Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[1robin]

Resorting to blatant lies to prove a point in an argument that has long been lost...

I do not know what is lost inside your head but out here where we live everything he stated in that post is reliable scholarship. I am starting to see a pattern in what you post that I am very familiar with. Your not using any evidence or even competent argumentation. Your simply complaining against things you do not like. Assertions alone are not arguments and neither are objections without foundation. Until you show a lie actually exist the statements stand.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There's a ton of new stuff under the sun, atleast our sun.

Shakespeare begins Romeo and Juliet with a sort of apology for repeating the same ol' . He defends this retelling by claiming it is a worthwhile retelling. Westside Story implicitly makes the same claim. The human condition changes in superficial ways, but sometimes it seems that any other changes are non-existent.

What is the truth though? You yourself have stated that truth and/or proof only exists in mathematics.

Proof and truth are worlds apart.

Does mathematics say that truth is comfort/happiness or that truth is discomfort/unhappiness?

Neither. The ability to derive proofs comes at the expense of meaning.

How do you believe in a lie or in a truth when nothing can realistically be proven or disproven?

Because when I see a gun aimed at me, a serrated karambit revealed in someone else's belt, I don't wonder how probable it is that the threat is only illusion. I believe that perception and reason can get us close enough to the truth most of the time. If not, we'd all be dead.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I do not know what is lost inside your head but out here where we live everything he stated in that post is reliable scholarship.

Then I'm glad I don't live where you live... Scholarly consensus disagrees outright with Call's dating of the Gospels.

 

[1robin]

Then I'm glad I don't live where you live...

Since I dwell in the truth I am sure you are. I would not care if every scholar on earth disagreed with 70AD (and most in fact do not). The fact that they do not have references to the Temple's destruction and do have references to structures torn down in 70AD kind of settles the issue with anyone reasonable. The same as books that record the twin towers standing are probably pre 9/11 and those the record them gone are post 9/11.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Since I dwell in the truth I am sure you are.

The truth... Let's call it that

 

[1robin]

The truth... Let's call it that

Look at the last six posts of mine compared to yours in every thread we are having a discussion in. Do yours even have one fact or even a false proof of any kind. Mine are full of evidence, reasons, and obvious truths. I think you have simply arrived at a commentary only position. All those who attempt to assert evidence away appear to me to be simply ranting against something they do not like instead of even attempting to prove or demonstrate anything worthy of your dislike. I do not remember you as doing this until recently. Did you run slap out of material or something?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Look at the last six posts of mine compared to yours in every thread we are having a discussion in. Do yours even have one fact or even a false proof of any kind. Mine are full of evidence, reasons, and obvious truths. I think you have simply arrived at a commentary only position. All those who attempt to assert evidence away appear to me to be simply ranting against something they do not like instead of even attempting to prove or demonstrate anything worthy of your dislike. I do not remember you as doing this until recently. Did you run slap out of material or something?

I've given my share of sources and evidence, and explained my arguments... They're usually completely ignored and followed followed by one of your half page orations about the moral decline of America

 

[Sha'irullah]

An even greater question is why do atheists not admit there is no evidence to disprove god.

 

[1robin]

I've given my share of sources and evidence, and explained my arguments... They're usually completely ignored and followed followed by one of your half page orations about the moral decline of America

You have given evidence or at least attempted to in the past as I said. However lately you have become a commentator. I gave dozens and dozens of statistics to prove the moral decline of America and links to hundreds. Are you claiming you gave up on evidence because I presented much more of it? I don't get the explanation for ceasing to bother with evidence. For example what counters my claims about just the historical markers I gave? Simply denying what they demonstrate is not a response worth giving.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

An even greater question is why do atheists not admit there is no evidence to disprove god.

Because that isn't true?

 

[idav]

Because that isn't true?

Lack of evidences make lousy proofs.

 

[1robin]

Because that isn't true?

I do not regard it is very meaningful but it is in fact absolutely true.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Can you cite some evidence of the 70 A.D. thing because all of my knowledge says the exact opposite. At least in regard to the oldest manuscripts we actually possess. Mmmhhmm, but what were the motives of the dominating contingent of the early church fathers?

