Atheism

[Tigers of Old]

Yeah, I have no explanation as to why you didn;t find God initially, except that maybe the timing wasn't right for you. With God life is all about a journey, not necessarily a 'cliff top moment' where you either jump or you don't. Perhaps it wasn't in God's plan to reveal Himself to you at that stage? Perhaps He wants you to continue searching for Him to show that you are genuinely seeking him and not easily giving up? He always reveals Himself to those that truly want a relationship with Him but it is always in His timing, not theirs. I'd encourage you to continue your search as my relationship with God is the greatest thing in my life which I know will never leave me. When everything else on Earth is wrong and sucks, you can always talk to God and know that He loves you and wants the best for you. It doesn't mean He will make your life easy but He will enable you to cope.

Maybe I will try again one day but I doubt it.
I dunno just sitting there watching others in some place I couldn't relate to at all just made me feel awkward and out of place.
This was over a period of about a year mind you so I didn't give it up after a week or two.

As for 'God', I felt nothing. Zip.
Just felt like I was wasting my time singing a few songs and listening/reading words that meant little to me apart from being a good story.
Others around me were in a place I simply couldn't see no matter how much I tried. I have since learned I am far from alone with this experience.
It wasn't enough to keep me around so I stopped going but as I said I did meet some nice people there.

Good luck to those that find what they are looking for through Christianity but it just wasn't for me.
I'll possibly even send my own son along to youth groups etc. so he can make up his own mind.

If anything after spending a few years in Thailand I am far more interested in Buddism than I am in Christianity and I find myself leaning towards that direction if anything but am still unconvinced.

 

[Djevv]

Would you mind giving Tooheys a brief list of the available evidence Djevv?

Archaelogical evidence that gives creedence to the OT stories. Go here
Various evidences for the ressurection of Christ. Go here
Historical evidence for the dating of the NT documents in the first Century, near to the time of the events they are reporting. Go here
Historical backing of the veracity of the NT accounts. Go here
Scholarship demonstrating the accuracy of the scripture we have today wrt ancient times. Go here
Evidence of various Biblical prophcies fulfilled. Go here
Various philosopical arguments re the existance of God (Teleological, Cosmological, Moral (I have been having a go at this one recently), Ontological) etc. Go here.
Reformed Epistemology - Plantinga et al. Go here
Inerrantcy. Go here

These are the main ones I can think of OTOH. I've argued a few of these over on the other thread.

I added links to some reasonable articles I found.

 

[AngryAnt]

Call it what you like. They are first hand accounts of those who have seen Jesus. And I see no reason not to believe that they did and that He was who they say He was.

As I mentioned in the discussion about authorship of the Bible, often the author of the text is not even who it is purported to be. If they can't even tell the truth in terms of who they as the author is, then I see no reason to believe the content of what they write.

 

[Six Pack]

rock, paper, scissors?

 

[Djevv]

As I mentioned in the discussion about authorship of the Bible, often the author of the text is not even who it is purported to be. If they can't even tell the truth in terms of who they as the author is, then I see no reason to believe the content of what they write.

This is a claim textual critics make. But as they don't have an operating time machine I'm not sure how they know.

So it gets a :headscratch :bs begging the question icon.

 

[AngryAnt]

This is a claim textual critics make. But as they don't have an operating time machine I'm not sure how they know.

So it gets a :headscratch :bs begging the question icon.

No, textual criticism - also known as lower criticism - looks at the text as itself without reference to evidence outside the text. This is higher criticism which puts the writing and its authors into a historical context.

Of course, no historian has a time machine so according to you all history must be bunkum? Do you have one, because you seem pretty certain of a lot of things that happened two millenia ago.

 

[Djevv]

No, textual criticism - also known as lower criticism - looks at the text as itself without reference to evidence outside the text. This is higher criticism which puts the writing and its authors into a historical context.

Of course, no historian has a time machine so according to you all history must be bunkum? Do you have one, because you seem pretty certain of a lot of things that happened two millenia ago.

Most books make a claim within the text of who wrote them. Textual critics choose to ignore this an come up with their own theories. Why not just believe the text? What reason is there to doubt it?

