Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Dropship]

This shows that Jesus is not dead, how, exactly?

Well where's his body?..
For examp when the women went to pay their respects at the tomb they were told by an angel-
“Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!" (Luke 24:5/6)

 

[ratiocinator]

Well where's his body?..

Are you serious? Not being able to locate the body of somebody who died 2000 years ago is hardly evidence that they didn't die.

For examp when the women went to pay their respects at the tomb they were told by an angel-
“Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!" (Luke 24:5/6)

Similarly, a religious text written long after the supposed events and quoting mythical beings.

 

[Dropship]

"Myth" is one of the atheists favourite words, for many years they went around saying "Nazareth never existed in Jesus's time, it was just a myth", but they were left with egg on their faces when old Nazareth was found..-

 

[Subduction Zone]

But as somebody said in another post, atheists wouldn't accept any proof at all..
As for nonchristians who follow other religions, the founders of all those religions are corpses in graves somewhere but Jesus is not, spot the difference?

They were not being honest if they said that. The problem is that theists cannot seem to find any reliable evidence whatsoever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Myth" is one of the atheists favourite words, for many years they went around saying "Nazareth never existed in Jesus's time, it was just a myth", but they were left with egg on their faces when old Nazareth was found..-

View attachment 56111

Did they now? I am not so sure about that. What they can show is a ten year discrepancy in the year of Jesus's birth between Matthew and Luke.

 

[KWED]

So you you are an atheist due to lack of evidence of (a) God? Couldn't you have just as easily been a believer (call it what you like) due to lack of evidence these is no God?

That's not how the "burden of proof" works.
Do you believe in Sagan's Dragon? After all, there is no evidence that it does not exist.
I can come up with an inexhaustible supply of things for which there is no proof for their non-existence. Will you therefore believe they all exist?

 

[KWED]

Honestly, my studies in religion have led me to lean more towards religion being a man made construct.

Objective, open-minded, comparative analysis of religions in general, without any confirmation bias present , will inevitably lead to the conclusion that they are man-made.

If children were given a rational education with no mention of religion until the age of 18, and were then presented with all the holy books, there would be no religious adults.

 

[KWED]

"Myth" is one of the atheists favourite words, for many years they went around saying "Nazareth never existed in Jesus's time, it was just a myth", but they were left with egg on their faces when old Nazareth was found..-

No they didn't. There has been archaeological evidence for a settlement there for many years.
The issue was whether the references to "Jesus the Nazarene" meant that he actually came from Nazareth.

There're are far more damning geographically-historical errors in the Bible around Jesus' birth. The whole issue of the census for one.
There was no Roman census at the alleged time of Jesus' birth.
Roman censuses were for Roman citizens, not the conquered rabble.
People were not required to travel to the town of their birth to register in a Roman census.

 

[KWED]

there is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah, who is the proof that God exists.

How is a 19th century Persian man "proof that god exists"?
(Please note: simply asserting things like "he is god's messenger" is not any kind of evidence for your claim)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No they didn't. There has been archaeological evidence for a settlement there for many years.
The issue was whether the references to "Jesus the Nazarene" meant that he actually came from Nazareth.

There're are far more damning geographically-historical errors in the Bible around Jesus' birth. The whole issue of the census for one.
There was no Roman census at the alleged time of Jesus' birth.
Roman censuses were for Roman citizens, not the conquered rabble.
People were not required to travel to the town of their birth to register in a Roman census.

A minor correction. Rome had two categories for countries. They had client states, which paid tribute. As a result they had some self rule. That was why King Herod was still 'king'. His son did not do so well and the Romans deposed him and put Judea under direct Roman rule. Since they were not being paid tribute any longer they had to perform a census to directly tax the people of Judea. That led to the Census of Quirinius. In 6CE.

The tale of the trip to Bethlehem is probably just that. A story that never happened. Nazareth was not in Judea. There would have been no reason to go to Bethlehem, well except for the Old Testament verse saying that the Messiah would be born there. The only two Gospels that mention this appear to have made the story up to "fulfil prophecy". The two stories are quite different. Matthew has no trip, no manger. If one read only Matthew one would assume that they lived in Bethlehem. He has a story to get them out of Bethlehem that Luke does not have. Matthew has the slaughter of the innocents. After they leave to go to Egypt they resettle in Nazareth. Luke appears to just have them go home. And Matthew has the birth in about 4 BCE while Luke has it in 6 CE. A ten year difference.

