I do not believe god stories and neither do you

[Zzyzx]

.
The hallmark of Atheism / Non-Theism is disbelief in stories about gods. This seems to be considered by many Theists to be wrong (at the very least).

However, Theists typically take exactly the same "do not believe god stories" position regarding any of the thousands of proposed gods other than their favorite. Their reason for rejecting other gods is the same as Non-Theists use in refusing to believe tales about the Bible God " lack of credible, compelling evidence the stories are any more than imaginary (though they may add that they already believe in one god and cannot believe in more than one).

"The Bible says so " in three different places" is NOT credible, compelling evidence unless one already accepts the Bible as "the Word of God" (or whatever).

Question for debate:

Why is it difficult to accept that the lack of evidence that Christians use to dismiss claims about competing gods is exactly the same as the lack of evidence that Non-Theists use to reject the Bible God?

[Zzyzx]

.

I mean no disrespect, so please don't take it as such. I honestly fail to understand how people's belief in different Gods = there are no Gods.

Has someone presented that thesis?

Thousands of gods are proposed / worshiped / loved / feared by humans. ANY of them may be real (more than imaginary). Belief or disbelief proves nothing at all about actual existence.

Many claims are made about various gods and many stories are told. One thing they have in common is that they cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

If you worship God, why would you need false one's?

There is no assurance that the God of Christianity isn't one of the "false ones." Of course believers THINK they worship "the one true god", but that is just opinion that cannot be verified.

If I give you a gift, it isn't yours until you take it from me. God offers us a gift, when we take it from Him, we are taking life...there really are no gimmicks.

Of course there is a gimmick. In order to take the "gift" you must agree to accept the God as your one-and-only God, to worship and believe-in the God, follow certain rules (or attempt to or pretend to), make decisions acceptable to that God. Right?

Then, this supposed "gift" is yours if you accept the conditions. To this I say 1) there is no assurance that the gift (supposed "salvation in an afterlife after you die") is anything other than imagination, 2) it is not a free gift at all but a barter, bribe, or business deal.

What, exactly, must I do to qualify for this supposed "free gift?"

The gift is His blood poured out for us...we need only take it!

I respectfully decline to take anyone's unsolicited offer of their blood. If someone chooses to die for a cause, that has no bearing on me. It is not a "gift" to me.

Is giving a person something they consider repulsive a "gift"?

We cannot, like real estate, purchase it.

Of course we can purchase the "gift" by "believing-in" or worshiping the God. If we don't do those things we don't get the "gift." Right?

I had faith that you would get better...and you did!!! AWESOME!

What, exactly, constitutes BC "getting better?"

I am surprised you asked that because you gave him a few warnings...I have read several of BC's posts, and they have a more calm approach.

What does your faith have to do with BC becoming more calm (in your estimation)? Would it not be more rational to suggest that Moderator Comments and Warnings are more influential in anyone becoming more respectful of Forum Rules and Guidelines than someone's faith or prayers or hopes?


Would you care to address "If your husband's back pain returns and perhaps requires human intervention, is that an indication that your faith was misplaced? Or can a relapse be excused as 'God's plan?'"

[Peds nurse]

.

I mean no disrespect, so please don't take it as such. I honestly fail to understand how people's belief in different Gods = there are no Gods.

Has someone presented that thesis?

Thousands of gods are proposed / worshiped / loved / feared by humans. ANY of them may be real (more than imaginary). Belief or disbelief proves nothing at all about actual existence.

Many claims are made about various gods and many stories are told. One thing they have in common is that they cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

What I know is that often times, Christianity is compared to other religions doing the same thing. I still don't understand how that is even relevant? I'm not sure how to even respond to that thinking.

Is the point that since most religions claim the same things, that none can be true?

[Zzyzx]

.

Thousands of gods are proposed / worshiped / loved / feared by humans. ANY of them may be real (more than imaginary). Belief or disbelief proves nothing at all about actual existence.

Many claims are made about various gods and many stories are told. One thing they have in common is that they cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

What I know is that often times, Christianity is compared to other religions doing the same thing. I still don't understand how that is even relevant? I'm not sure how to even respond to that thinking.

Christianity makes some claims of being unique or original. However, its beliefs show a pattern of being adopted from preceding religions (particularly Judaism " which evolved from still earlier religions " and Pagan beliefs which were popular in the Roman empire.

Many or most beliefs and stories of Christianity can be traced back to earlier religions " including virgin birth, death and resurrection, magical feats, ascension, etc.

Is the point that since most religions claim the same things, that none can be true?

My point is that none of the religions can show that their claims and stories are true and accurate.

