5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Theophilus]

@Theophilus: it might be good if you address some of the points people have raised by way of argument to your stance, rather than ignoring their valid criticisms and continuing on your (predictable, I'm sorry to say) religious track.

Well, I am trying to pick up things as we go along, so apologies for things I have not covered yet. Hopefully we'll get to everything in due time.

[Theophilus]

Uhm. The Bible can't be used as its own evidence.

Well, I simply used the manuscripts in the Bible as evidence for a person called Jesus who did miraculous, so I think you may be getting a little ahead of where we are at just at the moment. The scriptures are evidence, just as other historical writings are used as evidence. Perhaps to avoid us heading off down a path that is best followed in debate with someone else I should say I am not a sola scriptura Christian; the idea that scripture is the sole authority for Christian faith and doctrine is one I do not follow myself. I am a more old-fashioned creedal and scriptural Christian.

As for other evidence, Well, you could investigate other 1st and 2nd century writings, but I suspect you would not be convinced by anything in writing that has any connection to the Christian community. So we each look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. And therein lies a fascinating, and rather mysterious, difference between the theist and the atheist. As the 9th century Irish theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena wrote "Every visible or invisible creature is a theophany or appearance of God", or to use the words of the 20th century Orthodox theologian Father Alexander Schmemann "The Christian is the one who, wherever he looks, sees God everywhere and rejoices in him". At the end of the day we interpret the evidence based on our presuppositions, and our presupposition is dependent on whether we have faith or not (there really is no solid neutral ground to explore things from). That of course beggars the question "why do some have faith and others not?", and we can ponder on that one for a very long time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Uhm. The Bible can't be used as its own evidence.

Well, I simply used the manuscripts in the Bible as evidence for a person called Jesus who did miraculous, so I think you may be getting a little ahead of where we are at just at the moment.

Actually, you are ahead of the matter. First prove Jesus existed by independent sources, several of them, and then we can talk about what it says in the Bible.

[cowiz]

I think I can sum this up.

God just is, and he is what I say he is because I say he is that way.

Have I got that right?

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I'm sure Theophilus can straighten you out, Ani.

'Zilla did you just "out" Ani ? I thought he was staying in the closet ?

Sorry, I thought people had been reading his posts

Why would we do that?

[Theophilus]

Uhm. The Bible can't be used as its own evidence.

Well, I simply used the manuscripts in the Bible as evidence for a person called Jesus who did miraculous, so I think you may be getting a little ahead of where we are at just at the moment.

Actually, you are ahead of the matter. First prove Jesus existed by independent sources, several of them, and then we can talk about what it says in the Bible.

Well, we may be at stale-mate because I see no reason for rejecting all of the different Christian scriptures which were indeed largely independent until they were canonised together at a later date (the Bible of course was not produced as a single book). There are many different sources in the new testament and there are other historical writings of Christians of the time (such as the letters of Ignatious of Antioch, and the didache). I see no logical reason for saying they cannot be used as evidence; that seems like saying "I won't accept any evidence that has been used before". I'm afraid I cannot accept your position as a logical or reasonable one - it requires a presupposition that scripture must be false.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Uhm. The Bible can't be used as its own evidence.

Well, I simply used the manuscripts in the Bible as evidence for a person called Jesus who did miraculous, so I think you may be getting a little ahead of where we are at just at the moment.

Actually, you are ahead of the matter. First prove Jesus existed by independent sources, several of them, and then we can talk about what it says in the Bible.

Well, we may be at stale-mate because I see no reason for rejecting all of the different Christian scriptures which were indeed largely independent until they were canonised together at a later date (the Bible of course was not produced as a single book). There are many different sources in the new testament and there other historical writings of Christians of the time (such as the letters of Ignatious of Antioch, and the didache), and I see no logical reason for saying they cannot be used as evidence; that seems like saying "I won't accept any evidence that has been used before". I'm afraid I cannot accept your position as a logical or reasonable one - it requires a presupposition that scripture must be false.

I am applying the same rules I would for any historical document. I got my MA in History from Purdue because I know how to do this. No special exceptions for your favorite documents, they all have to pass inspection.

[Theophilus]

Uhm. The Bible can't be used as its own evidence.

Well, I simply used the manuscripts in the Bible as evidence for a person called Jesus who did miraculous, so I think you may be getting a little ahead of where we are at just at the moment.

Actually, you are ahead of the matter. First prove Jesus existed by independent sources, several of them, and then we can talk about what it says in the Bible.

Well, we may be at stale-mate because I see no reason for rejecting all of the different Christian scriptures which were indeed largely independent until they were canonised together at a later date (the Bible of course was not produced as a single book). There are many different sources in the new testament and there other historical writings of Christians of the time (such as the letters of Ignatious of Antioch, and the didache), and I see no logical reason for saying they cannot be used as evidence; that seems like saying "I won't accept any evidence that has been used before". I'm afraid I cannot accept your position as a logical or reasonable one - it requires a presupposition that scripture must be false.

