Some dumb Bible question

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Chronos

Theists claim without evidence that God exists. Atheists claim without evidence that God doesn’t exist. Both are making claims without evidence.

And for anyone who wants to argue that atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, I refer you to posts 72, 78, 80, 85, and 96 in this very thread, all of which contain that very claim.

An atheist may make a claim that gods don’t exist but to profess to be an atheist is not, de facto, to make such a claim.

[Pleonast]

@begbert2

Which, as you’ll note, isn’t really objective evidence of anything.

Don’t move the goalposts—who here is claiming to have objective evidence?

@begbert2

Humans telling stories is nifty, but it doesn’t make Sauron real. Or Frodo, or Twilight Sparkle, or Hodor…

I did mention that few Christians base their faith on only the Bible.

[begbert2]

@Pleonast

Don’t move the goalposts—who here is claiming to have objective evidence?

Well, senoy has been making some bizarre arguments regarding how the semantic structure of the bible means it’s not fictional, or something, which seems pretty incoherent but to the degree the argument actually exists as an argument, it is based on objectively observable things: the texts in question.

Also, I’ll just tell you straight up, if you want to claim that there’s evidence for God existing then objective evidence is the way to go. Subjective evidence tends not to fly with the atheist crowd.

@Pleonast

I did mention that few Christians base their faith on only the Bible.

And I mentioned that most of them base their faith on unsupported assertions and feel-good experiences. This undermines their ability to convince skeptics of anything, because feel-good experiences are not reliably transferable to other people and because unsupported assertions are unsupported assertions.
We seem to be talking about whether the two groups: theists (christians, really) and atheists (hard atheists, really) are able to defend their positions, and to a lesser degree whether they should have to. My position on these subjects:

-Christians absolutely suck at defending their position.
-Atheists are pretty decent at defending their position, proportionally to how good the christians are at defining their own deities.

-Christians only have to defend their position when they make implausible assertions like “God exists.”
-Atheists only have to defend their position when they make implausible assertions like “God exists.”

[Pleonast]

I think senoy is arguing that some of the Bible is not myth, and not taking a stance on whether it’s factual or fictional. It’s about the category of literature.

Otherwise I tend to agree with everything in your post. Seeking objective evidence of God is unproductive, since having it could lead to belief without faith. (For example, one doesn’t have faith in gravity.)

It’s reasonable for someone to be unconvinced by another’s subjective experiences. It’s reasonable to reject an unfalsifiable assertion.

As a final note: whether a statement is actually true or false is independent of the qualities of the one asserting it. Bayesians may disagree.

[begbert2]

@Pleonast

Seeking objective evidence of God is unproductive, since having it could lead to belief without faith.

It’s pretty useful to have on hand if one wants to get the atheists to stop being all critical and annoying at you, though.

[Pleonast]

@begbert2

It’s pretty useful to have on hand if one wants to get the atheists to stop being all critical and annoying at you, though.

The world would be better if more theists understood that faith is not about proof. And also if more atheists understood that as well.

[begbert2]

@Pleonast

The world would be better if more theists understood that faith is not about proof. And also if more atheists understood that as well.

I think most atheists do understand that faith isn’t about proof - we’re just scornful of it. Faith, which many atheists define as “unjustified belief” often seems to lead to bad decisions with bad outcomes - faith healers being an example thereof.

To a theist who likes faith, it’s a grandfatherly and utterly reliable god reaching out his hand and saying, “Trust in me” - an act which will never fail to be rewarded.

To a more skeptical atheist, it’s more like a greased up car salesman waggling a cigar and slyly saying, “It’s good - trust me!”

[Pleonast]

I can totally understand skepticism of faith. It’s not easy or rational to trust without certainty. I don’t expect anyone to be convinced to have faith; it has to be an internal revelation.

I’m very much in favor of calling out those who make bad decisions and do bad things in the name of faith. Too many Christians forget the part of the greatest commandment to use one’s “whole mind”. Often while disobeying the second greatest commandment “love your neighbor”.

Implicit scorn while not change anyone’s mind. And the applies to everyone.

[begbert2]

@Pleonast

Implicit scorn while not change anyone’s mind. And the applies to everyone.

I don’t actually expect to change anyone’s mind - I’ve known too many intractable theists to think that a single one of them will be persuaded by something as crude and non-enlightened as reason or evidence. Plus it ain’t like atheism promises a pony or a cake or something as reward for adopting it - it more it trying to get people to recognize and calmly accept that religion’s cake is a lie.

So why do I argue about it? Well, losing battle aside, some things religion pushes for are abhorrent and deserve opposition, even doomed opposition. Plus I just like to debate. What? It’s in the forum title.

[DesertDog]

@Chronos

Theists claim without evidence that God exists. Atheists claim without evidence that God doesn’t exist. Both are making claims without evidence.

