Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Sorry, but I refuse to. You are an intelligent man; at least I always had the impression so far. You admit your only knowledge of the bible is what you know from the writings of someone who is biased against it.

Be honest, Mike: Is hat really a ground to stand on? No; this is way below your standard. Read the bible yourself, then I am willing to discuss it with you.

Some very patronising posts here.

Ivan and especially BF, do not presume to have the authoritative higher ground in this discussion just because you can find direct quotes from the Bible or other. Some things are so commonplace that they need not be backed up with sources and quotes. I had a bloody good education at a Catholic Grammar School and Mike had a damn good education too so cut out the homework sessions.

Father Christmas traditionally has a red tunic in modern western culture, I do not need to emphasise this by posting a picture, we all know it to be accurate.

In the same way many of us, including the atheists and agnostics, have studied the Bible closely, though we might not have qualifications in philosophy etc.. That we choose not to subscribe to its claims does not make us any less knowledgeable.




Edited by Tony R - July 19 2010 at 11:21

Tony R wrote: Some very patronising posts here. Ivan and especially BF, do not presume to have the authoritative higher ground in this discussion just because you can find direct quotes from the Bible or other. Some things are so commonplace that they need not be backed up with sources and quotes. I had a bloody good education at a Catholic Grammar School and Mike had a damn good education too so cut out the homework sessions. In the same way many of us, including the atheists and agnostics, have studied the Bible closely, though we might not have qualifications in philosophy etc.. That we choose not to subscribe to its claims does not make us any less knowledgeable.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 19 2010 at 12:10

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ Except that the gospel of John pretty much negates that view - only through a firm belief in Christ are people saved, not through actions.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 19 2010 at 12:57

Wait, this topic was settled a few posts back.  Y'all go and check. 

BaldFriede wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ What about your bias against Ehrman? Not to mention your bias against people who read Ehrman ... I stand by my position that I'm qualified to make some statements about the bible. If you reject them all because I didn't read it in full, I'm sorry but that seems really childish to me. I've never been to Australia ... does that mean that I can't participate in discussions about Australia? Do I have to board a plane, go there and come back until I'm qualified to ponder the question of whether it exists? I don't have a bias against Ehrman, nor against people who read him. I have a bias against people who read ONLY him and not the bible itself, because Ehrman himself already is biased. And don't tell me he isn't; everyone who has an opinion on the bible is biased. You have to make your own. I am biased too, of course, and I want to make it clear I am NOT defending the bible. I am merely pointing out that you are not in a position to judge it.

You say that the *only* way to find out any objective facts is to read the bible. I'm still a fan of books. And yes, I can still read a book and the claims it makes and think for myself whether I find those claims reasonable or not. Ehrman backs his claims using quotes from the Bible. Now, assuming that the quotes are correct, do I really have to read the Bible myself? Don't you think that if the quotes were not correct or grossly inadequate, someone would have pointed that out by now, by means of Amazon review etc.?

In fact I often search for critical reviews of books before I purchase them - you can learn a lot from the arguments people use in low-grade reviews.

BaldFriede wrote: What would you do if you were a scientist and someone claimed to have made an amazing discovery in your field of work? Would you not try to verify it? So why don't you go and verify Ehrman by reading the bible yourself?

I don't really have any reason to doubt any of the claims he makes - at least I can't remember any one that seemed far fetched. Remember that he quotes from the Bible a lot. He also deals with the fact that often the context of the verses is very important, or the Greek words used, or the fact that words can be ambiguous in different languages etc.. Like I said, I simply see nothing wrong with his conclusions. You can't tell me that you check *everything* out for yourself and trust nobody. In that case you should really reject the Bible as well, because most of what you said about Ehrman could also be said about the authors of the new testament.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ But how can you see the foundation for your solution to the problem of contradiction between these four sources in a verse that's contained in one of them? Of course some might object to that, particularly those who happen to not agree with the gospel of Matthew. And it just so happens that many, many Christians don't accept the authority of the Pope, and, as I've shown, with good reasons.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 19 2010 at 13:27

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ But how can you see the foundation for your solution to the problem of contradiction between these four sources in a verse that's contained in one of them? Of course some might object to that, particularly those who happen to not agree with the gospel of Matthew. And it just so happens that many, many Christians don't accept the authority of the Pope, and, as I've shown, with good reasons.   That's why there are 30,000 + Christian religions and sects beside the Catholic Church..   We believe this is true, some will not, we may disagree but tolerate other opinions, as a fact "Lumen Gentium" is a prove of that, because it admits the salvation not only of people who believe in other Christian faiths, but also in the salvation of Non Christians..Even when we don't agree with them..   But as far as I know,  the Christian religions that don't accept the authority of the Pope base their disagreement not in the Metthew Gosple, which all accept, but in a different interpretationof this words.   Iván   BTW: I haven't seen you reasons to disagree in the Pope's authority, and as far as I read in his thread, you are the only one that says your reasons are good....So, let me doubt.

I simply don't accept any of these books as an authority on anything. It amazes me to see how Theists talk of "proof" when they refer to scripture or other documents which are ultimately just opinions and unproven claims based on hearsay and wishful thinking. Like it or not, but if you look at all the historical facts about how, when and by whom these books and documents were written, it's really unlikely that all that mess is the result of divine intervention. It is much more likely that these books are simply what they appear to be - what the facts that we can ascertain about them suggest.

Why do I think that my reasons are better than yours? Most simply put: Because they require fewer assumptions that are extremely far fetched and  unlikely to be true. My reasons for not believing in gods require much less logical defense (Greek: apologia) than your reasons for believing in one. And not only do you claim that there is a God, you're also sure which one it is, and what he wants us to do. Like it or not, but as a Catholic you have some specific instructions.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: BaldJean wrote: Mike, let me ask you a question: if you wanted to know about "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx, what would you do? would you go and read the book? or would you read an expert analysis of it? and if so, what kind of expert would it be? a communist? a capitalist? a liberal? a social-democrat? a cleric? I am pretty sure you would trust no-one else but yourself, and rightly so. then why handle the bible differently? I don't agree. Sure, I can imagine that in some instances I would want to read the original work. But that would depend on how complex it is. When it comes to the Bible, you can't simply read it like a novel. In order to make sense of it - as Epignosis will undoubtedly agree - you need to study not only the historical context, but also the language it was originally written in. Frankly, I don't think that reading the book without doing all that would get you anywhere. You could memorize as many parables you want, but you would be none the wiser. No, in this case I'll defer to the experts. Like I said above, one can always compare expert views from the opposite ends of the spectrum.

you are wriggling, Mike. you could say the same about "Das Kapital". you have to take the historical background into account, the background of Karl Marx, the German language. but what YOU did certainly won't give you any new insights - you chose an author who has approximately the same opinion as you already have formed of the bible, without ever having read it. that's not very challenging, in my opinion

Mr ProgFreak wrote: I simply don't accept any of these books as an authority on anything. It amazes me to see how Theists talk of "proof" when they refer to scripture or other documents which are ultimately just opinions and unproven claims based on hearsay and wishful thinking. Like it or not, but if you look at all the historical facts about how, when and by whom these books and documents were written, it's really unlikely that all that mess is the result of divine intervention. It is much more likely that these books are simply what they appear to be - what the facts that we can ascertain about them suggest. Why do I think that my reasons are better than yours? Most simply put: Because they require fewer assumptions that are extremely far fetched and  unlikely to be true. My reasons for not believing in gods require much less logical defense (Greek: apologia) than your reasons for believing in one. And not only do you claim that there is a God, you're also sure which one it is, and what he wants us to do. Like it or not, but as a Catholic you have some specific instructions.