend that line and that is why we ex-Christians tend to be a little pissy at you.

 

YOU DON'T GIVE UP EVEN THOUGH WE CAN GIVE POINT-BY-POINT REASONS WHY WE LEFT AND WHY WE FIND THE ARGUMENTS TO BE AWASH IN FALSEHOODS!!!

 

CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND THAT????????

 

I have been a Christian for going on 30 years now myself. I have studied and am studying it now on a graduate level, so I have looked at all the arguments against it and found them lacking in credibility. I have also studied the science of such things as the origin and design of the universe and of life on this earth and find it impossible to conclude that these are purely naturalistic events. In addition, I find it impossible to believe that man is merely the sum of his parts - in essence - a highly sophisticated machine, which is the conclusion one would have to come to apart from God's existence. These are reasons that I find atheism untenable as a worldview.

 

Same with Loftus and same with Dan Barker. Same with Charles Templeton. Each of these men surely had a great deal of scriptural knowledge and theological understanding and yet they became heathens. Why is that? What causes that? Why are so convinced when men in your age bracket who have the same credentials fall away? Loftus studied with William Lane Craig and yet the former fell away. How could one(s) so educated, so full of potential leave the faith? Why is it you examine the same evidence and see it differently? I am not as old as you are but I find the arguments for Christianity to be false. Like Justin, I have fallen and went back (and it feels like an endless cycle). Sometimes I wonder if we are born with the urge to believe and you just happen to be one of the lucky ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agnosticism can be a philosophically justifiable position as a lack of enough evidence should lead to that conclusion; however, I have never heard anyone justify atheism without changing the historic definition as some like Dawkins have.

 

I call bullhonkery on this.

 

For a long time, the Church preached that we lived in a terra-centric planetary model and then two Catholic scientists came along and told them that were wrong. The Church inevitably changed their minds because they reluctantly had to change their point of view. For a long time, churches preached the line that slavery in the South was justifiable because it says it was in the Old Testament. Nowadays, scholars and preachers are engaging in historical revisionism saying their predecessors were mistaken or being outright sinful.

 

So, why is it wrong for outsiders to change the definition of atheism when Christianity had their own and they were always the top dog before their grip on power was weakened. From my understanding, atheism according to Christianity is synoymous with backsliding and atheists don't agree with that, therefore we are accused of moving the goalposts. Am I guilty of that since I was likely born after the definitional switch? Am I still backslidden even though I learned the new definition before I learned the old one?

 

You are positing a straw man here because definitions of words change with time and there is no escaping it. If shell shock can turn into post-traumatic stress disorder, then atheism is allowed to have its definition change over time.

 

By the way, are we the ones that said first that proving a negative was impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it impossible to believe that man is merely the sum of his parts - in essence - a highly sophisticated machine...

In My opinion, jumping from that opinion to belief in a god is a non sequitur. So what if we are nothing more than sophisticated biological machines? That does not alter the quality of My life in the slightest way.

 

Your assertion does not provide convincing evidence either for or against gods, as gods could also decide to produce biological machines. And who's to say that a hypothetical god is immune from that sort of deterministic existence?

 

The great thing about the message of Christ and the cross is that he took our guilt upon him and paid for it on the cross, so we have no reason to continue to feel the shame of guilt.

That, sir, is one of the things that makes the Christian message unspeakably horrible.

 

We are told that there is nothing that we can do to make amends for our actions, and that we stand condemned unless we accept the blood sacrifice of a surrogate who is the same f*cking jerk who passed sentence on us in the first place.

 

Disgusting, insane, unconscionable, and rotten to the core. There is no "salvation" to be found in such a concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it impossible to believe that man is merely the sum of his parts - in essence - a highly sophisticated machine...

In My opinion, jumping from that opinion to belief in a god is a non sequitur. So what if we are nothing more than sophisticated biological machines? That does not alter the quality of My life in the slightest way.

 

Your assertion does not provide convincing evidence either for or against gods, as gods could also decide to produce biological machines. And who's to say that a hypothetical god is immune from that sort of deterministic existence?

 

That's a good point.

 

There is something disturbing about the mechanistic view of human nature though. We don't want to think that we are incredibly sophisticated wristwatches. It also seems intuitive that we are not, and that the great apes are not either. Ants probably are. So there must be some level of brain development where we escape the deterministic world. How we humans do that is a mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence.

 

LNC, There was a case several years ago of a boy admitted to the hospital with burns covering his entire body because his mother had poured gasoline on him and set him on fire. In the hospital, he incessantly called out, "Mama..! Mama...!"

 

Belief: Mother is the source of comfort.

 

Evidence to the contrary: Well... pretty evident evidence.

 

**************************

 

Belief: Christianity is the source of comfort.