[ScioVeritas]

Christianity makes some claims of being unique or original. However, its beliefs show a pattern of being adopted from preceding religions (particularly Judaism " which evolved from still earlier religions " and Pagan beliefs which were popular in the Roman empire.

Many or most beliefs and stories of Christianity can be traced back to earlier religions " including virgin birth, death and resurrection, magical feats, ascension, etc.

Could you provide evidence for these claims? Specifically that Judaism evolved from earlier religions and that Christianity can be traced to earlier religions as well?

[Goat]

It is always God's plan, regardless of cultural influences, that we find Him!

And how does that fit in with the concept of 'Free Will'?

[1213]

.

I should have said, write imaginary stories about gods as truth and non fictional stories.

Several writers have apparently done that -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and other Bible writers). Those are not their real names (which have been changed to protect the guilty). They told stories as though they were witnesses to supernatural entities and events -- but wrote decades or generations after what they report.

Are those just your opinions or claims that are actually something more than imagination?

[Zzyzx]

.

Christianity makes some claims of being unique or original. However, its beliefs show a pattern of being adopted from preceding religions (particularly Judaism " which evolved from still earlier religions " and Pagan beliefs which were popular in the Roman empire.

Many or most beliefs and stories of Christianity can be traced back to earlier religions " including virgin birth, death and resurrection, magical feats, ascension, etc.

Could you provide evidence for these claims? Specifically that Judaism evolved from earlier religions and that Christianity can be traced to earlier religions as well?

Sure

The history of Judaism predates the period to which the term itself actually refers, in that Judaism formally applies to the post-Second Temple period, while its antecedents are to be found in the biblical "religion of Israel." The Bible is no longer considered a homogeneous work; the many traditions represented in it demonstrate variance and growth. While the historicity of the patriarchs' existence and of Moses as the giver of all laws is under question, certain dominant themes can be seen developing in this early period that have importance for later Judaism.

Central to these themes is the notion of monotheism, which most scholars believe to have been the outgrowth of a process that began with polytheism, progressed to henotheism (the worship of one god without denying the existence of others), and ended in the belief in a single Lord of the universe, uniquely different from all His creatures. He is compassionate toward His creation, and in turn humans are to love and fear (i.e., stand in awe of) Him. Because God is holy, He demands that His people be holy, righteous, and just, a kingdom of priests to assist in the fulfillment of His designs for humankind and the world.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/ ... eriod.html

Bold added

Do you request substantiation that Christianity evolved from Judaism or is that understood / accepted?

Concerning virgin birth tales:

Stories of gods born of virgins are to be found in nearly every age and country. There have been many virgin mothers, and Mary with her child is but a recent version of a very old and universal myth. In China and India, in Babylonia and Egypt, in Greece and Rome, divine beings selected from among the daughters of men the purest and most beautiful to serve them as a means of entrance into the world of mortals. Wishing to take upon themselves the human form, while retaining at the same time their divinity, this compromise"of an earthly mother with a divine father"was effected. In the form of a swan Jupiter approached Leda, as in the guise of a dove, or a Paracletus, Jehovah overshadowed Mary.
A nymph bathing in a river in China is touched by a lotus plant, and the divine Fohi is born.

In Siam, a wandering sunbeam caresses a girl in her teens, and the great and wonderful deliverer, Codom, is born. In the life of Buddha we read that he descended on his mother Maya, in likeness as the heavenly queen, and entered her womb, and was born from her right side, to save the world. In Greece, the young god Apollo visits a fair maid of Athens, and a Plato is ushered into the world.

In ancient Mexico, as well as in Babylonia, and in modern Corea, as in modern Palestine, as in the legends of all lands, virgins gave birth and became divine mothers.

But the real home of virgin births is the land of the Nile. Eighteen hundred years before Christ, we find carved on one of the walls of the great temple of Luxor a picture of the annunciation, conception and birth of King Amunothph III, an almost exact copy of the annunciation, conception and birth of the Christian God. Of course no one will think of maintaining that the Egyptians borrowed the idea from the Catholics nearly two thousand years before the Christian era. The story in the Gospel of Luke, the first and second chapters is, says Malvert, a reproduction, point by point, of the story in stone of the miraculous birth of Amunothph.

http://www.worldspirituality.org/virgin-births.html

The article continues with many other examples.

"Resurrected" gods:

A dying-and-rising death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a related motif where the god dies and is also resurrected.[1][2][3][4] "Death or departure of the gods" is motif A192 in Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, while "resurrection of gods" is motif A193.[5]

Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the Ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them including Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. The concept of dying-and-rising god was first proposed in comparative mythology by James Frazer's seminal The Golden Bough. Frazer associated the motif with fertility rites surrounding the yearly cycle of vegetation. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus Christ.[6]

Frazer's interpretation of the category has been critically discussed in 20th-century scholarship,[7] to the conclusion that many examples from the world's mythologies included under "dying and rising" should only be considered "dying" but not "rising", and that the genuine dying-and-rising god is a characteristic feature of Ancient Near Eastern mythologies and the derived mystery cults of Late Antiquity.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

Did you (generic term) actually think that Christianity sprang up from nowhere (or from "God") with unique tales of supernatural characters and events?

