Ignorance and the Bible

[Dutch Uncle]

It just seems that atheism is something Cypress does not like. He seems to be OK with agnosticism, but really holds some dislike for atheism. Every time he mentions them they are either "militant" or they back "conspiracy theories" etc. Really seems down on atheism.



Televangelist? Wacky? I don't understand why either word applies.

He's trying to have an intellectual discussion with an atheist. An effort, IMO, which is an exercise in futility for multiple reasons. Many of which are similar to attempting to converse with a Jesus Freak or other fanatic.

The fact you often resort to emotional comments says a lot, but mostly your age and fanaticism.

8 facts about atheists

Around six-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (64%). And seven-in-ten are ages 49 or younger, compared with about half of U.S. adults overall (52%).

www.pewresearch.org

In the U.S., atheists are mostly men and are relatively young, according to a Center survey conducted in summer 2023. Around six-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (64%). And seven-in-ten are ages 49 or younger, compared with about half of U.S. adults overall (52%).

Atheists also are more likely than the general public to be White (77% vs. 62%) and have a college degree (48% vs. 34%). Roughly eight-in-ten atheists identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party....

...About three-quarters of U.S. atheists (77%) do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind, according to our summer 2023 survey. At the same time, 23% say they do believe in a higher power of some kind, though fewer than 1% of U.S. atheists say they believe in “God as described in the Bible.”

This shows that not all self-described atheists fit the literal definition of “atheist,” which is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster.

 

[Cypress]

I still don't. Because it isn't important. It's ONLY important for theological reasons. The possible "survival" hypothesis just makes the whole enterprise even more "made up".



One thing I find when debating the religious is it is exceedingly important for them to constantly tell everyone about their "victories" against the ebil atheist. I find it boring.




Just any. The stories in the Synoptics are all decades after the fact. We don't even know who wrote them.

At this point I'd accept SOMETHING rather than the thin gruel of a scrap of papyrus somewhere.



Outside of the Bible? Where.



Why does it have to be a "conspiracy"? You know people could pass around stories and things accidentally get added on. God, why must you attack non-stop? No one is proposing a CONSPIRACY.

It's clear you hate hate hate atheism. You are not alone. Many do. But ask yourself: why do you fear and hate anyone's questions on this point?

If scholars think Herodotus wrote something that wasn't true, they give logical reasons for why they think it isn't true.

They don't just blurt out "it isn't true!", and then bolt for the hills refusing to entertain questions or provide reasons.

Hyper-skepticism is not an intellectually fair minded approach. I think hyper-skepticism usually operates as a cover for a preconceived agenda.

There are no surviving accounts from eyewitnesses about Alexander the Great. The oldest extant document reporting on Alexander the Great was written four hundred years after he died.

The New Testament isn't one book written by one author. It is a collection of books independently written by multiple authors, many of whom weren't even Christian, they were Jews. I'm not sure about whether Luke identified himself as a Christian per se, but he certainly was a Greek-speaking gentile.

The NT's very nature of multiple independent sources that makes legitimate historians accept that there is some reliable historical data in them.

The resurrection account is not a,story that slowly evolved over time.

The resurrection account goes back to the very earliest days of the early Christ-followers in Jerusalem. The creed cited in 1 Corinthians demonstrates that a fully reported resurrection account probably goes back into the 30s AD, shortly after the crucifixion.

 

[gmark77]

If scholars think Herodotus wrote something that wasn't true, they give logical reasons for why they think it isn't true.

Snakes don't fly.

Dead people don't rise up from the dead.

Easy peasy.

Hyper-skepticism is not an intellectually fair minded approach.

Neither is hyper-credulity

I think hyper-skepticism usually operates as a cover for a preconceived agenda.

Always with the "agenda".

Can't someone disagree on a theological/historiographical topic without one of us having an "agenda"? Can't we just have a nice debate?

The New Testament isn't one book written by one author. It is a collection of books independently written by multiple authors, many of whom weren't even Christian, they were Jews.

And many of them completely unknown. Some of them written in the name of someone that wasn't necessarily the author as well!

 

[gmark77]

The fact you often resort to emotional comments says a lot, but mostly your age and fanaticism.

"emotional comments"?

Any examples?

 

[Cypress]

In the U.S., atheists are mostly men and are relatively young, according to a Center survey conducted in summer 2023.

Male, young -- and overwhelmingly white.

I flirted with atheism years ago, but it's definitely a philosophy largely limited to white men.

 

[gmark77]

Male, young -- and overwhelmingly white.

I flirted with atheism years ago, but it's definitely a philosophy largely limited to white men.

I'm curious what it was that didn't jibe with atheism for you?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

"emotional comments"?

Any examples?

Plenty.

It's clear you hate hate hate atheism. You are not alone. Many do. But ask yourself: why do you fear and hate anyone's questions on this point?