 

Evidence to the contrary: Burns covering entire brain because Christianity unrelentingly poured contradictory mutually-exclusive cognitively-dissonant emotionally-laden crap into it which set it on fire.

 

("Mama church...! Mama church....!")

 

People aren't robots. Excepting yourself, of course.

 

The only problem is that from a purely materialistic worldview, man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA. So, I think it is you that have to explain how man can be anything but a advanced robot from your perspective.

 

What a Christian line of argument this is! :)

 

How Christian it is of you to

 

(1) presume my worldview is purely materialistic

 

(2) extrapolate that those with a materialistic worldview assert that "man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA"

 

and both of these while failing to define "materialistic worldview."

 

(Given more one-on-one time with a non-believer, like in a Walmart parking lot with tracts in hand, a Christian professing this line of argument would keep hammering away at the undefined "materialistic worldview," insinuating that it is the worldview of the freshly accosted, layering said worldview with implications of close-mindedness, selfishness, short-range thinking for short-term reward, fear of Greater Understanding, and probably a hint of interpersonal malfeasance, until the one under loving assault would begin negatively redefining him/herself on the spot. Now s/he's ripe for the kill.)

 

How skillfully Christian it was of you to sidetrack into this territory, presenting it as if it were actually in response to my exemplifying the ways in which human beings may have difficulty abandoning a belief, even when good evidence refutes it.

 

You're classic, LNC! Congratulations! :Medal:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you will reread my first post, you will realize that my position is that it is difficult to deny the existence of Jesus based upon the available evidence. I don't argue or address any person who has left any religion or people involved with cults. I am simply saying that evidence should lead one to truth when honestly pursued, and denial of truth is a difficult place to be and can lead to anxiety.

 

I can't explain your situation as I don't know your situation beyond the brief explanation you have given. I don't know what you left as I don't know what you believed in the first place.

 

As for the evidence of the Christian worldview and counter arguments to the same, I am very well versed in both sides and have engaged in a past discussion on this board on one of the arguments for God's existence. So, yes I have read and studied beyond what my preachear has told me. However, if you have specific claims or evidence that you would like to discuss I would be happy to do so.

 

I will ask it again, is it because of truth that the ex-followers of a man who proclaimed to be christ returned in the flesh are saddened at leaving him? Feeling guilty about throwing it all away and feeling like they missed out on the intergalactic space journey on some far flung comet to some magical paradise?

 

As for specific claims and evidence, go to godvsthebible.com and Bibleorigins.com. Or, perhaps you need to pick up a science book as the bulk of it will go against scripture. A book on evolution, geology, natural history, paleontology, archeology or astronomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say that there is no threat of hell (and I assume that you mean for an atheist rather than an ex-atheist), that is ultimately a faith statement as well since you cannot prove that there is no hell or threat thereof. Maybe atheist deny the existence of hell, but that doesn't mean that hell doesn't exist.

 

So when a Muslim threatens you with Islamic hell do you become afraid of such because you cannot prove Islamic hell doesn't exist?

 

As for guilt, I seem to read the stories of a lot of atheists, both on this site, and elsewhere who are plagued by guilt, so I cannot believe that this is the case. Guilt is a part of who we are and cannot be done away with just be denying its existence or reality in our lives. The question is, what can be done about that guilt? I believe that Christ is the only real answer as he took that guilt and shame upon him and dealt with it on the cross. The other alternative is to carry it and attempt to deny it, but in reality, it is alway there if we are honest enough with ourselves to admit it.

 

This is a non-sequitur, because we are speaking about two different types of guilt.

 

Type 1: I hurt someone I feel guilty for it. In this case, Christ is unrelated and can do nothing to alleviate guilt. My only option is to seek out that person apologize and seek to make restitution. To ask god for forgiveness and move on as if everything is fine is an insult to the person I have wronged.

 

Type 2: I hurt god, and thus I need god (or Christ) to forgive me. The problem with this one is that god's existence has not been established, if he doesn't exist then he can't be hurt. For this reason guilt cannot be used to justify god's existence because the argument is circular.

 

so I have looked at all the arguments against it and found them lacking in credibility.

 

What particular arguments do you find lacking credibility? Often I hear this from Christians only to find that they are only aware of this arguments as presented by Christian apologists which tend intentionally phrase them in a way that makes them seem less credible than they are.

 

I have also studied the science of such things as the origin and design of the universe and of life on this earth and find it impossible to conclude that these are purely naturalistic events. In addition, I find it impossible to believe that man is merely the sum of his parts - in essence - a highly sophisticated machine, which is the conclusion one would have to come to apart from God's existence. These are reasons that I find atheism untenable as a worldview.

 

Really? You see life around us and conclude that it must have been intelligently designed? You must live in a different universe from mine.

 

The universe seems quite unfeeling towards the plight of human suffering. If there is no god, then I can view it as a sort of "beautiful mess." The universe is awe inspiring, but totally unconcerned with me.

