Atheists: what would it take?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When I say undetectable I mean undetectable in any way science can use.

If we're talking about detectable in a way that can be verified, science can use it.

If we aren't, then I don't think we'd have good reason to consider it a way to detect things at all.

 

[Polymath257]

So? I don't see the problem. The Bible has an agenda. The focus is on God and His deeds. It is the history of salvation. It has a clear focus.

That does not change history.

And it also does not characterize history. A book claiming to be history does not make it so. And the fact that there is an agenda on the part of the writers *should* lead to skepticism about what they left out and what they included.

The Bible presents the events described in historical narrative as history. Real people really did these actual things.

And so does Livy's history of Rome. That doesn't mean that everything written was completely factual. In fact, the goal was to give moral lessons, not to present 'historically accurate' information.

Your distinction between history and fiction shows a certain naivete about how history is written and preserved.

One reason for treating the historical narratives of the Bible as history rather than as myths is the point here: the biblical narratives take the form of “historical narrative.” The Bible talks about people and events as though these events and people are true. This doesn’t happen in ‘myths.’ No one, not even the original storytellers, took these mythical stories too seriously.

The stories of Homer also present the characters as real people and that the events were true. the histories of Livy and Tacitus present their stories as involving real people and that the events really happened. That said, nobody takes the story of Horatio at the bridge seriously, even though it was written as history.

And you are wrong about those who originally wrote the 'myths' not taking them seriously. They usually thought they were accurate presentations of real events. They were traditional accounts that were passed from generation to generation, just like the stories in the Bible. That happens in the context of 'historical narratives' in most ancient 'histories'. Go read the histories of Herodotus sometime.

 

[Polymath257]

No it didn't. They did not write it

What??? Yes, the books of the Bible were written by humans. Usually different humans than the ones traditionally assigned to them. And they were written and gathered by humans for human political reasons.

This is like saying that the Iliad was not written by some human simply because there may well have been no single person who wrote it.

 

[Polymath257]

As I have said.

I don't support a belief. If you read with comprehension you would have noticed I was clearly speculating.

OK. Then why should anyone else take your speculations seriously? I can also make up any number of speculations with no support in reality. Why do you assume your speculations are any different?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Bible describes people and events as real and true. This doesn’t happen in ‘myths.’

It happens in all scriptures. Take Mahabharata. Was there such a big war? That region did not have that many people. It is something like 3 hundred thousand or 3 million, of Moses wandering in Sinai for 40 years.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Firstly I accept the historicity of the Bible. Then, it's not all historical as such. There are various literary forms. Each literary genre must be understood in its own special way.

I accept the historical narratives that record what happened in the past - almost half of OT is narrative history.

So, the Bible presents the events described in historical narrative as history. I accept that because I have not found any compelling evidence to the contrary. Many question that because many do not believe in God.

The Bible describes people and events as real and true. This doesn’t happen in ‘myths.’

Scripture is God's self-revelation. If it is only myth then God is also only myth.

Stories about past are not automatically historical. Myths don't present themselves as fiction. They also have specific names, genealogy, geography... For example: "Oedipus was the son of Laius, the king of Thebes.”

myth, a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief.
/... /
As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience.
/... /
The word myth derives from the Greek mythos, which has a range of meanings from “word,” through “saying” and “story,” to “fiction”; the unquestioned validity of mythos can be contrasted with logos, the word whose validity or truth can be argued and demonstrated. Because myths narrate fantastic events with no attempt at proof, it is sometimes assumed that they are simply stories with no factual basis, and the word has become a synonym for falsehood or, at best, misconception. In the study of religion, however, it is important to distinguish between myths and stories that are merely untrue.
myth | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts
​

 

[Alien826]

If it is a mind-depended god, then one would be seeking blessings from the idea in your head. In my view that is just silly.

A physical (as opposed to spiritual) god. Not an imaginary one.

 

[Alien826]

I agree with all you say but not all that is true of biblical narratives. The Bible presents the events described in historical narrative as history. Real people really did these actual things.

Example: Luke 1:1-5 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.

This is remarkable. Luke doesn’t present Jesus as a fanciful illusion of his personal ideas – true for him, but not true historically. He presents the gospel narrative in the same style as the great Greek historiographers. These events are set in a historical context – with Herod king, and the division of Abijah serving in the temple courts.

I accept that as true and reliable.

For some reason, we still seem to be missing each other. I'll try one more time.

The word "presents" in your second sentence is the key. It says it is historical. Simply saying something is true doesn't make it true.

The Bible quote goes to great lengths to establish the veracity of what is said by documenting sources and so on. That's good. But once again, simply saying that doesn't make it so. And why would someone who was deliberately presenting "fanciful illusions" as true admit that? Wouldn't that give the game away?

Look, I'm not suggesting that there was any deliberate lying going on. But that still leaves a lot of room for bias, error and simple misunderstanding. Historians try to get as close as they can to the truth by cross-checking with other sources and so on. It's still a best estimate though.

 

[idea]

If the Bible is read as a fiction then I would say that if the prophesied outcomes happened then God would be justified in the way He has gone about doing things.
It sounds like you are judging God on past performance however and judging God without looking at who and what He is said to be in the book and what He is doing and achieving in the light of who and what He is.

Even if prophecies were specific (not vague), and accurate, my main concern is morality, not accurate predictions.

