Faith?

[ThinkerMan]

Hello Cedric,
I strongly urge you to check out the Christian response to many of these objections. I know that CARM was already given, but they have an extensive Atheists section which might be helpful to you, with debates as well: http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm

In just my brief read of some of that site, I am quite impressed. Reading the first few links, I think it gives a very fair analysis of atheism, as well as the tone that atheism v. theism debates should take.

For example...

Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as evil, stupid, devil-worshippers, or morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not evil, stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals. Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.

Not something I read here often...usually the word "fool" seems to be the hot label.

Thanks for that site McQuacks...I think people here from boths sides could benefit from reading that. I'll try and wade through the rest of the articles on that page when I get a chance. I know I won't agree with it all, but I appreciate the tenor of the arguments.

TM

 

[Karma2Grace]

“These are at most people observing that Christians existed, not that Jesus existed. They were all born after Jesus was suppose to have died. And there are forgeries in there.

I am sure you never even check out the web site, there are quotes about Jesus, and Even Jews (in talmud) never denied that there is no Jesus, It is a total stupidity to say “there is no person called Jesus", It simply shows your ignorance !

Right. Mary did not have to be a virgin, just unmarried (or young) to fit that word.

I am sure the 1st Jews are not following your culture, Unmarried means Virgin, if you feel otherwise then it is out of your personal conviction about unmarried girls

But science proves scientific forgeries wrong. Christianity has a bad history of making up stuff and spreading false information to convert people. Check out Forgery in Christianity for a long list of such forgeries.

I don’t see any list there, I cannot speak for catholic popes or priests..

I do not believe the story that Alexander was born from a virgin since such extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Yet the historians recorded him and there are many artifacts from his era that show he existed.

I asked you for the written document about Alexander,
Can you name the historians?
How would you conclude that they are not biased?
What the gap between the actual incident and written meterial?

Yet Jesus has extraordinary evidences of His birth and resurrection, Since you are blind you are not able to see them.

By the way, do you have extraordinary evidence for the first life or origin of universe, how a matter came from non matter?

Many people die for false religions. We both know that, though we may disagree on what is false.

Would you die for a myth that you yourself fabricated, Your Logic is very poor!

These two are Christian. But it doesn't really matter.

I know nothing matters for you! It doesn’t matter even Jesus came to you and ask you to believe Him, because the issue is not logical or intellectual

Creationism is drawing upon magic while Big Bang theory followed by Evolution theory requires no magic

I can take this as Joke of 2005! , Any knowledgible scientist (supporter of evolution) will not agree, Do you know why the famous athiest Anthony Flew became a theist because he doesn’t want to live in a myth that life came from lifeless matter or Big bang happened from no where!

Here are the quotes from Einstein

I am convinced that God does not play dice. -- Albert Einstein
God is subtle but he is not malicious. -- Albert Einstein

I am not talking about Christians, I am talking about theists! , In that sake following fools (illogical minds as per ‘logical quath’ : ) believed in some sort of God!

Albert Einstein
Isaac Newton
Michael Faraday
CS Lewis


I am really not here to convince you or thinker man, I know for sure that “The struggle of Atheist is not intellectual or logical but moral†so ask your heart that will tell stories about your morality and selfishness

Mt 7:7 "..seek, and you will find"


Joh 18:37 "..for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

ANY ONE WHO IS OF TRUTH (SEEK TRUTH) WILL FIND JESUS SO IT IS A MATTER OF FINDING TRUTH NOT LIVING IN A SELF REALITY !

 

[Karma2Grace]

I'll try and wade through the rest of the articles on that page when I get a chance. I know I won't agree with it all, but I appreciate the tenor of the arguments.

So you already concluded that "you are not going to agree" before even reading the arguments :

According to Luke, yes, that is correct. And it seems the history he studied was pretty much just Mark and whatever second source Matthew used.

I know atheists uses ill minded arguments , When we say bible is a devine revelation then they will argue that it has lot of contradictions between Gospel accounts
Then after they will say Luck copied from Mark or Matthew copied from Mark.

They will say "Jesus is not historical" then they will praise Dan brown for his iwork on "Davinci code" to unpack the secret life of Jesus !

that is why i believe “The struggle of Atheist is not intellectual or logical but moralâ€Â

 

[ThinkerMan]

I'll try and wade through the rest of the articles on that page when I get a chance. I know I won't agree with it all, but I appreciate the tenor of the arguments.