 

If there is a god in charge of this mess then it ceases to be beautiful. The universe's state, now that it has a creator, ceases to say anything about the universe. Instead it says something about the god who created it, and what it says is that god is a colossal ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is not the case. I ask you to provide counter evidence to a historical person who lived and whose life was recorded by many people throughout history. You are the one for whom people should be incredulous as you compare a historical person with a mythical creature.
Your claims have already been disproved by AM earlier in the thread or did you just skip over his post entirely? Why didn't you address AM's post or are you too cowardly to address his points? Again, you're the one who has to prove the bible is historically accurate and the perfect word of God because you're the one making the extraordinary claim. Stop trying to be a coward by shifting the burden of proof.

 

BTW, if you think some of my sources have been discredited, please provide your evidence as I believe that you are mistaken. For your information, you may be referring to parts of Josephus that are in question, I can exclude those sections from my evidence and still have enough in Josephus that is not in question to make my case. As for the other sources, they are not in question by historians. So, yes, I am current on my sources.

 

Hey, I like your boxing cat!

Your claims have already been disproved by Anterlman. Why are you ignoring his post? Isn't this rather rude of you? And how does your source of Josephus have enough evidence to make your case? Your simply saying so doesn't prove it. You have to explain why. And what evidence do you have that the other sources are not in question by scholars? Again, you simply saying so and using wishful thinking doesn't make it true as you much as you may wish it to be.

 

When you say that there are no doctrines in atheism, that is a doctrine.
This makes no sense. That's like saying since your disbelief in Santa Claus has no doctrine is a doctrine itself. Stop trying to abuse the English language to suit your own lies and debate this honestly and quit being a coward.

 

The only problem is that from a purely materialistic worldview, man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA. So, I think it is you that have to explain how man can be anything but a advanced robot from your perspective.
Since when does atheism = materialistic? I think it is fundamentalist Christianity that is truly materialistic and robotic. Fundies believe that if they can follow all the rules in an out-dated rulebook and suck up to God enough, then they can gain immortality and riches in heaven while being unconcerned with the lives of anyone who doesn't agree with them. Fundies don't actually form their own beliefs or think about their religion for themselves but rather they just blindly accept whatever their religion's leaders say without question. In evangelical Christianity, not questioning authority is considered a virtue and Christians are demanded to hand all control of their minds and bodies over to their religion's leaders and simply parrot whatever they tell them to. They don't think for themselves and just let "God" do all the thinking because you'll go to hell if you think for yourself. How is this not robotic and materialistic?

 

If a person feels guilt that has not been dealt with by the cross of Christ, one is not truly a Christian.
Since when? Where in the bible does it say this at all? I'm not aware of any such verse. Doesn't the bible say that all of us have sinned and there is none that is righteous and anyone who says they are without sin is a liar? So, if you claim to be a Christian that has no guilt, then according to your own bible, you're a liar. Maybe you should try reading your own holy books first before you try to reconvert us?

 

I could ask you the question that if you feel that you were indoctrinated by Christianity, how do you know you are not indoctrinated now by atheism?
Because not believing in God isn't anymore of a form of indoctrination than not believing in faeries is. Saying not believing in God is the same thing as having a religious belief is like saying not belonging to a club is the same thing as belonging to one. You make no sense what you say at all. Can you please stop with the nonsensical sophistry and start speaking sense?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I have found excellent evidence to show that Christianity is not the truth. I definitely have no feelings of guilt. Occassionally the thought of Hell bothers me a bit. That is the only issue. But yet when I think about the evidence against Christianity, the fear quickly evaporates.

 

What you are not taking into consideration is that when someone has been indoctrinated to believe in something, it's very hard to break some of the feelings. It's an irrational fear. Lika a phobia. We see phobias all the time, people terrified of things that noone should be afraid of. They know there is no reason to fear, but they still do. To break this sort of fear, it can take a long time. I have a fear of heights. I have walked across the glass plate at the top of the Auckland Sky tower grasping the railing due to vertigo. I have parachuted out of an airplane several times (and being the biggest guy always had to sit right by the door to the plane (which was always open). You had to climb out on the wing of the plane as it flew before you let go. And I am still terrified of heights even though I have faced them many times and even when I know I am perfectly safe. Just standing at the railing overlooking a one story drop is hard. Climbing a ladder onto the roof, then coming back down. Horrible.

I know a guy who is terrified to walk on sand because of the way it makes his feet feel. These things don't just pass with evidence. It takes time. Religion (and I include Christianity in that because it most definitely is a religion) is so insidious in the way it indoctrinates people. Especially when that indoctrination has been done at birth.

 

Guilt is another emotion that doesn't just pass due to evidence. People feel guilt for long periods of time even knowing deep down they are not to blame.

 

I don't know why you believe that this is sufficient evidence to conclude that Chrisitianity is not true.