What is achieved - if everyone goes to heaven, does the means justify the end? If the end goal can be achieved through humane methods, and I believe it can, then no - I do not believe the means justifies the end.

 

[Alien826]

Science detects things with empirical evidence and that is not really a part in finding God, who is not a thing to be studied with empirical evidence.

I'm genuinely interested in learning how you would suggest we do "find god" without looking for "empirical evidence". I can't think of a way. Take prayer as an example. I pray, God answers in some way. Isn't that evidence? Even hearing the belief of another is evidence of a sort.

(Skeptics - I didn't say "good evidence").

 

[Alien826]

No it didn't. They did not write it

It may be past time that you (openly) introduce inspiration into the argument.

 

[Five Solas]

It may be past time that you (openly) introduce inspiration into the argument.

Nort sure what you imply. Do you honestly think you have me in a tight spot now?

I believe that the Bible, as such, is not the Word of God. The Bible becomes the Word of God when it is preached by the Church. The Word of God is not inside a printed book on a shelf. Instead, the Bible is a witness to the Word of God, and when it is read and preached, then it becomes the Word of God.

I believe God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, is active in the church at all times. There is a distinction between the preached gospel and the biblical writings hut both are important. The Holy Scriptures came about (were written down) because the Christian teachings were challenged by its enemies (as is still happening today). Jesus and his disciples did not write Christian doctrine. The real test and challenges came later. So, years after Jesus' assentation and the church began operating it became necessary for the Christian doctrines to be recorded (written down).

 

[Five Solas]

The word "presents" in your second sentence is the key. It says it is historical. Simply saying something is true doesn't make it true.

I agree.

But the Bible and Christianity is really not as shallow and simplistic as you imply.

There are thousands of indications and pointers to the truthfulness of the Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament manly).

Christ Himself wrote not down His teachings. Moses did. Jesus gave His teachings orally but gave no command to write it down. The apostles also wrote little - not all of them did. But Jesus and the apostles always point us to the ancient Scriptures (that of Moses and the OT). Without books there could only be preachers and the Word of God lives on.

Matin Luther said: “There finally had to be resort to that, and need was that some sheep should be saved from the wolves: so men began to write, and yet through writing, so far as possible, to bring Christ’s little sheep into Scripture, and they prepared thereby that the sheep should be able to pasture themselves and guard themselves against the wolves when their shepherds would not pasture them or turned wolves.”

 

[PearlSeeker]

There are thousands of indications and pointers to the truthfulness of the Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament manly).

Christ Himself wrote not down His teachings. Moses did. Jesus gave His teachings orally but gave no command to write it down. The apostles also wrote little - not all of them did. But Jesus and the apostles always point us to the ancient Scriptures (that of Moses and the OT). Without books there could only be preachers and the Word of God lives on.

What is "the Old Testament manly"?

What do you think did Moses write down?

See:
Composition of the Torah - Wikipedia

The only writings of the apostles are Paul's letters. Paul met Jesus only in visions (posthumously).

Word of God? Without eyewitness testimony you only have hearsay.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the Bible and Christianity is really not as shallow and simplistic as you imply.

But it sure seems self-centered, at least from this thread.

How many pages did it take you and the other Christians here to threadjack this thread directed at atheists to make it all about your religion?

 

[Brian2]

... as the Bible itself suggests:

16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered[y] from thorns or figs from thistles, are they?[z] 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad[aa] tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit.

Yes that is a way to recognise false prophets.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes that is a way to recognise false prophets.

It seems to work fine with false gods, too.

And your god - at least according to the stories about him - has a lot of bad fruit.

 

[Brian2]

So, in what way is it detectable? Can it be detected by someone who is skeptical?

Detected yes but not believed to be evidence by skeptics probably. Skeptics seem to want the same type of evidence that science can use.

 

[Brian2]

What other ways are there to find out about reality?

Through faith someone might believe something and then go on and learn a lot through having that faith.
Many faiths are not true but then again much of science is not necessarily true.

Of course. For example, infrared light (we can't see it directly--we use other means to detect it), neutrinos (we detect by how they interact with certain atomic nuclei), etc.

Ideas have had effects on people and nations and the history of the earth. If some of these ideas are from God then God is having a big effect. It is through faith that we see the ideas as being of God however.

Sure, there are common mental phenomena for brains that are under stress and oxygen deprivation.

By verifiable events I am not talking about the white light that is commonly reported in NDEs.
But it is interesting that this seems to be seen as "common mental phenomena for brains that are under stress and oxygen deprivation" but when OBEs are reported and the events in these OBEs are verified as real events that took place while the experiencer was unconscious on the operating table, that is first and illogically also seen as mental phenomena.
That would be the first thing to check out of course.
It is interesting that setting up experiments to try to determine if these OBEs in NDEs actually happen does not show that the ones that have already been reported and verified are not true.

 

[Brian2]

In that case, how can God be found and verified? The scientific method still seems like a valid way to proceed? Hypothesize, test, modify if required.

You have tested out not believing. You could test believing.
This probably has to be an individual thing and without wanting to find verification in a scientific sense. I suppose verification might be to continue to have faith after living with it for a while.
But all this is supposing that faith is just a matter of choice. Can one feign belief if they do not believe.
I imagine that wanting to believe is a good start and then asking God to show you if He exists.