Atheism

[AngryAnt]

Wow you do the Atheist mockery thing real well! My sites were really a doorway to more reading - if you are interested - but clearly your not. You are really not engaging in a debate here, it seems, merely sounding off.

Again you failed to address my points.

BTW Ant, I am not making 'claims' about my background based on anything apart from my own qualifications. What is your science background?

Which points didn't I address? A charge I could level against you on more than one occasion too, by the way. But our time here is limited, so I forgive you for not dealing with each and every one.

As for sounding off - I have no problem engaging with points that are well made and have a sound basis in either science, history, even philosophy. But when all you can provide is some very very dubious websites, I really don't have the time.

Make a strong point and I'll engage. Refer me to poor quality arguments on other sites and I'll ridicule them. Harsh, but fair.

 

[Disco08]

So are you saying that you do not believe in the rule of Law? when someone in society commits a crime there should be no punishment for that crime?

No, I'm not saying that at all.

 

[Djevv]

Which points didn't I address? A charge I could level against you on more than one occasion too, by the way. But our time here is limited, so I forgive you for not dealing with each and every one.

Here you go again accusing me of these non-specifics. Why not be specific? If you have nothing to say though - why not be honest and say exactly that!
My points were back here reply 1720. Why can't these be an explanation for the differing styles in Bible books as opposed to multiple authors?

Remember you made the statement that the Bible could not be trusted due to the fact that it wasn't being honest about the authorship.

As for sounding off - I have no problem engaging with points that are well made and have a sound basis in either science, history, even philosophy. But when all you can provide is some very very dubious websites, I really don't have the time.

Make a strong point and I'll engage. Refer me to poor quality arguments on other sites and I'll ridicule them. Harsh, but fair.

So you get to judge what an appropriate response is. Very convenient! If you don't like the response you simply ridicule it. Very clever :rofl. Don't expect to be taken seriously though.

 

[Disco08]

So if there are other reasonable explanations for stylistic differences, why to skeptics believe rather in a century spanning conspiricy theory involving persons unknown for purposes unknown? Surely Occam's razor applies.

AFAIK the argument is that The Bible's books aren't consistent with other works from a similar era written by one author so doubt is cast because of this. Basically, why would The Bible's contents not mirror closely the style (and consistency thereof) of contemporary works?

If you were applying Occam's Razor, wouldn't the answer be because they were not written by a single author?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I go away for a couple of days and look what has happened to this place! A new Christian poster and someone let Claw in!

;D

BTW - I'm back.

 

[tigertime2]

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Ok, why should we punish people for their crimes? because they are guilty.

Do you think murderers should be allowed to run free with no penalty is that what you are promoting?

 

[Djevv]

AFAIK the argument is that The Bible's books aren't consistent with other works from a similar era written by one author so doubt is cast because of this. Basically, why would The Bible's contents not mirror closely the style (and consistency thereof) of contemporary works?

If you were applying Occam's Razor, wouldn't the answer be because they were not written by a single author?

Can you provide a link? The one example I can think of to counter this is that the legal code in the Pentateuch is similar to the laws of Hammurabi which are 2nd millenium BC.

My unlearned impression is that stylistic differences, in different books are the main reason for division into different authors.

 

[AngryAnt]

Here you go again accusing me of these non-specifics. Why not be specific? If you have nothing to say though - why not be honest and say exactly that!

I have plenty to say and have said it about four or five times now. Namely, the Bible is a literary work by many people over several centuries cobbled together, whose authorship - in places - is disputed. Some of it is based on historical facts and circumstances, some of it is clearly intended to be metaphorical and allegorical (and I have no problem with that) and some of it is clearly BS. Your view is that it is the received word of God and as such is infallible, it is to be taken literally, and tricky questions about authorship and provenance are to be avoided by a strange application of Occam's Razor.

My points were back here reply 1720. Why can't these be an explanation for the differing styles in Bible books as opposed to multiple authors?

Yes, that can be an explanation. Is it the right explanation? You don't seem interested in that part of it. If you've found an explanation that fits your agenda, that is enough. Poor thinking and a poor methodology.

Remember you made the statement that the Bible could not be trusted due to the fact that it wasn't being honest about the authorship.

I don't recall saying precisely that but regardless, I was making the point that the authorship and provenance of the Bible is a matter of historical and scholarly dispute, and yet it is considered by Christians to be the received word of God. Problematic IMHO.

So you get to judge what an appropriate response is. Very convenient! If you don't like the response you simply ridicule it. Very clever :rofl. Don't expect to be taken seriously though.

Oh I do like the response, but not for the reasons you would hope. Take the "Evidence for the Resurrection" site - it's hilarious! It presents the Biblical narrative for the resurrection of Christ and supports it by reference to Christian Apologists of the 19th and early 20th century and anecdotal and generalist references to instances of history that refer to, for example, the behaviour of Roman guards in other contexts. It's poorly written and is neither an example of historical rigour or anything resembling scholarly work. How many scholarly works begin with a sentence like "I've spent over 700 hours looking into this problem and somehow that makes me an expert". Again the problem is that the author desperately wants to believe the received narrative and any evidence, no matter how second hand, biased or problematic it is is seized upon. This kind of approach could be called "grasping at straws".

