Most atheists have never read the bible

[McCulloch]

Most atheists have never read the bible and so I believe that if they had, the basics would be the same. Clearly they do not speak as if they have this knowledge.

I throw down the gauntlet. Faith has made a positive claim. Either back up this claim with evidence or withdraw it.

On a less confrontational note, do atheists reject religion and God because they are ignorant of religion as many staunch religionists claim?

[McCulloch]

"Argue for and against Christianity"
This is the label for this forum.

Once again, if you exclude the New Testament.
Jesus does not exist.
If Jesus does not exist,
Christianity does not exist.
How does one argue for Christianity without the NT?

How does one argue against Christianity if the accuracy of the NT is assumed.

To argue for Christianity with those of us who do not believe the New Testament, you must provide arguments and evidence that the New Testament contains truth.

And by the way, I tried to post in the Holy Huddle,
but when I do,
I get a message saying that you need specail access to post in there?

To post in the Holly Huddle, you must belong to the UserGroup Christian (click on the link to go to the page to join the usergroup.)

[Cathar1950]

.

. . . but how does one debate Christianity without the new testament?

Notice that the scope of this debate forum extends far beyond Christianity (as clearly indicated by headers on various pages).

We do not all share a belief in any religious text or dogma; however, we all do share some understanding of the world we inhabit and we should share some ability to reason and learn. Thus, we should be able to discuss matters within our shared experience and a partially overlapping knowledge base.

Each of us probably puts our pants on one leg at a time. Can we communicate as human beings?

"Argue for and against Christianity"
This is the label for this forum.

Once again, if you exclude the New Testament.
Jesus does not exist.
If Jesus does not exist,
Christianity does not exist.
How does one argue for Christianity without the NT?

And by the way, I tried to post in the Holy Huddle,
but when I do,
I get a message saying that you need specail access to post in there?

Jesus could very well have existed and the whole NT is wrong and as it is writen by later followers with a diversity of opinion not to mention the ones left out it may very well be irrelevant.
The NT might not be a valid argument for Christianity as the early Christians didn't have a NT. They reread or misread the LXX.
Even if Jesus didn't exist Christianity most certainly does.

[OnceConvinced]

Ma'am/Sir. I am an athiest/former christian. On the contrary, many athiests do not look to the bible as a reliable source, as it is not all that accurate. There are quite many flaws about God. Many athiests look into the logic of the matter. Personally, the whole "God isn't there" fiasco didn't really phase me when I was a "believer", but as time progressed, I have studied into the history of the bible.

Hi Shorty! Welcome to the forums.

Sadly many Christians will refuse to acknowledge you are right here, because that would mean they would have to admit that the bible is not the infallible word of God. Many will claim that you need the Holy Spirit to be able to understand scripture, but to get that you must first believe what the scripture says. Sort of a bit of a paradox really. Of course in reality it's not the Holy Spirit that provides understanding. If it was all Christians would believe the same thing and we would not have the thousands of denominations and cults that we do. In reality as you've probably figured out yourself, being an ex-Christian, it's all about perspective. If you hold the perspective that the bible is the infallible word of God and that God is loving, merciful and just then you are going to come to very different views than those who hold the perspective that the bible is written by man. No matter how many times you've read it or how much of it you've studied in depth.

[InTheFlesh]

Jesus could very well have existed and the whole NT is wrong and as it is writen by later followers with a diversity of opinion not to mention the ones left out it may very well be irrelevant.
The NT might not be a valid argument for Christianity as the early Christians didn't have a NT. They reread or misread the LXX.
Even if Jesus didn't exist Christianity most certainly does.

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

Now you really lost me!
Early Christians didn't have the NT?
They had the source himself,
Why do you think the disciples were first called Christians?
Was it not because they preached the words of Christ?

If you don't believe in the NT,
you are calling all the authors of the NT liars
without having proof against them.
Even though most Athiests seek proof of God,
it's the accusers that have to prove that the gospel is a lie.

If someone gives a testimony in court,
do they need to prove they are telling the truth,
or would the accusers need to provide the proof that the testimony is a lie?
I understand that just because someone says something
doesn't make it true
but where's the proof that the NT is a lie?

[cnorman18]

But the moral and ethical teachings of most religions are certainly of positive value. True, they can be obtained or derived elsewhere; but what difference does that make? That doesn't make them negatives.