 

[jayfox]

As I mentioned in the discussion about authorship of the Bible, often the author of the text is not even who it is purported to be. If they can't even tell the truth in terms of who they as the author is, then I see no reason to believe the content of what they write.

I really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[AngryAnt]

Most books make a claim within the text of who wrote them. Textual critics choose to ignore this an come up with their own theories. Why not just believe the text? What reason is there to doubt it?

Did you even read about the distinction between higher and lower order criticism?

Did you answer my question about time machines and historians? All history that conflicts with your view is invalid because the historian doesn't have a time machine? Please.

Many texts play games with the connection between author and narrative. Many authors have good reason to obscure their identities. Remember Helen Demidenko?

Anyway, your "what reason is there to doubt it?" sums up your position. Ignore the evidence and the work of experts and scholars because that would conflict with a dogmatic belief. On the other hand, present all manner of dubious philosophical "arguments" and even more dubious scientific evidence to support your dogma. Of course, these "scholars" don't need a time machine because "what reason is there to doubt" their work?

It's this hypocritical attitude to science and scholarship that makes a mockery of religious pretensions to "truth".

 

[AngryAnt]

I really don't know what you are talking about.

Clearly. After all, you believe the Bible has "several" authors only.

 

[Djevv]

Did you even read about the distinction between higher and lower order criticism?

Err no. But I'll put it on my 'to do' list. Post a link if you like.

Did you answer my question about time machines and historians? All history that conflicts with your view is invalid because the historian doesn't have a time machine? Please.

No. I thought we were talking about textual critics! Historians work from eyewitness sources first then other accounts later as I understand it. Textual critics examine a text they think to have been pieced together and try to reconstruct it - a whole different cup of coffee IMO. I guess what I'm asking is why are these people not taking the texts at face value. Do they have an agenda? All these findings about different authorship are speculative as far as I can see. But post a link if you think I should be better informed.

Many texts play games with the connection between author and narrative. Many authors have good reason to obscure their identities. Remember Helen Demidenko?

OK. Some Bible books don't state the author (Hebrews) - but most do. Why try to deliberately cast doubt upon them?

Anyway, your "what reason is there to doubt it?" sums up your position. Ignore the evidence and the work of experts and scholars because that would conflict with a dogmatic belief. On the other hand, present all manner of dubious philosophical "arguments" and even more dubious scientific evidence to support your dogma. Of course, these "scholars" don't need a time machine because "what reason is there to doubt" their work?

It's this hypocritical attitude to science and scholarship that makes a mockery of religious pretensions to "truth".

I think this is one of these: :boxing :bs an Ad Hom. Lighten up mate .

 

[jayfox]

Clearly. After all, you believe the Bible has "several" authors only.

You are being ridiculous and getting caught up in semantics. I can't believe I am getting grief for saying 'several' where you thought I should have said 'many'. Get over it, the intent of my words was the same. You said yourself that you were being "pedantic".

And YOU were actually the one who was wrong about the number of authors in the New Testament. You said it was 27 when it is clearly less as I showed you. Funny how there was no correction or apology from yourself when that happened! :

 

[Djevv]

Did you seek medical advice when you started hearing this voice? ;D (sorry, couldn't help myself).

Oh ha ha ha! ;D Well it was different anyway. Took me by surprise really. Very real.

I think many people come to ask these questions and explore possible answers. I think the absolute assurance that religion offers is a great comfort to people asking these questions. However, for me personally I have always encountered far too many flaws in religion to ever entertain the idea of belief in such a thing. I have no doubt that your belief and that of others is real in your experience, but that does not make it a reality outside of yourself. The changes that it led to in your personal life are one of those beneficial horizontal effects of religion. The trick is to find it within yourself to make such changes without needing to buy into clear falsehoods...it is possible .

Well, thats the psychobabble version of what happened. Surely a change of life is proof that something is real? Cause and effect and all that?

That is a good question and a difficult one to answer unless faced with it in reality. I am sure I wouldn't hesitate to give my life to save my loved ones, in other situations, I am not sure....I would have to be in it to know.

You?

Same, but add in Christ.

I haven't seen one convincing argument to support the tenets of Christianity.

Doesn't that amount to one of these :confused :bs

 

[AngryAnt]

OK. Some Bible books don't state the author (Hebrews) - but most do. Why try to deliberately cast doubt upon them?