I am applying the same rules I would for any historical document. I got my MA in History from Purdue because I know how to do this. No special exceptions for your favorite documents, they all have to pass inspection.

Well, many historians would disagree with you of course - it is a very small minority who reject the historicity of the person of Jesus, and then you're left in the difficult position of trying to say who was real and who was not and how Christianity began without a Christ of some sort at least. Was Paul real? was Peter real? was James (head of the Jerusalem Church and contemporary of Jesus) real? I'd be interesting in hearing your "version" of events and what sources you do and do not use to come to your conclusion (and why you accept some but not other sources).

But I am genuinely interested - if you believe you have a scholarly alternative, please share it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, many historians would disagree with you of course - it is a very small minority who reject the historicity of Jesus, and then you're left in the difficult position of trying to say who was real and who was not and how Christianity began without a Christ of some sort at least.

The rules are the rules, if you don't follow them you are a hysterian, not a historian. And the special pleading position will get you nowhere.

[Feck]

It makes no difference What Jesus said If he thought that the old testament was factual and not mythical then his opinions and his "new interpretations of scripture" are not valid, never mind the Paulism that came afterwards .

Proof denies faith and vice versa If we find Mary and Joseph wrote a diary about premarital sex and their elopement and Pilate's letters mentioning that yet another Jewish rabble rouser was nailed up ... fuckit Finding the body and a letter saying that it had been moved so that proper Essene rituals could be observed, Nothing will make a difference .

The argument from any theist when you ask about a specific point just wanders off into vague feelings or worse still challenges to prove them wrong.

THE BOOK IS NOT DIVINE !

[Theophilus]

Well, many historians would disagree with you of course - it is a very small minority who reject the historicity of Jesus, and then you're left in the difficult position of trying to say who was real and who was not and how Christianity began without a Christ of some sort at least.

The rules are the rules, if you don't follow them you are a hysterian, not a historian. And the special pleading position will get you nowhere.

Just to be clear - is it your assertion that there was no Jesus who originated Christianity?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, many historians would disagree with you of course - it is a very small minority who reject the historicity of Jesus, and then you're left in the difficult position of trying to say who was real and who was not and how Christianity began without a Christ of some sort at least.

The rules are the rules, if you don't follow them you are a hysterian, not a historian. And the special pleading position will get you nowhere.

Just to be clear - is it your assertion that there was no Jesus who originated Christianity?

No, I'm saying that you have to provide proof that there was a Jesus. Then we can discuss what he did, after you provide evidence that he did those thing. We will eventually get to the question of divinity, but only after the process reaches that point. You don't get to skip steps if you want to be credible.

[Theophilus]

Well, many historians would disagree with you of course - it is a very small minority who reject the historicity of Jesus, and then you're left in the difficult position of trying to say who was real and who was not and how Christianity began without a Christ of some sort at least.

The rules are the rules, if you don't follow them you are a hysterian, not a historian. And the special pleading position will get you nowhere.

Just to be clear - is it your assertion that there was no Jesus who originated Christianity?

No, I'm saying that you have to provide proof that there was a Jesus. Then we can discuss what he did, after you provide evidence that he did those thing. We will eventually get to the question of divinity, but only after the process reaches that point. You don't get to skip steps if you want to be credible.

Sorry, I'm still uncertain of your own position. As a historian do you accept or reject the existence of Jesus as a person who spawned a new religion?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, many historians would disagree with you of course - it is a very small minority who reject the historicity of Jesus, and then you're left in the difficult position of trying to say who was real and who was not and how Christianity began without a Christ of some sort at least.

The rules are the rules, if you don't follow them you are a hysterian, not a historian. And the special pleading position will get you nowhere.

Just to be clear - is it your assertion that there was no Jesus who originated Christianity?

No, I'm saying that you have to provide proof that there was a Jesus. Then we can discuss what he did, after you provide evidence that he did those thing. We will eventually get to the question of divinity, but only after the process reaches that point. You don't get to skip steps if you want to be credible.

Sorry, I'm still uncertain of your own position. As a historian do you accept or reject the existence of Jesus as a person who spawned a new religion?

I would respond, "Show me your evidence and I'll look at it." But you have to present evidence, no the Bible. Circular reasoning dies at the starting gate in this matter. (And you must know by now that I've been following the "Proof for Historical Jesus" argument for years, since Purdue actually, and the "evidence" I've seen so far fails. So, you got anything new?)

[Theophilus]

I would respond, "Show me your evidence and I'll look at it." But you have to present evidence, no the Bible. Circular reasoning dies at the starting gate in this matter. (And you must know by now that I've been following the "Proof for Historical Jesus" argument for years, since Purdue actually, and the "evidence" I've seen so far fails. So, you got anything new?)

But, as a professed historian in this area (you say you apply historic methods and have deemed the new testament to have no evidential value), you must have already examined the evidence quite thoroughly?

So could I ask you again, having looked at the evidence, do you accept or reject the existence of a Jesus who spawned a new religion? And what evidence would you support your answer with?