It just seems that atheism is something Cypress does not like. He seems to be OK with agnosticism, but really holds some dislike for atheism. Every time he mentions them they are either "militant" or they back "conspiracy theories" etc. Really seems down on atheism.

But it was on-topic for you to slag atheists? Interesting.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Male, young -- and overwhelmingly white.

I flirted with atheism years ago, but it's definitely a philosophy largely limited to white men.

I was an atheist from about age 14 to 16. Again, it seems to be mostly a province of young, white males rebelling against authority. Most outgrow it. Not necessarily atheism itself, but whining about it.

 

[gmark77]

Plenty.

Sorry I had confused one of your comments for one of Cypress

No worries. Lots of atheists hate Christianity. IMO, it's a form of rebelling against their parents.

 

[gmark77]

I was an atheist from about age 14 to 16. Again, it seems to be mostly a province of young, white males rebelling against authority. Most outgrow it. Not necessarily atheism itself, but whining about it.

So they "outgrow" atheism because they discover proof of God?

Cool.

Can you show me that proof that pulled you out of atheism?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sorry I had confused one of your comments for one of Cypress

Not your only mistake.

 

[gmark77]

Not your only mistake.

?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So they "outgrow" atheism because they discover proof of God?

Cool.

Can you show me that proof that pulled you out of atheism?

No. They outgrow it because they know there's no proof of anything beyond the natural universe. Again, the most logical position is Agnosticism. Atheists and Theists are simply believers telling their opposites they are wrong without offering proof....because there is no proof.

What proof? It just is. Why do you think there are so few atheists and that most of them are young, white and male?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

?

?

 

[Cypress]

As you pointed out, people don't die for something they don't believe in. I think they genuinely believed.

Their belief was so strong that they gathered others who found hope in Christianity even if persecuted by both the Romans and the Jews.

While it's unlikely the Romans, much less the Jewish hierarchy, would have written about a crucified carpenter, the fact remains that the religion grew and people died for their beliefs.

Good point. To the Romans in Judea, Jesus was a common criminal and there wouldn't be any reason for Romans to maintain written records about the arrest and execution.

Jesus seems to have been on the cross for an unusually short amount of time, compared to the average crucifixion. Joseph of Aramithea claimed in Mark's gospel that Jesus was taken off the cross after only six hours.

There are a few isolated accounts in ancient literature of people surviving crucifixion.

 

[gmark77]

No. They outgrow it because they know there's no proof of anything beyond the natural universe. Again, the most logical position is Agnosticism.

Or implicit atheism.

That one's cool because it's how science is done.

Atheists and Theists are simply believers telling their opposites they are wrong without offering proof....because there is no proof.

I think you are stuck only on Explicit atheism. I agree there is no way to prove the statement "There is no God". But there is no problem whatsoever with simply not believing in God.

The lack of belief is not a belief. Ergo doesn't require any positive proof.

 

[gmark77]

Jesus seems to have been on the cross for an unusually short amount of time, compared to the average crucifixion.

And don't forget all the earthquakes and all the OTHER dead who rose at the time and 3 hours of darkness (Matthew 27)

That seems like it would have been worth a note. But, again, probably easy enough to miss.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Good point. To the Romans in Judea, Jesus was a common criminal and there wouldn't be any reason for Romans to maintain written records about the arrest and execution.

Jesus seems to have been on the cross for an unusually short amount of time, compared to the average crucifixion. Joseph of Aramithea claimed in Mark's gospel that Jesus was taken off the cross after only six hours.

There are a few isolated accounts in ancient literature of people surviving crucifixion.

Agreed. No miracles necessary.

If anything, it proves that it's difficult to kill an idea. While Jesus may have not been the first to offer the messages he brought to Judea, he certainly popularized them. Many of his ideas appear Eastern in nature. The fact the Bible only mentions him from age 12, which may be mainly fabrication, until his arrival in Jerusalem in his early 30s leaves plenty of time for him to have traveled the trade routes east and learned about Eastern philosophy and religions.

King's Highway (ancient) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Or implicit atheism.

That one's cool because it's how science is done.



I think you are stuck only on Explicit atheism. I agree there is no way to prove the statement "There is no God". But there is no problem whatsoever with simply not believing in God.

The lack of belief is not a belief. Ergo doesn't require any positive proof.

You believe "when you're dead, you're dead". I get it. You believe the Universe just popped into existence for no rhyme or reason. Fine.

The fact you believe your atheism makes you superior to billions of human beings who believe there is something more to existence than the Natural Universe is fine too. I simply disagree but it does say something about you that you believe those things.

 

[gmark77]

You believe "when you're dead, you're dead". I get it.

Sure do. Primarily because I've never heard anyone come back from the dead. Certainly nothing that I believe.

The fact you believe your atheism

You mean I believe my lack of belief?

I am a HUGE "not-playing-Baseball" fan. I sit around NOT playing baseball or even watching it. It fills my days.

makes you superior to billions of human beings

I hope I didn't say that anywhere? I"m not superior to anyone.