I haven't been an out of the closet atheist, as it were, for long, but already I've gotten several reconversion attempts. I've argued with quite a few Christians who try to see things from my point of view and offer intelligent responses to my obscene rantings, and it's a lot of fun debating with those people. I've also had more than a couple people tell me something to the effect of "God loves you. Just because you reject him doesn't mean he rejected you. Anytime you want to come back to him he'll be there waiting with open arms. You'll never be truly happy until you accept God again."
Come on, people. I'm insulted. I became an atheist because I value reason and logic more than blind faith. Are you naive enough to think that badly paraphrasing the Parable of the Prodigal Son is going to send me running for the nearest church? I believe what I believe because of science, logic, and critical thinking. If you want to try to convert me those are the tools you must use. Making unsubstantiated claims about God's desire to forgive me as soon as I get through my little atheist phase is just going to make me mad. Carl Sagan once wrote something like "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." If you expect me to believe that I can telepathically talk to a 2000 year old undead Jewish dude, you better have some pretty strong evidence to back it up.
Posts
13 comments:
The empty tomb is pretty strong evidence
Heh. To paraphrase one of David Mills' arguments: it's only pretty strong evidence if you presuppose that the account of things you find in the Bible is true. The fact is that the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus were written decades after it supposedly happened.
In actuality, the "empty tomb" isn't evidence at all, because the only evidence that there was ever a body in the tomb in the first place is a few second or third hand accounts written a generation after Jesus' supposed death.
It's easy to prove something if you presuppose your conclusion.
History indicates that the Gospel accounts in the new testament were written within 30 years of the crucifixion. There are over 24,000 manuscripts dating to the first century, within 70 years of the life of Jesus. Archeology and contemporary historical study would indicate that the new testament was almost completely written within the lifetime of the people who were alive when Christ was crucified. So, I do believe the accounts in the Bible are true. There is evidence in Jewish history that this all happened.
To deny eyewitness accounts written during their lifetime is implausible. That would be like saying the Holocaust didn't happen because you don't believe that it happened. We have ample evidence by those in the Holocaust that it did happen. Applying that same standard to the gospel accounts of the crucifixion would lead a thinking person to say that the accounts must have been true.
I know that the accounts of the crucifixion were written 30 years after it happened. If you'll look at my first comment you'll see that I already said that.
However, the accounts of the crucifixion were not written by people who were actually there. Alive when it supposedly happened? Yes. Actually present for the event? No. There are no contemporary records for Jesus' life, death, or resurrection. It's all secondhand information, at best.
None of the evidence for the crucifixion came from people who were actually there. Where are the official records? If Jesus caused such a huge hullabaloo in a city as major as Jerusalem, why are there no Roman records of his life, the controversy he stirred up, his trial or his execution?
There is a veritable mountain of actual first-hand proof of the Holocaust. Millions of people were killed, not just one man whose existence was never verified until decades after his supposed death.
Matthew (Levi) and John were there.
The authorship of Matthew and John is disputed. Matthew is believed by lots of scholars to have been written by an unknown author who used material from Mark and some document historians call "Q" which Luke also used. John's authorship is unknown too, some think by John himself but many think it was written by one of John's followers.
I'm not sure which of the accounts of the gospels' authorship is true, but if the evidence in favor of their accuracy was so huge, I doubt there would be this much controversy.
"Q" is a speculated and unknown document, many even doubt that it existed at all.
Dictation is an accepted form of authorship.
I suppose that if you will not accept the historical accuracy of these eyewitness accounts, there is not much point in continuing a discussion about how much evidence exists, both Biblically and non-biblically for the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. I don't suppose it matters that even the Jew accepted the fact that the body of Jesus was not in the tomb. It would be immaterial that a Roman guard - not a bunch of guys in togas, but 12 of the fiercest fighting men on the planet at the time, ran and hid after the 2 ton stone was rolled away by some means they did not understand. It wouldn't matter that all the Jewish authorities could not explain away the missing body. It simply wouldn't matter that over 500 people saw a risen Jesus who had been beaten nearly to death and then crucified to suffer an agonizing suffocation ending in death, yet was seen by all of these people within 40 days of the resurrection. It is not important that even the civic and religious leaders of the Jews could not stop a religion springing from an event that you say never happened. And I guess that a "religion" that has endured for over 2000 years proves that billions of people have been deluded by mass hysteria or simple superstition. Yes, I guess that something that never happened couldn't have done this.
Let's say that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Let's say that the crucifixion accounts are entirely correct. Why would that necessarily point to divine intervention? I'm sure any decent writer of adventure novels could come up with a couple dozen scenarios where Jesus could be crucified, interred, his body stolen, and people were later convinced that they saw him again, and they would all be more plausible than resorting to "God did it."
And no, I will not accept the historical accuracy of these documents when the scholarly community is extremely divided on that very issue. Name me a historian who supports the veracity of the Gospels and I can find you one who doesn't. We could do that once an hour for weeks. If the proof was as indisputable as you say there wouldn't be such a tremendous debate in the historical community.
If there were actual, indisputable proof of Jesus' life, not just a collection of documents who's authorship is debated even by theologians, I would gladly eat crow and say that Jesus lived and died the way the Bible says, but I would still not believe in his divinity.
And before you call me hardheaded, why do you accept Christianity instead of Islam or Judaism or Buddhism? I suppose it doesn't matter to you that Buddha himself left behind mountains of writings, while Jesus never penned a single word. I suppose it doesn't matter to you that Mohamed also started a religion that has lasted for over a millennium and has enjoyed billions of adherents just like Christianity has. I suppose that it doesn't matter to you the millions of people who were tortured and killed by Christians while Jains refuse to even kill insects. I suppose it doesn't matter to you that hundreds of millions of Chinese people continue to worship their ancestors like they have for millennia without ever hearing of Christ's existence. I suppose it doesn't matter to you that there are nearly a billion Hindus in the world. What do you have to say about all of their creation myths? Theirs are wrong while yours is right?
Consider Mormons. Their religion was started less than two centuries ago. We both agree that Mormonism is false. Well there are already over 12 million Mormons, and it's only been around for 180 years. But yeah, I guess the 12 million Mormons, the 360 million Buddhists, the 900 million Hindus and the 1.3 billion Muslims believe in a false religion while yours is correct.
Yes, but since you don't accept the bible, then there is no sense in trying to explain it.
I'm just picturing the average argument at the Mayfield home: You tell Ross to clean his room, he says "no", and then proceeds to research every reason why cleaning rooms is illogical and inherently evil.
Now that is funny! Good one
Put a feed on your blog so I can follow it
Ross has rarely been told to clean his room, but when he was told that, he did it. Now...he deals with spiders
Post a Comment