That's only true if you look only at the barest surface level of the moral code. Non-theists base their moral codes on internal empathy for other people, they determine that others deserve to be treated as they want to be treated. Theists base their actions solely on the supposed demands of a deity and those demands, or the interpretations thereof, can and do change over time or from person to person. There is quite a difference between "you shouldn't kill that guy because it's wrong and you wouldn't want someone to kill you" and "you shouldn't kill that guy because some imaginary friend in the sky says so". One has a real logical, rational basis, the other doesn't.

I don"t think empathy and religious belief are mutually exclusive. "Theists base their actions solely on the supposed demands of a deity" just isn't so. I was empathetic when I was a Christian and still am as a Jew.

What I had in mind wasn't the idea of ethical behavior itself--if that doesn't come from within, I don't think religion will help--but the body of specific ethical teachings that most religions carry as part of their traditions.

Further; the positive effect of being grounded in a coherent, if often arbitrary, philosophy and worldview ought not be overlooked.

How is religion coherent in any way? It's strictly a matter of "God says so, so there" and that's not coherent, rational or intelligent, it's purely authoritarian.

I think you underestimate the highly rational and systematic nature of theology. When I was a seminarian, I found theology to be one of the most intellectually demanding and rigorous subjects I have ever studied. My professor, Schubert W. Ogden, was one of the most brilliant and exacting humans I have ever met, and when one turned in a paper to him, one knew that one's reasoning had better be absolutely solid and precisely expressed, or one would be rewriting it the following week, and often enough, the week after that..

I would agree that religion is, for very many theists, a rather simplistic and even simple-minded business; but there are deeper and higher levels of religious thought that are very far from that indeed. I have found Jewish theology and ethics to be rational, logical and self-consistent in the extreme--which shouldn't be surprising, since it's been developed, revised and refined by the wisest of our people for well over two thousand years.

You may reject the premise, but that doesn't mean the body of thought associated with it is irrational nonsense or the work of imbeciles. I personally reject Christianity, but I still recognize C. S. Lewis--not even a true theologian, but merely a popular lay writer--as a brilliant and lucid thinker and a gifted teacher.

As I've said elsewhere, even a toxic belief like gross fundamentalism is probably better than no beliefs, convictions or philosophy at all. Total nihilism and aimlessness is about as toxic as it gets.

Luckily, you don't find many total nihilists around...

I have met more than a few; people who not only did not believe in God, but believed in nothing at all. I suspect there are a few here" when one begins to argue, as some have, that there is no essential difference between good and evil, one is perilously close to that state of mind. Every one of those people was depressing and difficult to be around, and all struck me as deeply depressed themselves and profoundly lost and rudderless. I'll stand by my remarks.

but this is really like saying "cutting off your hand is a lot better than cutting off your arm". The reality is, not cutting off anything is vastly preferable than either of the other options.

It's better to have a rational and humane philosophy, I will agree. But even one that is only partly so is better than nothing. I would also readily agree that thoughtful and reflective atheism is light-years ahead of fundamentalism, and probably of most religious convictions as one finds them among the less educated and/or intelligent. I do not think that thoughtful and reflective theism in necessarily inferior to atheism in that regard, though. As I've said so often here, one shouldn't judge all theists by the ones one sees on Internet forums or on television.

[Cathar1950]

Jesus could very well have existed and the whole NT is wrong and as it is writen by later followers with a diversity of opinion not to mention the ones left out it may very well be irrelevant.
The NT might not be a valid argument for Christianity as the early Christians didn't have a NT. They reread or misread the LXX.
Even if Jesus didn't exist Christianity most certainly does.

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

Now you really lost me!
Early Christians didn't have the NT?
They had the source himself,
Why do you think the disciples were first called Christians?
Was it not because they preached the words of Christ?

If you don't believe in the NT,
you are calling all the authors of the NT liars
without having proof against them.
Even though most Athiests seek proof of God,
it's the accusers that have to prove that the gospel is a lie.

If someone gives a testimony in court,
do they need to prove they are telling the truth,
or would the accusers need to provide the proof that the testimony is a lie?
I understand that just because someone says something
doesn't make it true
but where's the proof that the NT is a lie?