I'm happy to go and deconstruct all the specific "references" you provide if you like when I have a spare hour or two.

 

[tigertime2]

Here is a good site from a former athiest: http://www.leestrobel.com/

 

[tigertime2]

I have plenty to say and have said it about four or five times now. Namely, the Bible is a literary work by many people over several centuries cobbled together, whose authorship - in places - is disputed. Some of it is based on historical facts and circumstances, some of it is clearly intended to be metaphorical and allegorical (and I have no problem with that) and some of it is clearly BS. Your view is that it is the received word of God and as such is infallible, it is to be taken literally, and tricky questions about authorship and provenance are to be avoided by a strange application of Occam's Razor.

Yes, that can be an explanation. Is it the right explanation? You don't seem interested in that part of it. If you've found an explanation that fits your agenda, that is enough. Poor thinking and a poor methodology.

I don't recall saying precisely that but regardless, I was making the point that the authorship and provenance of the Bible is a matter of historical and scholarly dispute, and yet it is considered by Christians to be the received word of God. Problematic IMHO.

Oh I do like the response, but not for the reasons you would hope. Take the "Evidence for the Resurrection" site - it's hilarious! It presents the Biblical narrative for the resurrection of Christ and supports it by reference to Christian Apologists of the 19th and early 20th century and anecdotal and generalist references to instances of history that refer to, for example, the behaviour of Roman guards in other contexts. It's poorly written and is neither an example of historical rigour or anything resembling scholarly work. How many scholarly works begin with a sentence like "I've spent over 700 hours looking into this problem and somehow that makes me an expert". Again the problem is that the author desperately wants to believe the received narrative and any evidence, no matter how second hand, biased or problematic it is is seized upon. This kind of approach could be called "grasping at straws".

I'm happy to go and deconstruct all the specific "references" you provide if you like when I have a spare hour or two.

Antman you seem like a highly intelligent person - can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is not the inspired word of God?

 

[evo]

Antman you seem like a highly intelligent person - can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is not the inspired word of God?

Can you prove Lord of the Rings isn't the inspired word of God.

 

[AngryAnt]

Antman you seem like a highly intelligent person - can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is not the inspired word of God?

Thanks for the compliment tt2 but as I get older I realise that there is a lot I don't know and even more I will never understand. Some call this realisation wisdom, I'm not sure. I call myself an atheist but actually I am more of an agnostic - I'm pretty sure that there is not a deity in the sense that you mean "God" but I can certainly be convinced otherwise. I tend to go hard atheist on threads like these, it's more fun.

In terms of your question, I certainly cannot prove that. The Bible could be the inspired word of God - I'm yet to see definitive evidence that it is and all the historical and cultural evidence points elsewhere in my humble opinion of course. I'm going hard on Djevv in this thread as he claims to understand science and rationality but is not prepared to provide evidence of real rigour. I also have big problems with his methodology, as I've pointed out.

One point I will concede to him though - the Dead Sea scrolls and other discovered documents do provide evidence that parts of the Bible were written in the time they claim to be written. As I've conceded, this is certainly true. I also tend to think (although there is no DIRECT historical evidence for this) that the person that we now call Jesus Christ actually existed and ruffled a few feathers in his time. Was he truly the son of God, conceived through immaculate conception? I tend to think not......

 

[Six Pack]

I'm smart too, but I choose not to display it!

 

[AngryAnt]

Djevvy, here's another example of why I find your list of sites unconvincing.

Are There Any Errors in the Bible?

By Norman L. Geisler

The Bible cannot err, since it is God's Word, and God cannot err. This does not mean there are no difficulties in the Bible. But the difficulties are not due to God's perfect revelation, but to our imperfect understanding of it. The history of Bible criticism reveals that the Bible has no errors, but the critics do. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

Talk about introducing bias into your research method right there..... That's another example from the strangely named Leadership University... I wouldn't rate the critical thinking skills of Leadership U graduates particularly highly if that's an example of teaching and research practice...

 

[Djevv]

I have plenty to say and have said it about four or five times now. Namely, the Bible is a literary work by many people over several centuries cobbled together, whose authorship - in places - is disputed. Some of it is based on historical facts and circumstances, some of it is clearly intended to be metaphorical and allegorical (and I have no problem with that) and some of it is clearly BS. Your view is that it is the received word of God and as such is infallible, it is to be taken literally, and tricky questions about authorship and provenance are to be avoided by a strange application of Occam's Razor.

There is no dispute about the many authors. There is no dispute about varying literary styles. The infallibility of the Bible is by faith, but there was an article I cited in my 1701 post which explains the concept. Why is my application of Occam's razor 'strange'?

Yes, that can be an explanation. Is it the right explanation? You don't seem interested in that part of it. If you've found an explanation that fits your agenda, that is enough. Poor thinking and a poor methodology.

Its an explanation that doesn't require a 'pious fraud' to have been perpetrated on the Jewish people. It also fits in with the findings of archaeology that Israel was a nation during the times the Bible records, that the Pentateuch fits right in with the socio-cultural milleu of the era and that numbers of it's characters were historical (David, Omri OTOH).