So you already concluded that "you are not going to agree" before even reading the arguments :

I read one article, disagreed with the conclusion. I think it is a fair prediction I will disagree with others.

I read some more. Most I found lacking. My prediction was correct.

According to Luke, yes, that is correct. And it seems the history he studied was pretty much just Mark and whatever second source Matthew used.

I know atheists uses ill minded arguments , When we say bible is a devine revelation then they will argue that it has lot of contradictions between Gospel accounts
Then after they will say Luck copied from Mark or Matthew copied from Mark.

I agree you have to be careful with such arguments.

A. The two gospels are exactly the same (he copied it!)
B. The two gospels are different (one has to be wrong).

I am not trying to do that.

However, I do believe you can approach the verocity of the four gospels, noting both similarities and contradictions, and determine whether or not they appear to be inspired.

For example, Matthew and Luke seem very similar in terms of timeline and parables. They both depend heavily on Mark for most, and what remains, most appears to be from the same source.

While it is possible they are both independent eyewitness, it seems odd that they both include (almost exclusively) the same new information. I think the reasonable conclusion is that they both got their information from the same source, or one copied the the other.

I believe it was John who said Jesus did so much the books of the world couldn't hold it. Yet neither Matthew or Luke seem to bring up much of anything new.

I agree that does because they say different things, it doesn't mean that they are contradictory. However, there are instances of pure contradiction (the geneologies, for example). Given that they were obviously written for different audiences, it seems they wrote what they thought would be well received, not what what necessarily accurate.

Again, without getting into the whole contradiction thing, the question here was whether or not they are eyewitnesses. Based on how and where they acquired their information (from someone who never met Jesus and another unknown source), it seems unlikely.

They will say "Jesus is not historical" then they will praise Dan brown for his iwork on "Davinci code" to unpack the secret life of Jesus !

that is why i believe “The struggle of Atheist is not intellectual or logical but moralâ€Â

The Da Vinci code was good fiction. Just that.

My struggles with morality ended when my theism ended. Not a prescription for all, perhaps, but most atheists I know agree.

 

[Quath]

I am sure you never even check out the web site, there are quotes about Jesus, and Even Jews (in talmud) never denied that there is no Jesus, It is a total stupidity to say “there is no person called Jesus", It simply shows your ignorance !

I checked out CARM a long time ago. It tends to be a good website for apologetics, but it contains errors that they do not wish to remove or show the skeptical response.

For the Talmud, Nobeliefs.com has a good website that shows why this is not good proof:

Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

It is more stupid to show no evidence and bad evidence while at the same time seeing good evidence showing that all the Jesus stories were copied and still claim Jesus was real. I could see someone named Jesus existing, but I would say we would know nothing about him since so much was copied from pagan myths. There were other historians in Rome that documented prophets coming into the city. I would have expected at least for Jesus to have been named there. Since he wasn't, I see no reason to believe he existed.

I am sure the 1st Jews are not following your culture, Unmarried means Virgin, if you feel otherwise then it is out of your personal conviction about unmarried girls

The point is that Joseph could have been the father. It did not have to be God. Mary did not have to have a virgin birth.

I don’t see any list there, I cannot speak for catholic popes or priests..

You have to click the headers to see the lists.

I asked you for the written document about Alexander,
Can you name the historians?
How would you conclude that they are not biased?
What the gap between the actual incident and written meterial?

There were coins with his face on it. So we have portraits of him at Antiquite Coins.

A huge list of references to Alaxander by people that new him and wrote about him can be found at The 'good' sources on Alaxander the Great.

Yet Jesus has extraordinary evidences of His birth and resurrection, Since you are blind you are not able to see them.

Noone who saw Jesus wrote about him outside the Bible. Of the 4 gospels of Jesus, 3 were copies of each other with the first being a non-firstahand account. Only the book of John may have been an eyewitness 60 years later. So I see lack of any convincing evidence at all.

By the way, do you have extraordinary evidence for the first life or origin of universe, how a matter came from non matter?

Which do you want, matter from non-matter or life from non-life?

Would you die for a myth that you yourself fabricated, Your Logic is very poor!

No, but the people that died believed it because Paul told them about it and they believed him.