This is why I term myself as a strong agnostic and not an atheist. I don’t know Russell’s teapot does not exist but I find no evidence for it and really do not care to expend much in the way of resources looking for any. If you, on the other hand assert that it does exist, I feel perfectly comfortable in asking for your evidence and considering, “I just know,” as insufficient.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@DesertDog

This is why I term myself as a strong agnostic and not an atheist.

If you don’t have a belief in god then you are an atheist, you can also be a strong agnostic at the same time. It isn’t an either/or.

[Thudlow_Boink]

And, here we go. It’s an ironclad rule of the SDMB: eventually, every thread with any relation to religion will eventually devolve into a debate over the definition of “atheist.”

[Peter_Morris]

@begbert2

I don’t actually expect to change anyone’s mind - I’ve known too many intractable theists to think that a single one of them will be persuaded by something as crude and non-enlightened as reason or evidence. .

Whereas every atheist is entirely tractable, and always ready to be swayed by reason and evidence.

[Sicks_Ate]

@Peter_Morris

Whereas every atheist is entirely tractable, and always ready to be swayed by reason and evidence.

No, but only due to the fact that “every” and “entirely” are absolutes.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Thudlow_Boink

And, here we go. It’s an ironclad rule of the SDMB: eventually, every thread with any relation to religion will eventually devolve into a debate over the definition of “atheist.”

Well, the reason for that is right there in the banner, under the name of the site.

[begbert2]

@Peter_Morris

Whereas every atheist is entirely tractable, and always ready to be swayed by reason and evidence.

Atheists keep saying over and over and over and over and over again that if they were to see some actual convincing evidence, like for example god coming down to earth and doing actual god-level miracles in controlled conditions, or if they die and wake up in an afterlife, they would promptly start believing just as soon as the reason and evidence compels them to. This is something atheists actually say quite frequently.

Nobody believes them.

If people did believe them, then that would be like admitting that the current objective evidence in favor of god X is garbage, which would be an uncomfortable thing to admit.

[Voyager]

@Pleonast

I can totally understand skepticism of faith. It’s not easy or rational to trust without certainty. I don’t expect anyone to be convinced to have faith; it has to be an internal revelation.

We’re not talking about trust without certainty. We’re talking about faith and trust in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Faith in a loving God who allows hundreds of thousands to die in natural disasters. Faith in the one God of the entire universe who couldn’t get to Peru.

The guy at the racetrack says he has information, and even lets you look at the cover of a book. Yet his picks come in at a rate easily explainable by chance. But he has a story explaining each bad choice. Do you keep the faith, or do you walk away since it is clear that despite this guy hanging around the track for years he knows no more than you do.
Atheists walk away.

[xcalibre]

Don’t make the mistake of equating the gospels with the New Testament. Spend some quality time with the book of revelations and then let’s have a chat about mythology.

@senoy

I think that what is happening is that you’re placing your preconceptions on the text rather than actually taking time to do comparative analysis of the text. The New Testament doesn’t read anything at all like mythic literature. It just doesn’t. As an example, the opening of the Aeneid which was written close to the New Testament using John Dryden’s translation which was written shortly after the King James Version begins thusly:

Arms, and the man I sing, who, forc’d by fate,
And haughty Juno’s unrelenting hate,
Expell’d and exil’d, left the Trojan shore.
Long labours, both by sea and land, he bore,
And in the doubtful war, before he won
The Latian realm, and built the destin’d town;
His banish’d gods restor’d to rites divine,
And settled sure succession in his line,
From whence the race of Alban fathers come,
And the long glories of majestic Rome.
O Muse! the causes and the crimes relate;
What goddess was provok’d, and whence her hate;

Compare this to Mark:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

These are obviously extremely different types of texts. They’re not even close to each other. I think instead if we compare Josephus’s ‘War of the Jews’ we get a much more comparable type of text.

At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months.

The text of the New Testament does not read like a mythology of the time period at all. It reads very similarly to a history of the era. Yes, exaggerations exist and authors using opinion as fact, but that is normal for histories written at the time. Your problem is that you find that particular history to be unbelievable and therefore you say it is mythology. That’s OK. Someone might find the exploits of Alexander the Great to be unbelievable and that the nearest sources written about him are second hand and 100 years after his death, but that isn’t evidence of his nonexistence. Nor does it confine Alexander the Great to the realm of mythology. The texts regarding Alexander are clearly meant to be taken as histories and don’t compare in style or substance to contemporary mythological works.

[senoy]

@xcalibre

Don’t make the mistake of equating the gospels with the New Testament. Spend some quality time with the book of revelations and then let’s have a chat about mythology.

Revelations is Apocalyptic literature, a common genre of the time. It was specific to post-Exilic Judaism and was adopted by Millenialist Christians in the first and second centuries. It doesn’t read like mythology.

[Biffster]

@senoy

Revelations is Apocalyptic literature, a common genre of the time. It was specific to post-Exilic Judaism and was adopted by Millenialist Christians in the first and second centuries. It doesn’t read like mythology.

Why do you say it doesn’t read like mythology?