The Atheist Experience

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

We know that, how?

 

It was not hundreds, it was dozens. And we know that because the church tells us so. My self-study Bible had great, informative intros for every book. Discussed the likely year of its writing and the clues they have as to who may have written it.

[Decoy73]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

It was not hundreds, it was dozens. And we know that because the church tells us so. My self-study Bible had great, informative intros for every book. Discussed the likely year of its writing and the clues they have as to who may have written it.

Exactly.  Who are we to say the church is wrong?  Or right?   It’s how I see it anyway.  One of the previous pastors at my church always said, “you don’t have to check your brain at the door.”  I always admired that take.  It’s okay to be skeptical about many things in the Bible, but if the New Testament is just stories, then why were there four plus published accounts of one man (Jesus) from shortly after his time on earth?    And while there’s some overlap of his teachings, they all (The gospels) are somewhat different.   Pretty much all religious historians agree that Jesus did exist.   Why document all that about him if he was just another “prophet?”  This, plus first hand things I’ve heard from what I consider reliable sources, allows me to continue to believe.   My advice to skeptics—Don’t overthink it (the Bible.). 

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Exactly.  Who are we to say the church is wrong?  Or right?   It’s how I see it anyway.  One of the previous pastors at my church always said, “you don’t have to check your brain at the door.”  I always admired that take.  It’s okay to be skeptical about many things in the Bible, but if the New Testament is just stories, then why were there four plus published accounts of one man (Jesus) from shortly after his time on earth?    And while there’s some overlap of his teachings, they all (The gospels) are somewhat different.   Pretty much all religious historians agree that Jesus did exist.   Why document all that about him if he was just another “prophet?”  This, plus first hand things I’ve heard from what I consider reliable sources, allows me to continue to believe.   My advice to skeptics—Don’t overthink it (the Bible.). 

All things that apply to Buddha and Mohammad. Heck Zeus and the rest of the Greek gods had even more writings about them than Jesus did.

[Decoy73]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

All things that apply to Buddha and Mohammad. Heck Zeus and the rest of the Greek gods had even more writings about them than Jesus did.

Honestly, I don’t know much about Buddha, but Muhammad was an actual person.  Was he a prophet sent by God?    Big question.  
 

Comparing the believability of the writings of Jesus to those of the Greek Gods?  Come on. 

[RedDenver]

36 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Honestly, I don’t know much about Buddha, but Muhammad was an actual person.  Was he a prophet sent by God?    Big question.  
 

Comparing the believability of the writings of Jesus to those of the Greek Gods?  Come on. 

You referenced the number of writers/writings about Jesus as a reason for believing they aren't "just stories". I'm pointing out that writings can have a number of different writers and writings and still be "just stories".

[Moiraine]

On 3/31/2021 at 8:46 AM, knapplc said:

the Turkish ethnocides

 

 

Why are you referring to it this way? Just curious. I’ve been reading about the Armenian genocide a lot lately. 

[Ratt Mhule]

2 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

Exactly.  Who are we to say the church is wrong?  Or right?   It’s how I see it anyway.  One of the previous pastors at my church always said, “you don’t have to check your brain at the door.”  I always admired that take.  It’s okay to be skeptical about many things in the Bible, but if the New Testament is just stories, then why were there four plus published accounts of one man (Jesus) from shortly after his time on earth?    And while there’s some overlap of his teachings, they all (The gospels) are somewhat different.   Pretty much all religious historians agree that Jesus did exist.   Why document all that about him if he was just another “prophet?”  This, plus first hand things I’ve heard from what I consider reliable sources, allows me to continue to believe.   My advice to skeptics—Don’t overthink it (the Bible.). 

We dont even know who wrote the bibles. Would you believe everything strangers told you? Do yoi believe alien abduction stories? It could have been the same dude on drugs for all we know. The gospels cant even get the same stories correct. They all have different account of what happened. Kinda like what happens when people play a long game

of telephone, the story changes over time. 
 

Most historians conclude that the books of the bible were not eyewitness accounts, which means the stories were passed down from generation to generation. In a time where documented proof was pretty much impossible, how does this make the stories reliable. Why did God show himself to these

people, but hasnt shown himself in 2000+ years. Why are they so lucky while we have to rely on an old book with talking snakes and giving us rules for how we treat our slaves when our souls are on the line?
 

What first hand things from reliable sources have you heard that prove Jesus: 1. Rose from the dead and 2. Is the son of god?

[Ratt Mhule]

2 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

Honestly, I don’t know much about Buddha, but Muhammad was an actual person.  Was he a prophet sent by God?    Big question.  
 

Comparing the believability of the writings of Jesus to those of the Greek Gods?  Come on. 

Why is your God correct but theirs wasnt? They believed their gods were real the same way you do. Are they wrong, and youre right and if so, how do you demonstrate that?

[Ratt Mhule]

2 hours ago, NUance said:

To your point about there being lots of misinformation and misunderstanding about God, yes I agree.  There's LOTS of misinformation and misunderstanding.  But that just proves how small and ignorant man is.    