Do the people that die for Allah prove that Allah is not a fabication?

I can take this as Joke of 2005! , Any knowledgible scientist (supporter of evolution) will not agree, Do you know why the famous athiest Anthony Flew became a theist because he doesn’t want to live in a myth that life came from lifeless matter or Big bang happened from no where!

He thinks the deist god exists but says for certain the Christian god does not exist. Is this someone you find yourself agreeing with?

Here are the quotes from Einstein

I am convinced that God does not play dice. -- Albert Einstein
God is subtle but he is not malicious. -- Albert Einstein

God is a metaphor for "nature". Einstein was clear that he did not believe in God as a being.

ANY ONE WHO IS OF TRUTH (SEEK TRUTH) WILL FIND JESUS SO IT IS A MATTER OF FINDING TRUTH NOT LIVING IN A SELF REALITY !

What you are saying is that anyone agrees with you will have found the truth, but every religious person around the world thinks pretty much the same.

Quath

 

[Gary]

Einstein and Religion

From the book: "Einstein and his religion" by Max Jammer

Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. (p150)

"What makes me angry is that they ["people who say there is no God"] quote me to support their views." (R.W. Clark - Einstein - the Life and Times. p.516)

.

 

[McQuacks]

Hello Cedric,
I strongly urge you to check out the Christian response to many of these objections. I know that CARM was already given, but they have an extensive Atheists section which might be helpful to you, with debates as well: http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm

In just my brief read of some of that site, I am quite impressed. Reading the first few links, I think it gives a very fair analysis of atheism, as well as the tone that atheism v. theism debates should take.

For example...

Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as evil, stupid, devil-worshippers, or morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not evil, stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals. Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.

Not something I read here often...usually the word "fool" seems to be the hot label.

Thanks for that site McQuacks...I think people here from boths sides could benefit from reading that. I'll try and wade through the rest of the articles on that page when I get a chance. I know I won't agree with it all, but I appreciate the tenor of the arguments.

TM

To me, no matter how annoyed or frustrated you get while debating, it should be common curtesy, and Christian behavior for a Christian, not to go off slandering the other person. Even something like, "You're crazy," or "Your post is inadequate," are things that, I feel, just drive a discussion down. I think Christians and atheists could have more effective debates if they weren't busy calling each other names. So I too like CARM's approach to that, and I'm glad your considering reading more there.
-McQ 8-)

 

[Karma2Grace]

The Da Vinci code was good fiction. Just that.

So you believe in Historical Jesus, Watch out for Quath he may call you as 'illogical'
Can you explain him why you think Jesus is historical on what evidence so that he can understand (Athists might have common language to express matters )

My struggles with morality ended when my theism ended. Not a prescription for all, perhaps, but most atheists I know agree.

Well said ! if you take God out of the equation then there is no objective morals , Immorality doesn't matter !!

 

[ThinkerMan]

The Da Vinci code was good fiction. Just that.

So you believe in Historical Jesus, Watch out for Quath he may call you as 'illogical'
Can you explain him why you think Jesus is historical on what evidence so that he can understand (Athists might have common language to express matters )

Oddly enough, all atheists are not in a world-wide conspiracy! I am even a republican, which is quite rare among atheists. Quath and I have disagreed on things before, and we will again.

I think it is likely that Jesus existed, though I don't think we can know too much about him. I think the major reasons why I believe he existed are the letters of Paul. I think it makes sense he was writing about someone who existed.

However, given the commonness of the name, the Jesus that existed the century before (according to the Talmud), and other factors, I don't know to which Jesus he was referring, or much about him. Paul certainly offers no real details, and I don't find the gospels reliable for the aforementioned reasons.

That given, I don't subscribe to any supernatural claims about him or speculate too heavily on what he actually may have taught. Perhaps some of that comes through in the beatitudes, but its tough to say.

My struggles with morality ended when my theism ended. Not a prescription for all, perhaps, but most atheists I know agree.

Well said ! if you take God out of the equation then there is no objective morals , Immorality doesn't matter !!

I said nothing about there no longer being objective morality. On the contrary, I feel the opposite. Even you can see the divisive nature of morality as interpreted by countless sects of Christians. I know you don't think others have it right, but they don't think you have it right either.

As an atheist, my morality is now much more objective than it ever was. The golden rule (as I see from another thread not your favorite) serves as a wonderful guide for how you interact with society and others.