I don't recall saying precisely that but regardless, I was making the point that the authorship and provenance of the Bible is a matter of historical and scholarly dispute, and yet it is considered by Christians to be the received word of God. Problematic IMHO.

I'm not sure why both of these can't be true.

Oh I do like the response, but not for the reasons you would hope. Take the "Evidence for the Resurrection" site - it's hilarious! It presents the Biblical narrative for the resurrection of Christ and supports it by reference to Christian Apologists of the 19th and early 20th century and anecdotal and generalist references to instances of history that refer to, for example, the behaviour of Roman guards in other contexts. It's poorly written and is neither an example of historical rigour or anything resembling scholarly work. How many scholarly works begin with a sentence like "I've spent over 700 hours looking into this problem and somehow that makes me an expert". Again the problem is that the author desperately wants to believe the received narrative and any evidence, no matter how second hand, biased or problematic it is is seized upon. This kind of approach could be called "grasping at straws".

I'm happy to go and deconstruct all the specific "references" you provide if you like when I have a spare hour or two.

There are lots of similar articles. Josh Mcdowell is just well known and easy to read.

Do as much deconstructing as you like, but don't get upset if I reconstruct .

 

[Djevv]

Djevvy, here's another example of why I find your list of sites unconvincing.

Talk about introducing bias into your research method right there..... That's another example from the strangely named Leadership University... I wouldn't rate the critical thinking skills of Leadership U graduates particularly highly if that's an example of teaching and research practice...

I'm not sure of the origin of it's name, but it has a wealth of apologetics. Thats what this article is about - it's not trying to be a research paper .

 

[AngryAnt]

There is no dispute about the many authors. There is no dispute about varying literary styles. The infallibility of the Bible is by faith, but there was an article I cited in my 1701 post which explains the concept. Why is my application of Occam's razor 'strange'?

Its an explanation that doesn't require a 'pious fraud' to have been perpetrated on the Jewish people. It also fits in with the findings of archaeology that Israel was a nation during the times the Bible records, that the Pentateuch fits right in with the socio-cultural milleu of the era and that numbers of it's characters were historical (David, Omri OTOH).

I'm not sure why both of these can't be true.

Hmmm, if you'd like to point me to any point when I claimed either the OT or the NT didn't have any references to actual historical figures or events and are all lies, feel free.

There are lots of similar articles. Josh Mcdowell is just well known and easy to read.

Do as much deconstructing as you like, but don't get upset if I reconstruct .

Please do. I'm waiting for something, anything of scientific or historical merit. Tempt me with something Djevvy.

I'm not sure of the origin of it's name, but it has a wealth of apologetics. Thats what this article is about - it's not trying to be a research paper .

Why post it then? Apologetics is Apologetics. Apologetics doesn't convince anyone of anything - it merely confirms the beliefs and biases of the author.

I asked for evidence - you provide Apologetics. Apologetics is not evidence.

 

[Disco08]

Ok, why should we punish people for their crimes? because they are guilty.

Do you think murderers should be allowed to run free with no penalty is that what you are promoting?

No.

Can you provide a link? The one example I can think of to counter this is that the legal code in the Pentateuch is similar to the laws of Hammurabi which are 2nd millenium BC.

My unlearned impression is that stylistic differences, in different books are the main reason for division into different authors.

Sorry, I read this in a book a while ago so not sure if I can find a link for you.

 

[Djevv]

Hmmm, if you'd like to point me to any point when I claimed either the OT or the NT didn't have any references to actual historical figures or events and are all lies, feel free.

All I am saying is that it weakens the case of the higher critics. Originally part of the rationale these scholars had for rejecting Divine history is that
a) Writing was unknown at the time of Moses. Archaelogy has since disproven this idea.
b) Biblical figures were unhistorical - this has also proven false.
Higher criticism is a genuine 19th century piece of scholarship that has survived to this century for reasons I can't work out.

Can you point out what the convincing reasons are to accept it. I have put forward a number of reasons for rejecting it.

Look, I am interested in discussing this topic, I find it interesting. Maybe other readers do as well. I've done similar sort of things with Disco and Panther. I'm always prepared to read up if I am unsure on a topic. I'm also willing to put forward ideas and evidence for discussion.

Please do. I'm waiting for something, anything of scientific or historical merit. Tempt me with something Djevvy.

I have been doing this all day (fortunately it is a day off ;D) - you never seem to reply with evidence, only more of your opinions.

Why post it then? Apologetics is Apologetics. Apologetics doesn't convince anyone of anything - it merely confirms the beliefs and biases of the author.

I asked for evidence - you provide Apologetics. Apologetics is not evidence.

The purpose of apologetics is to convince. It cites and uses evidence to make a point.

As for why I posted it, I was asked to provide evidence for my christian faith, so I did, then later added in some links for clarification, if a person was interested.

 

[Disco08]

Djevv, do any of the apologetics sites deal with the question of why Philo never makes mention of Jesus in any of his writing?