No I am not calling the unknown authors of the NT liars but if you insist they are eyewitness accounts, infallable and inerrant then you would be making them liars.
Those that disagree have no reason to prove anyone is a liar.
Do you think the Gnostic Christians or those Jewish Christians that oppose Paul were liars?
The NT authors did not have Jesus as when it was writen he had been long gone.
Except maybe Paul that had never even meet him. He had visions and even that doesn't make him a liar. I suspect you lack a mature understanding of sacrid writings.
They were first called Christians because they believed in a messiah.
You give us a false choice and then ask us to prove it.

[cnorman18]

Don't take it personally.
I didn't notice on your profile that you were Jewish when I posted.
BTW, what part of your post indicated that you were Jewish?

Well, my repeated references to Hebrew and the Hebrew Scriptures might have indicated that; but one of my closing paragraphs began, "Such is the Jewish view," and referred to "the path for my people."

No sarcasm or criticism is implied. I admit have I missed similar indications in the posts of others myself, and made much greater errors in misreading many posts.

2. We are not debating Christianity. We are debating the meaning of the Bible. Separate subjects.

"Argue for and against Christianity"
Isn't this the sub header for this forum?
So I ask again, how does one argue for Christianity without the New Testament?
Am I in the wrong forum?

Christianity is one subject we discuss here. There are others. You'll notice we even have a separate forum for the discussion of other faiths. Since the subject here was the Bible in general, which includes the Jewish Bible, it was perfectly proper for me to give a Jewish view.

My problem isn't that you wanted to discuss or bring in the New Testament; it's that you did so in a way that implied that the NT quote settled the matter. It doesn't.

3. I very clearly was speaking of the Old Testament without reference to the New.

And?
Why can't I make reference to the NEW testament?
Once again, Am I in the wrong forum?

You may certainly make reference to the NT, but assuming that its authority (or your own opinion of it) trumps other arguments isn't really discussion or "reference"; it is, as I said, preaching. That is the nature of offering a proof-text; it assumes the answer to the question which is being debated.

Others here do not share your opinion on those matters, and if the intrinsic authority of any part of the Bible is your only contribution and argument, you can expect to be regularly ignored and dismissed here.

4. My comments, including the ones you quoted, stand. If you'd care to debate them on their merits, feel free; but merely quoting from the NT without further comment--which implies that that quote is to be accepted as true and authoritative just because "Jesus said so"--is, as I said, not debate, but preaching.

What's the difference between quoting from the OLD or NEW?
Is this a Jewish forum?
And why is the OT true, cause Moses said so?

First, if you've read many of my other posts, I don't assume or argue that the OT is true. I argued here only that it is different, and does not carry the message that many Christians attribute to it.

Second, this is not a Jewish forum. It is not a Christian forum, either, nor is it devoted to Christianity only, whatever the subheads may say. There are several Jews here, several Muslims, many who are sort-of spiritual without adhering to any particular belief, and of course a very large contingent of atheists of varying opinions and perspectives. If you think that Christians are entitled to any special consideration, deference, or are otherwise on anything but an equal footing with the rest of us here, then, yes, you are in the wrong forum.

Third, proof-texts are not acceptable or credible arguments to those who do not regard the Bible--or, in this case, the NT--as sacred or authoritative. Period, full stop. If that's all you have, you will find that you are wasting your time and everyone else's.

The distortion, falsification, and out-of-context use of quotations from the OT in order to force them to carry a meaning they were never intended to hold, that being "prophecies" of Jesus, has been much debated here, and I don't intend to plow that already thoroughly broken-up ground again. It's pointless. When a given "prophecy" is restored to its context, examined, and proven to have nothing to do with Jesus whatever, the invariable Christian response is, "Yes, it does, and if you were as wise/holy/spiritual/knowledgeable/filled with the Spirit as I am, you'd understand."

You sound like a child.
I have the Spirit and you don't!
How old are you?

I agree that such arguments are childish. They are, however, not mine. Did you grasp that I was giving an example of the arguments of others, and not my own?

My age will be found at the top of every post; I am 57. If you don't know, I am a former Methodist minister who formally converted to Judaism at the age of 50, though I lived and believed as a Jew for several years before that. I am very well-versed in both Christianity and Judaism, and am intimately familiar with both the New Testament and the Old.

It is not wise to underestimate the intelligence, the knowledge, or the abilities in debate of anyone on this forum. I have posted in many, and the average level of all three here is the highest I've ever seen.

[cnorman18]

Now you really lost me!
Early Christians didn't have the NT?

That is correct. None of the NT documents were written until decades after the death of Jesus.