I am no longer subject to my or others intrepretation of morality as derived from a confusing and contradictory text, but able to interact within my society along basic, fundamental and objective rules.

 

[Quath]

Einstein and Religion

From the book: "Einstein and his religion" by Max Jammer

Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. (p150)

"What makes me angry is that they ["people who say there is no God"] quote me to support their views." (R.W. Clark - Einstein - the Life and Times. p.516)

.

Einstein was at most agnostic, though it changes depending on how you define atheism and agnosticism. Some of the quotes that shed light on this are

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

--- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215

To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.

-- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

-- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434

think it is likely that Jesus existed, though I don't think we can know too much about him. I think the major reasons why I believe he existed are the letters of Paul. I think it makes sense he was writing about someone who existed.

Thinkerman and I have discussed this before. This is kind of the crux of our disagreement. Paul admits to only having seen Jesus in a dream. So to me, he was convinced without ever having direct evidence of Jesus.

There were other Christians around, but they were killed off so the Pauline version of Christianity survived. The other Christians saw things quite differently and may have seen Jesus is a more gnostic manner.

Quath

 

[Gary]

Quath has now moved Einstein from an atheist to an agnostic... hmmm. At least we are getting somewhere.

Do yourself a favor. Get the book "Einstein and Religion" by Max Jammer. It is very interesting and puts all those quotes in context.

Review: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6681.html

Chapter 1: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s6681.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From my reading of the complete book, I can understand that Einstein believed in God... but not a personal God. He said that many times. Quath, you are a scientist. Right? Then get this book. It is worth the few dollars.

Was he an atheist or an agnostic? The question was even posed to Einstein, late in his life, if he could be considered and atheist or an agnostic. His rely (in 1954, 1 year before he died) shows his thinking about God. "I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws." (p. 123)

Einstein had been influenced all his life by the thinking of Spinoza. Spinoza taught that nature is divine and God is One.

That was Einstein's God.... the God of Spinoza.

.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

There are several problems. The first is that none of these people were even alive when Jesus was suppose to have existed. The second is that some of the writings have been found to have been forged. The last is that they reported that there were Christians, not that Jesus existed.

Just wondering what sources told you that “some of the writings have been found to have been forged� Oh and Josephus for sure spoke of Jesus, not just some Christians.

I see what you saying about them not being alive when Jesus existed but it is interesting that in none of their writings do they make the statements that Jesus’ existence is just a myth of “Christians." One would think that if the existence of such a man as Jesus was false there would be some writing saying so…yet none exists. In any event it is interesting how most (non-Christian) scholars don’t doubt his exists just what is depicted about him in the Bible.

 

[Quath]

Was he an atheist or an agnostic?
...
Einstein had been influenced all his life by the thinking of Spinoza. Spinoza taught that nature is divine and God is One.

That was Einstein's God.... the God of Spinoza.

I don't know about Spinoza. However, the following quote seems to be the clearest response:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
-Albert Einstein

He is not really claiming to be a pure atheist, just one from a certain perspective. It seems he is describing logically weak atheism in different words.

Just wondering what sources told you that “some of the writings have been found to have been forged� Oh and Josephus for sure spoke of Jesus, not just some Christians.

This was one of the forgeries. Check out Forgery in Christianity and search for Josephus for a chapter on him. A little clearer version is at Answers.com. The basic idea is there are known forgeries in it. So can it be trusted. A further idea is that Josephus could never have seen Jesus and must have taken someone's word for it. Who's word would he have taken? A Christians?

I see what you saying about them not being alive when Jesus existed but it is interesting that in none of their writings do they make the statements that Jesus’ existence is just a myth of “Christians."

Christianity was a small cult back then and it was very close to Mithraism in most ways. So people probably didn't waste too much time with apologetics. It seemed simplier to kill the religions that gave people trouble back then, not deconvert them.

In any event it is interesting how most (non-Christian) scholars don’t doubt his exists just what is depicted about him in the Bible.

I think this is because most non-Christians don't care enough to research this type of stuff. After all, if you accept he was a man like David Koresh, then there is little need to dig further. I only checked it out when someone gave me the book "Case for Christ." I never even knew that Jesus was even doubted to have existed until then. The author did a poor job and started to convince me the other way.

Quath