[Zzyzx]

.

I should have said, write imaginary stories about gods as truth and non fictional stories.

Several writers have apparently done that -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and other Bible writers). Those are not their real names (which have been changed to protect the guilty). They told stories as though they were witnesses to supernatural entities and events -- but wrote decades or generations after what they report.

Are those just your opinions or claims that are actually something more than imagination?

Are you actually not aware the Christian scholars and theologians do NOT know with any certainty who wrote the gospel tales later labeled "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" and credited to Apostles?

Perhaps it should not be surprising that a Non-Theist is aware of such scholarship and is asked to inform a Theist.

Even a Catholic source (the folks that produced the bible) waffles about authorship:

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the Twelve Apostles. We must keep in mind that in the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition;

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... ecnum=6976

Bold added

Also:

Gospels and Acts

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author.[70] Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle,[71] most scholars today consider this passage to be an interpolation (see below).

There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the Two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke-Acts two halves of a single work.[72][73][74][75][76]

Mark

According to tradition and early church fathers, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.[77] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[78] Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.[79]

Matthew

Early Christian tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus,[80] but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness.[81] Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, its source, writing about 125"150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus.[82] Papias's description does not correspond well with what is known of the gospel: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, it depends on the Greek Gospels of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document, and it is not a collection of sayings.[83] Although the identity of the author is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria,[84] and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE[85] using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.[86]


Authorship of Luke-Acts

There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus.[87] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world.[88]

According to tradition the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.[89] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. Some of the evidence cited comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural" the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts, or simply a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.[90]

John

John 21:24 identifies the author of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple," and from the late 2nd century this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of Zebedee.[91] Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30"31.[92] The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80"95,[70][93] and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.[94]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... _Testament

Bold added

Note: "According to tradition" means "that is what has been believed"

Even the letters of Paul/Saul are considered to be about half his work and the rest written by others under his name.

Evidently Christian scholars, theologians, divinity school professors and divinity students are aware of the above " but that information doesn't filter down to in-the-pew Christians reliably.


More enlightenment is available to anyone interested in doing a bit of internet search of Christian sites.

[ScioVeritas]

.
[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 600#718600]

Do you request substantiation that Christianity evolved from Judaism or is that understood / accepted?

That's understood.

http://www.worldspirituality.org/virgin-births.html

The article continues with many other examples.

This article is based on a book written by Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian and if you read the book he doesn't cite sources anywhere so essentially you just have to take his word for what he is saying. I don't.

"Resurrected" gods:
......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

From the same article:

While the concept of a "dying-and-rising god" has a longer history, it was significantly advocated by Frazer's Golden Bough (1906"1914). At first received very favourably, the idea was attacked by Roland de Vaux in 1933, and was the subject of controversial debate over the following decades.[31] One of the leading scholars in the deconstruction of Frazer's "dying-and-rising god" category was Jonathan Z. Smith, whose 1969 dissertation discusses Frazer's Golden Bough,[32] and who in Mircea Eliade's 1987 Encyclopedia of religion wrote the "Dying and rising gods" entry, where he dismisses the category as "largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceeding late or highly ambiguous texts", suggesting a more detailed categorisation into "dying gods" and "disappearing gods", arguing that before Christianity, the two categories were distinct and gods who "died" did not return, and those who returned never truly "died".[33]

My emphasis in bold.

Did you (generic term) actually think that Christianity sprang up from nowhere (or from "God") with unique tales of supernatural characters and events?

No I understand where it comes from and I'm able to trace it's origin of ideas so I know where those ideas come from. The only reason I responded was for the sake of people reading this thread who might have been suffering from cognitive dissonance if they've never encountered those types of arguments against Christianity before.

[1213]

Are you actually not aware the Christian scholars and theologians do NOT know with any certainty who wrote the gospel tales later labeled "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" and credited to Apostles?

Interesting thing is, if they dont know who wrote, how can anyone claim, it was not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? How do we know that it was not them?

I can agree that someone else wrote what someone told. However, there is no good reason to think that those stories were not written accurately shortly after the events. If we dont have the first written scripture, it doesnt mean that the later was not accurately copied from earlier.

I can accept also that you dont believe those stories. I cant accept the claim it was not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because there is no proper evidence for that. Maybe it was not them, but to believe the claim they didnt do that, I require more evidence than what is offered at the moment.