They had the source himself,
Why do you think the disciples were first called Christians?
Was it not because they preached the words of Christ?

That, even if granted as true, is not the same thing. We are discussing the contents of those documents, and they did not exist during Jesus's lifetime.

It also isn't universally agreed that all of the words of Christ as reported in the Gospels are necessarily authentic.

You need to get used to a new perspective here; the Bible is not accepted by everyone as the Word of God, 100% true, or even 100% accurate. If those are your assumptions and the basis of your arguments, your time here will probably be short, and will definitely be unpleasant.

If you don't believe in the NT, you are calling all the authors of the NT liars without having proof against them.
Even though most Athiests seek proof of God, it's the accusers that have to prove that the gospel is a lie.

Wrong on both counts. First, one may say a writer is mistaken without "calling him a liar" (and if you are going to take differing opinions on matters of religion as personal insults toward anyone, you can expect to be offended here rather often).

Second, no statement should be assumed true without proof. One who makes a positive claim holds that burden, and a challenge to the claim requires none. If you claim you own a bicycle, and I challenge that claim, the only rational answer is to show me the bicycle, not to say "Prove that I don't."

In most matters discussed here, there are not two alternatives, but three: "true," "false," and "not proven."

If someone gives a testimony in court,
do they need to prove they are telling the truth, or would the accusers need to provide the proof that the testimony is a lie?

In some circumstances, yes. A doubtful or improbable statement requires corroboration. A statement that invokes the supernatural is by its very nature doubtful and improbable.

I understand that just because someone says something doesn't make it true but where's the proof that the NT is a lie?

I think that very few people here would characterize it as a deliberate lie. Errors, misperceptions, orally transmitted legends finally written down--all of these are possible.

There really is more than one way to look at the Bible. There are even more than two. Get used to these ideas if you plan to spend much time here.

[Cephus]

I don"t think empathy and religious belief are mutually exclusive. "Theists base their actions solely on the supposed demands of a deity" just isn't so. I was empathetic when I was a Christian and still am as a Jew.

Once you have a satisfactory reason to be charitable and moral, tacking on religious beliefs is really irrelevant. If you have a prefectly rational, workable moral system, what is added by claiming someone told you to do it too? Why bother with God? Why not just say aliens told you to be moral?

What I had in mind wasn't the idea of ethical behavior itself--if that doesn't come from within, I don't think religion will help--but the body of specific ethical teachings that most religions carry as part of their traditions.

I agree with you, but let's be honest, there are a lot of theists, and you see this around here all the time, who say that without God, they'd be out raping and pillaging and molesting animals. These people are simply incapable of normal moral behavior without some imaginary friend threatening them. They are not being moral, they are sociopaths.

I think you underestimate the highly rational and systematic nature of theology.

I think you seriously overestimate it. There is nothing rational whatsoever about theology, it starts with an irrational assumption and builds from there. Once you assume there is a supernatural without a shred of objective supporting evidence to back it up, you're already off in irrational land.

My professor, Schubert W. Ogden, was one of the most brilliant and exacting humans I have ever met, and when one turned in a paper to him, one knew that one's reasoning had better be absolutely solid and precisely expressed, or one would be rewriting it the following week, and often enough, the week after that..

So long as your "reasoning" took into account the irrational faith structure of the religion, of course. That's really the point, when you start from an irrational position and have faith that it must be true, everything that is built upon it is irrational as well. It's like saying "My beliefs are all completely rational, except for the unwarranted assumption that unicorns rule the universe..."

I personally reject Christianity, but I still recognize C. S. Lewis--not even a true theologian, but merely a popular lay writer--as a brilliant and lucid thinker and a gifted teacher.

Which is why C.S. Lewis fell for Pascal's Wager. Uh huh...

I do not think that thoughtful and reflective theism in necessarily inferior to atheism in that regard, though.

I do, simply because once you become thoughtful and reflective, what purpose does all the fantasy thinking serve? Once you decide that it is important to accept only those things that are actually true and reject those things that are not, why bother with religion at all? Believing things because they are emotionally satisfying doesn't make them true, just comforting.

Comfort has nothing to do with reality.

[Cathar1950]

We all suffer from irrational thinking that is why reason is a wonderful tool.
As Whitehead wrote; the purpose or function of reason is to promote the art of living.
I have read Schubert W. Ogden too cnorman. I like Hartshorn and read most of his work and in my theology days I leaned towards Process thought. What a small world.