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?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 40 by 1213]


It seems reasonable. Perhaps Matthew, Mark, Luke and John DID write those versions, but they were later copied and perhaps even altered? Eg, changing from first person to third person.

I guess the problem is just how much were they altered as it seems the various gospels are aimed at specific people groups. So edits were made to appeal to these people groups.

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

Careful reading of what I said does NOT exclude the possibility, no matter how remote, that people of those names wrote the gospels. If someone wishes to claim to KNOW the identity they are welcome to present their evidence (including to the scholarly / theologian community).

I can agree that someone else wrote what someone told.

Thank you. That is admission that the gospel stories are hearsay (that heard from others) and not personal experience. Is there some way to determine what "was told" was accurate and truthful? Can the claims made be checked for accuracy? If not, the hearsay is no better than rumor, legend, folklore.

Many choose to believe mythical and/or unsubstantiated tales rather than seek truth " provided the tales support what they already want to believe or are conditioned to believe.

However, there is no good reason to think that those stories were not written accurately shortly after the events.

What constitutes "shortly after the events?" " fifty years?

If we dont have the first written scripture, it doesnt mean that the later was not accurately copied from earlier.

Lack of original texts casts doubt upon the accuracy of copies of copies of copies by unknown people with unknown transcription / translation abilities and unknown accuracy.

I can accept also that you dont believe those stories.

There are more reasons for not believing the stories than questionable authorship. Primary is that tales about supernatural events (including "resurrection" and "ascension") are totally without extra-biblical support. No one apparently noticed or recorded those "miraculous" events except followers / fanatics / promoters decades or generations later.

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.

What you choose to accept or reject is immaterial in debate. If you wish to maintain it WAS those people who wrote gospel tales, feel free to do so (and to conflict with Christian scholars and theologians who admit they do not know authorship).

[Peds nurse]

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'?

Hi Goat!! (I always feel like I'm insulting you! haha)

It is His plan that we find Him, for He wishes none to perish! Our free will comes in to play when we say, "No thank you, I don't wish to believe."

[Zzyzx]

.

It is His plan that we find Him, for He wishes none to perish!

This almost sounds like a game of hide-and-go-seek with God offering prizes for those who "find" him. If "he" wanted all to find him, that should be no chore for an omniscient being. Any of us are smart enough to figure out how to be found without violating anyone's supposed "free will" -- aren't we?

Our free will comes in to play when we say, "No thank you, I don't wish to believe."

Many say instead "Show me credible, verifiable reason to 'believe' -- don't just depend on me being convinced by tales and testimonials (ancient or modern)." Can't a supernatural being figure out how to do that? Showing credible, verifiable evidence does not violate "free will."

[Blastcat]

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?

BECAUSE maybe it was GEORGE, RINGO, PAUL and John..

maybe it was Harry, Ichabod, ORVILLE. and Sandy.

MAYBE it was LARRY, MOE and Curly.

Maybe, it was Wang Likin.. Den DOVER and Steph Craps.

Maybe it was a group effort from the JUNE TAYLOR DANCERS...

Very popular in Galilee.. the June Taylor Dancers.....

Then again.. it might have been

Dixie Normous, Jack Goff, Justin Sider, and B.J. Cobbledicks.

The scholars are investigating as we SPEAK.

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.

AND there is no good reason to think that those stories were written accurately shortly or longly after the events.

If we dont have the first written scripture, it doesnt mean that the later was not accurately copied from earlier.

And if we dont have the first written scripture, it doesnt mean that the later WAS accurately copied from earlier.

I can accept also that you dont believe those stories.

Good. We don't really have any reason to.

I cant accept the claim it was not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because there is no proper evidence for that.

We know the names were LABELS.. not actual people..

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.

And, maybe it was not them, but to believe the claim they DID do that, I require more evidence than what is offered at the moment.