 

[Dropship]

Did they now? I am not so sure about that. What they can show is a ten year discrepancy in the year of Jesus's birth between Matthew and Luke.

Wait a min, in one breath atheists say the Bible has been edited and tidied up over the centuries to make it look good, then in the next breath they're saying its full of discrepancies.
Wish they'd make up their minds..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait a min, in one breath atheists say the Bible has been edited and tidied up over the centuries to make it look good, then in the next breath they're saying its full of discrepancies.
Wish they'd make up their minds..

Why can't it be both? Even with the cleanups it is rather flawed. Though I do not remember making such a claim. We do know that verses have been added after the fact.

 

[Dropship]

Guys guys, like I said, many atheists were shouting for years that there wasn't a Nazareth in Jesus's time, then got humiliated real bad when digs uncovered it, haha.
For examp this guy's street cred plummeted bigtime..-

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guys guys, like I said, many atheists were shouting for years that there wasn't a Nazareth in Jesus's time, then got humiliated real bad when digs uncovered it, haha.
For examp this guy's street cred plummeted bigtime..-

View attachment 56116

Never heard of him.

 

[ratiocinator]

Guys guys, like I said, many atheists were shouting for years that there wasn't a Nazareth in Jesus's time, then got humiliated real bad when digs uncovered it, haha.

Seriously, is this sort of deflection the best you can do? I've never heard of this claim, and whether it's actually accurate or not makes very little difference to the question of the truth of Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guys guys, like I said, many atheists were shouting for years that there wasn't a Nazareth in Jesus's time, then got humiliated real bad when digs uncovered it, haha.
For examp this guy's street cred plummeted bigtime..-

View attachment 56116

You found one relatively unknown atheist that made that claim. It was news to me. It is hardly an important one. And I had to check your claim out and I found a better source. You could have gone to the work of the person that did the dating on Nazareth. A book written about it often adds a bias that does not belong. there. But I will grant that it looks like Nazareth did exist. But as I pointed out I have never seen atheists use this argument and it does not even seem to be a good one since the places in the New Testament are fairly accurate as far as I can remember. Of course getting areas right does not make a story true. Which is sad. I really like Spiderman.

At any rate I found a source that is a bit more reliable in relating the story. Bart Ehrman is a well respected biblical scholar. In this article he explains how we know that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus and why it was a bad argument for atheism. Did I forget to add that he is an atheist himself?

Did Nazareth Exist? | The Bart Ehrman Blog

 

[SkepticThinker]

Guys guys, like I said, many atheists were shouting for years that there wasn't a Nazareth in Jesus's time, then got humiliated real bad when digs uncovered it, haha.
For examp this guy's street cred plummeted bigtime..-

View attachment 56116

New York City exists, so Spiderman must be real.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you really not understand how utterly absurd this is? How many times have you made claims about what is logical or rational? How many times have you accused others of fallacies?

God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to piddly human logical analysis. That is totally illogical and irrational. What is absurd is to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with logic. Of course it helps to know something about God before you talk about God.

Trailblazer said: There is no objective evidence for God but there is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah, who is the proof that God exists.

• There is no objective evidence for God.
• There is objective evidence for Baha'u'llah.
• Baha'u'llah is proof that God exists.

Still contradicting yourself, I see. If this were all objectively true (which it obviously isn't), then there would be objective evidence for god, which you said is impossible and not what god wants anyway.

There IS objective evidence for God and that objective evidence is Baha'u'llah (and all the other Messengers of God such as Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad, etc.)

I suggest taking a break and making up your mind, once and for all, what you actually think about logic and evidence.

I know exactly what I think but it is nearly impossible to explain it to atheists since they have no conception of who God is so I am starting from scratch.

 

[ratiocinator]

Such an entity can never be subject to piddly human logical analysis. That is totally illogical and irrational.

There is no objective evidence for God...

There IS objective evidence for God...

 

[Trailblazer]

How is a 19th century Persian man "proof that god exists"?
(Please note: simply asserting things like "he is god's messenger" is not any kind of evidence for your claim)

All the Messengers of God are evidence that God exists, the only real evidence.

I never implied that me saying Baha'u'llah is God's Messenger is evidence of any kind.
I have no claims, I only have beliefs. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He supported His claims with evidence, just as Jesus supported His claims to be sent from God.