I don’t understand your point, really.
I didn’t answer the first questions because they weren’t relevant and would also have started a new element of the discussion.
In this case though, he persisted and shared two elements; the question of evidence and one of necessity.
The first, evidence, is answered, is it not?
ETA If I wasn’t clear enough, than that’s my posting style but certainly not because I’m dodging anything.
I’m not confusing the two things. In scientific terms, evidence is something which tends to confirm or falsify a hypothesis. The God hypothesis posits no falsifiabe tests and therefore offers no evidence at all.
The arguments you mention are not evdience. Irreducible complexity is only a hypothesis. It hasn’t actually been demostrated to exist. Certainly we have no evidence for design. The mere assertion of something is not evidence.
What observable evidence?
I have not expressed a subjective belief. I have expressed a lack of belief. Accusing me of “faith” is not exactly a gambit I haven’t heard before, and it’s never been a successful one. I don’t have faith. I make provisional assumptions.
Raindog, you appear to be an experienced and intelligent proselytite (better than a lot of JW’s who’ve tried to convert me who didn’t know their ass from third base), but believe me, you’re wasting your time with me. I’ve heard it all before. Your technique of trying to get the atheist to admit a kernel of possibility is not going to be successful with me, because I don’t deny it in the first place. I don’t assert that there is absolutely no chance that God exists, I assert that I have never been shown reason to believe that he does. Show me and I’ll believe. It’s going to take more than an argument from design, though.
If you can believe that spells, incantations and magic work, you certainly can believe in the Jesus story. A thousand years ago, there wasn’t much difference, if any.
While most people don’t believe in magic spells in the style of Macbeth’s witches today, beliefs cloaked in religious trappings persevere.
What’s your point? The OP asked whether Christians believed in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and I answered. What you said has nothing to do with what the OP asked.
When others talk, write, etc… about their beliefs, I can listen, read, etc… When others join churches I can read the statements of faith of those churches. When others take actions, I can interpret those actions and what they say about the person’s beliefs. So while it’s true that I can never know exactly what’s in the mind of another, it’s not true that I can “only guess”.
It isn’t really even the magic, so much, that stops me, it’s the illogic of the notion that God would require a sacrifice to forgive people.
Actually, I don’t even think I agree with the notion that it’s God’s place to forgive anybody. I would submit that the only entities who have the moral right to forgive are the ones who have been wronged.
Wasn’t this a common theme among different religions of the time? Maybe it was necessary to present God as cruel in order to be accepted.
As a former Catholic with a Jesuit upbringing, allow me to `splain. No, there is no time. Let me sum up. As in, here is how it was explained to me. Of course you are the go-to man for all things Biblically, so I run the risk of wasting everyone’s time. Hurray!
It has to do with two things: the notion of perfection and imperfection, and the way God designed the universe. OK that was technically three things. So, there were two fundamental rules set up in the universe. Justice and Perfection. God is perfection. His ways are perfect. Each transgression against His way is a sin, and thus falls under Justice. Transgressions cannot be absolved, sweeped under the cosmic rug, for this would not be Just. End terse, dogmatic statements.
Oh, and it should be pointed out that all trangressions ever, even those against a fellow man, were a transgression before God, because he made the rules. Before Jeeesus, sacrifices were made in an attempt to rectify the transgression.
But there was a problem. While sacrifices and ‘my bad’ might work for interpersonal sins, God is a perfect being. Humans were too, originally. But, once the first sin was committed, humans became imperfect. A breach was made in Heavenly order that no sacrifice could repair. Perfection by definition cannot coexist with imperfection. What could possibly satisify the demands of ultimate justice?
Why, God of course, in the motherlovin-of-em-all sacrifices. In perfect love (which is the same as perfect justice), God sacrifices Himself in order to bridge the gap, in order to cleanse the blot from our essence. Thus, in what I was taught, ancient beliefs notwithstanding, original sin was not about legalistic ownership of sin but more about essence and relationship.