That is not the evidence I have to conclude that Christianity is not true. I stated that I had found sufficient evidence. I never even touched on what that was. The lack of guilt is just further evidence, but definitely not the be all and end all of the evidence I have found. It is the evidence that I have found (which I have not posted on this thread) that allows me to overcome those brief moments (becoming brieffer and further apart) of fear. You perhaps do no understand just how horrifying the whole concept of eternal suffering actually is because you have the belief you are safe from it. As a Christian the thought of hell never bothered me either, because I believed I was safe from it. When you leave the faith sometimes the "what if" questions arise. It's only natural when you are faced with such a terrible threat that you believed was true for so many years. The fact remains when you come from disbelief to Christianity there is no such fear to deal with. You never get new Christians asking themselves "Oh boy, I wonder if perhaps Allah is the true God and I'm going to go to Hell because I chose Christ".

 

I never used this as a basis for the truth of Christianity, I simply said that it is hard for one who honestly deals with truth to deny it. I could ask you the question that if you feel that you were indoctrinated by Christianity, how do you know you are not indoctrinated now by atheism? One generally doesn't know when they are indoctrinated, so you will have to show me evidence that what you currently believe is not just another form of indoctrination.

I am not an atheist, but an agnostic. God may or may not exist, but there is no evidence to show it and Christianity definitely did not show me it was truth. My stance now is one of no faith. I look at everything now with an open mind, with thought and reason.

 

If a person feels guilt that has not been dealt with by the cross of Christ, one is not truly a Christian. So, if you were feeling guilt as a Christian, then I wonder whether you truly understood the gospel at all. The great thing about the message of Christ and the cross is that he took our guilt upon him and paid for it on the cross, so we have no reason to continue to feel the shame of guilt.

The guilt I felt as a Christian was nothing more than conviction. I knew I was justified by faith and that Christ's blood covered me. Condemnation is not conviction however and not from God.

 

It is only Satan who accuses people of being lousy Christians, and it seems to me it would be Satan who would like Christians to believe that others were never true Christians to begin with. Because that sort of judgemental attitude just makes ex-Christians realise even more they were right to reject Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person feels guilt that has not been dealt with by the cross of Christ, one is not truly a Christian.

Since when? Where in the bible does it say this at all? I'm not aware of any such verse. Doesn't the bible say that all of us have sinned and there is none that is righteous and anyone who says they are without sin is a liar? So, if you claim to be a Christian that has no guilt, then according to your own bible, you're a liar. Maybe you should try reading your own holy books first before you try to reconvert us?

 

LNC clearly confuses condemnation with guilt. Some form of guilt in itself is necesssary, otherwise as a Christian we would continue to sin. God's death on the cross was to allow continued forgiveness of sin. Asking for continued forgiveness is still necessary. It's his death that allows that continued forgiveness without the necessary blood sacrifices to go along with it. Condemnation is an attack from Satan and even true Christians get that. If they didn't, then it's likely they are the ones who are not the true Christian. A true Christian would be attacked by the devil all the time. Conviction on the other hand is from God and any true Christian would feel that conviction unless they were so self-righteous and arrogant they thought that their shit didn't stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem is that from a purely materialistic worldview, man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA. So, I think it is you that have to explain how man can be anything but a advanced robot from your perspective.

Do Calvinists believe in determinism and the lack of free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your claims have already been disproved by AM earlier in the thread or did you just skip over his post entirely? Why didn't you address AM's post or are you too cowardly to address his points?

 

But....but.....AM's post was LONG!!! I mean....it was all.....LONG!!!

 

After all, most cwistians KNOW that if stuff sounds complicated it can't be the truth, because the truth is supposed to be so simple! Just like da WURD. It's so simple! Just like how you are not saved by works alone, except when you get saved by works....and you are saved by faith alone....except when you aren't!! SEE?? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, you are mixing up your metaphors. I believe it is the teapot that atheists claim is orbiting, not the unicorn.

 

It's not my problem if the atheists want to be "nice" to the christians. The teapot analogy implies christians only have ONE thing to prove (because teapots are real...in case you didn't know), that the teapot is in orbit.

 

That is not the case. First, it must be proved that something is in orbit (that a religious teacher named Jesus existed).....AND SECOND....that it's a unicorn (that this Jesus is THE supernaturally powered son o' god, not just some charismatic guy with a philosophy to teach). So...sorry, but there are TWO things to prove. And NEITHER are my job to prove otherwise. Antlerman is notably nicer than I am...to assume you would even bother to read his post...I already suspected you wouldn't bother with any evidence anyone presented (especially if it was highly detailed), and your choice to respond to my post prior to, or instead of his implies that I was right.

 

 

Hey, I like your boxing cat!

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't Gary De Mar or William Lane Craig come onto this site? Or J.P. Holding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.