 

As for the existence of a higher power, just look around you at the magnificent system of life on earth.  Would you, as an atheist, have us believe that all these incredibly complex, interacting systems of life came into being and multiplied through happenstance and random mutations?  

 

There are around 9 million different species of animals on earth and 400k species of plants.  If you had a planet with ideal conditions—or even a billion planets—how long would you have to wait until the conditions occurred to produce one cell of a plant or animal?  A billion years?  A trillion years?  Who knows?  And if that one cell somehow did come into being, how could it reproduce?  How could it cooperate with other cells to form a simple plant or animal?  And how could that simple plant or animal evolve on its own to create what we have on earth today?    

 

I amuses me that some people pooh pooh the difficulty of creating life—plants and animals.  It's really, really hard.  Certainly it's far beyond the capabilities of mankind.  We (all of mankind) could devote all the collective resources of the world to this problem for a 100 years and we couldn't create one simple creature from scratch.  Yet many would have us believe that life was created by a lightening strike in a swamp.  Heh. 

So your argument is, I dont know therefore God. There are also a lot of things in this world that dont make sense. What purpose

does God have for cockroaches? Or sea creatures that live in darkness at the bottom of the ocean? Why are some people born woth disease or with their heart hanging outside theor body. I suggest you watch some of these videos as many callers call in with this same argument. 

[Decoy73]

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

What first hand things from reliable sources have you heard that prove Jesus: 1. Rose from the dead and 2. Is the son of god?

Really?  It’s called faith.  Maybe you’ve heard about it.  Based on my experiences, I choose to believe.  You don’t.   OK.  But I’m not getting into silly questions like this.  

[Ratt Mhule]

22 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Really?  It’s called faith.  Maybe you’ve heard about it.  Based on my experiences, I choose to believe.  You don’t.   OK.  But I’m not getting into silly questions like this.  

Its okay, I couldnt answer these questions either when I was a believer. Which is why I dont believe anymore. Faith is something you have when you dont have good reason to believe it. If God is threatening us with eternal damnation, there should be at least a shred of evidence, not just needing faith. 

[knapplc]

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Why are you referring to it this way? Just curious. I’ve been reading about the Armenian genocide a lot lately. 

 

Because the Armenians weren't the only people the Turks tried to ethnically cleanse. There's a great push to recognise the Armenian genocide - and that's good - but the Turks also fomitted pogroms against the Turkish Christians and Nestorians.

[Moiraine]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Because the Armenians weren't the only people the Turks tried to ethnically cleanse. There's a great push to recognise the Armenian genocide - and that's good - but the Turks also fomitted pogroms against the Turkish Christians and Nestorians.

 

 

I don't think ethnocide is the right word. Call it genocides against all of those groups. You can commit ethnocide without trying to kill everyone in the group or even many of them. For example you can try to make them conform to your culture by disallowing them to speak their language or practice their religion. Kinda like what China does.

 

The Turks didn't merely commit ethnocide against the Armenians. I don't know enough about the others. I know they killed a lot of Greeks and Syrians too but I'm not sure whether they were trying to completely wipe them out like they were the Armenians. The more I learn about Armenia the harder it is to believe they still exist and now they have/had another war with another group of Turkish people.

[knapplc]

2 hours ago, Frott Scost said:

Why is your God correct but theirs wasnt? They believed their gods were real the same way you do. Are they wrong, and youre right and if so, how do you demonstrate that?

 

This is an exceedingly difficult question to answer depending on which side of the monolith you're facing.

Circa 1999ish, I was the lone Christian in a business where everyone was... nothing. I was as vocal about my faith as anyone at HuskerBoard. I knew what I knew and my faith was unshakable. It became a focus of conversation. Later I learned that this was an inherently discriminatory act - but at the time I didn't know, I was just a dude with his beliefs.

 

So one of the arguments they put forward to me - which I summarily dismissed because I knew what I believed was true - was that there were 1,000 people in a room. And one of those people had a marble in their pocket, and I - with utter certainty, but without benefit of seeing - pointed to one of those people and said they had the marble.

 

It took more than a decade after those super uncomfortable encounters, during which I made many of the same arguments about the truth of Christianity that we see right here on these boards (that have no foundation in proof), before I just calmly reasoned about that premise and realized it was true.

 

[knapplc]

15 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don't think ethnocide is the right word. Call it genocides against all of those groups. You can commit ethnocide without trying to kill everyone in the group or even many of them. For example you can try to make them conform to your culture by disallowing them to speak their language or practice their religion. Kinda like what China does.

 

The Turks didn't merely commit ethnocide against the Armenians. I don't know enough about the others. I know they killed a lot of Greeks and Syrians too but I'm not sure whether they were trying to completely wipe them out like they were the Armenians. The more I learn about Armenia the harder it is to believe they still exist and now they have/had another war with another group of Turkish people.

 

 

I'm flexible on the definitions. I just know the Turks of the early 20th Century were intent on purifying their land, and it was not just the Armenians they were focused on.