Because if the Bible is such an incredibly important text (which it indisputably is) then it's important to know who wrote it, when and why.

I guess the crux of my argument is less about the scholarship of the bible (textual/higher/lower/whatever) and more to do with the perception of the Bible as an integrated work with precise knowledge of authorship. Christians tend to accept the Bible uncritically and are very reticent to admit that it is a fragmented, translated, disputed text pieced together over many centuries, translated and retranslated by literally hundreds of different people with different theological agendas.

I think this is one of these: :boxing :bs an Ad Hom. Lighten up mate .

I guess you could take the word "hypocritical" as ad hominem if used in isolation, but I notice you don't address the underlying argument that you are prepared to accept research that supports Biblical propositions but you are not prepared to accept research that casts doubt on the issue of authorship.

This is the problem with have a dogma and then frantically running around finding evidence to support it but rejecting evidence that doesn't support it - not on merit, but because it suits the dogma or not.

Now if you want I can retract the statement that that is hypocritical, but at the very least it suggests a profound methological problem with your approach.

PS - here are the Wikipedia discussions on higher and lower criticism if you are interested Djevy.

Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_criticism

Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Lower criticism is used for attempts to interpret Biblical texts based only on the internal evidence from the texts themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

 

[evo]

....with different theological agendas.

That's the key issue in my view.

21st century Christians speak of how the Bible dictates 'what is moral', yet seem to have precious little regard for the fact that each doctrine is only in there (or is omitted) on the behest of some third century(human) Southern European despot.

'Word of God' my sphincter.

 

[AngryAnt]

You are being ridiculous and getting caught up in semantics. I can't believe I am getting grief for saying 'several' where you thought I should have said 'many'. Get over it, the intent of my words was the same. You said yourself that you were being "pedantic".

And YOU were actually the one who was wrong about the number of authors in the New Testament. You said it was 27 when it is clearly less as I showed you. Funny how there was no correction or apology from yourself when that happened! :

Jayfox, the Bible and its interpretation is all about semantics and pedantry - I'm following a time-honoured Christian tradition here

But seriously, the issue is not the precise number of authors but the problem that the authorship is in doubt at all. Check this link for modern scholarly opinions on who actually wrote which parts of the NT. It's not as cut and dried as you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism#New_Testament

 

[Six Pack]

arm wrestle?

 

[tigertime2]

Maybe I will try again one day but I doubt it.
I dunno just sitting there watching others in some place I couldn't relate to at all just made me feel awkward and out of place.
This was over a period of about a year mind you so I didn't give it up after a week or two.

As for 'God', I felt nothing. Zip.
Just felt like I was wasting my time singing a few songs and listening/reading words that meant little to me apart from being a good story.
Others around me were in a place I simply couldn't see no matter how much I tried. I have since learned I am far from alone with this experience.
It wasn't enough to keep me around so I stopped going but as I said I did meet some nice people there.

Good luck to those that find what they are looking for through Christianity but it just wasn't for me.
I'll possibly even send my own son along to youth groups etc. so he can make up his own mind.

If anything after spending a few years in Thailand I am far more interested in Buddism than I am in Christianity and I find myself leaning towards that direction if anything but am still unconvinced.

Evidence of God - Look in the mirror Oldie you are God's creation

Evidence of Bhuddism - look at the fat man who is made out of metal or stone

 

[tigertime2]

That's the key issue in my view.

21st century Christians speak of how the Bible dictates 'what is moral', yet seem to have precious little regard for the fact that each doctrine is only in there (or is omitted) on the behest of some third century(human) Southern European despot.

'Word of God' my sphincter.

Evo you seem quite intelligent, how does the sun come up at the appointed time each morning? who set the stars in the sky? who made you?

 

[Tiger74]

Evidence of God - Look in the mirror Oldie you are God's creation

Evidence of Bhuddism - look at the fat man who is made out of metal or stone

Actually you have made one fundamental error there TT2.

Buddhism is not about worshipping a divine being. While the original Buddha is prayed to and respected, its because of what he achieved, enlightenment. There are actually a number of different Buddhas (I forget how many), because you become a Buddha when you achieve enlightenment.