So, back to your original questions. God does not require a sacrifice to forgive, now. He didn’t then either. Justice simply demanded something to be done. Sacrificing an animal was seen as the way to go about it.
But, on the flip side, God’s sacrifice of Himself WAS necessary. In fact, it was the only way to repair the connection between God and Man.
So, was that clear? As mud I bet. But, IMO, Christianity really can offer a rational belief system. Once you get past the initial irrationalities, the trivial ones such as believing in God, oh and the fact that the OT God is a right prick, but… that’s not what this thread is talking about.
My takeaway point is that once one puts oneself within the Christian worldview and accepts a few, what’s the word, premises, then the central core actually makes sense, and furthermore, even if one doesn’t accept those premises, I think it’s possible to see where the Christian is coming from.
How does killing an innocent animal “justify” let’s say…rape? How does that heal the victim?
Well, it doesn’t heal the victim. There are two offended parties in the rape, the rapee and God. The animal sacrifice is intended to set things right with God. All human justice, therapeutic punitive or otherwise, is up to the justice system of that society.
As to how God was offended in the rape, that goes back to how God made the universe and how all things ultimately trace back to Him (or him? I forget capitalization rules in discussions like this).
Are you saying for God to be just that he would have to heal all victims of wrongdoing?
Just sorta thinking outloud, I guess in the case of the Mosaic Code, the line between satisfying human and divine justice blurs.
Yes.
I’m also saying that God is not, and cannot, be a victim of anything, and that therefore he cannot be wronged.
Well then you reject the premises. That’s fine. I’m not apologizing, merely explaining my particular branch of Christianity’s mindset. Like I said, it makes sense but only if you accept certain initial thoughts. Or, you may think it makes no sense whatsoever in any fashion. I hope I at least made things somewhat clear.
As an atheist, I have no intention of debating further. At least, not now that I’m out of the office 
Some Christians worship him as God. Others, like myself, try to follow his teachings as best we understand them. Either way, he suddenly and dramatically held humanity to a higher standard, and this is his importance. It’s no small accomplishment. You could fill a good sized town with people in history who have claimed to be God, but that town gets emptier and emptier when you just let in the people who compelled nations to look at themselves in a harsher light. I say he’s not a god. I still think he’s uniquely amazing. That’s why people would give a shit.
The same way eye of newt and toe of frog make a love potion.
Spoiler alert!
As many others have mentioned a 3 day trip to somewhere unpleasant is not a sacrifice. I’d take JC’s ‘sacrifice’ over a long weekend with my wife’s family any day.
Jesus didn’t even go anywhere unpleasant. He told the bandit on the cross that they would both be “in Paradise” that same day.
Plus it wasn’t three days. It was from friday afternoon to sometime sunday morning, so it was less than 48 hours.
I assume this applies across the board - in other words, there is no way for you to prove to me that you are an atheist.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure it applies across the board. No one can can claim to know what somebody else actually believes in their hearts. Everyone can only speak for himself. So what? Do you have a point with this?
I suppose a trinitarian could reply that God-qua-Jesus could be in hell, while the bandit entered paradise with God-qua-Father. But I’m not aware of any obligation (at least in Roman Catholicism) to believe that Christ literally entered some place called hell or that he remained there until his resurrection; “descendit ad inferos” could refer to effect of his sacrifice to redeem the just who had previously died.
Yep. Tertia die—on the third day. But I don’t suppose it really matters if it were two days or three; either it was hell enough or an extra day wouldn’t matter. This line of argument also leaves open a theistic charge that time isn’t terribly meaningful when speaking about god.
You mentioned that over a billion other adults believe what you do. That sounded like a pretty bald appeal to popularity. I was just mentioning that your preferred delusion isn’t accepted by most people.
Also, you mentioned that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice. Clearly it was a trivial sacrifice by any measure. The reason death is a sacrifice for humans is it leads to oblivion. For Jesus, if you accept His divinity, it was probably akin to taking off a tie and slipping his shoes off.