The oldest/earliest we have is the book of John which is concluded to have originated between A.D 100 to A.D 150. The earliest A.D 98 and the latest 150 A.D (Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ interview with Bruce Metzger, who has a masters degree from Princeton University and has a 46 year career in teaching the New Testament at Princeton Theology Seminary. Pg. 79-80).

This is true, but the copies don't agree with each other. They list different genealogies for different people

No the authors themselves list different genealogies, for various reasons.

the histories are different amongst different gospels, some things are omitted, where in other gospels they seem to be of supreme importance.

Like what?

The legendary accounts timeline is a huge assumption to say the least. And they're are many that argue that what Paul taught was not near what Jesus actually taught, and the he "gentiled" his approach in order make it more apeealing to the massess especially those outside of Judea.

Like what, I need specifics.

Again, can you cite some evidence of this because I don't seem to recall that being the case. Maybe the original gospels, but we don't have those anymore, and can't really say with any sense of assuridity that they say anything like what the "copies" of them say through mistranslation and/or purposeful addition or reduction.

We have the Greek copies, and also copies that were translated to Latin, Syriac, Coptic…and later to Armenia, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic. Not to mention quotations, commentaries, sermons, letters, etc of the early church fathers. If all of these copies and translations are in harmony, then that would mean there is an original source at which they all harmonize from.

Not with 100% assuredly. The historicalness of Jesus is, without a doubt, one of the most historically supported stories. What I'm arguing is more along the lines of, do the copies accurately portray the story of Jesus. For example, there would be few people capable of writing such a large manuscript in those times, so it would be likely that there would only be a few copies. If those copies fell into the wrong hands, it would be very likely that the "story" would have been altered to suit the needs of those whose hands they fell into.

I doubt that, because Pliny the Younger stated that Christians “met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor to Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal reasons, but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery” (Pliny the Younger Letters 10.96).

So if they were “chanting verses”, it was obviously some part of the New Testament. Not to mention the fact that they were honoring Christ as “if to a god” and lived up to a certain Christ-like standard. So they whatever verses they were chanting and based on their standard of living, they were obviously accurately portraying Jesus.

No, it's more along the lines that Iranaeus was clearly not an objective historian in any sense of the word. His main goal was to oppose the early gnostic sect of Christianity. So his writings would clearly be skewed toward that opinion.

Ok, I am trying to figure out what his theology had to do with him objectively stating who wrote the Gospels. His interpretation of the scriptures and what sect he opposed has nothing to do with him stating who wrote the Gospels.

In other words, I believe it was Irenaeus and those like him who were at the basis of forming Christianity into something it wasn't, or at the least, something less than Jesus had intended it to be in it's totality.

And what do you base this on?? What reasons do you have? Paul got his commission shortly after the Resurrection, and his letters reflect the Christian teaching. So as I said before, regardless of the early church fathers, the belief/concept of Christianity dates back to 5-10 years after the Resurrection, and spread through Rome like a wildfire. The early church fathers didn’t come into the picture until years later but the concept of Jesus Christ and Christianity was already around, and spreading. So it isn’t as if the concept of Christianity begins or is even rooted in the early church fathers or even the Gospels.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Really? Let's see:

"Luke is dependent on Mark and probably also on Matthew. Mark may not have been written until after 70 CE (its earliest accepted date is 64 CE). Luke was certainly not written before the Fall of Jerusalem (see 21.20). The generally-agreed date is in the 80s or 90s, perhaps towards the end of this span if the theory that Luke knew Matthew is adopted"

That is bull. Luke was the companion of Paul and he wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Acts is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke, like a “part 2” kind of thing. Paul’s death is not recorded in Acts, which means he was probably still alive, I mean how could you not record the death of Paul in the book of Acts when he was one of the main men (if not the main man) in the narrative. Paul was certainly alive during the events in the book Acts as the book ends with him being under house arrest. So he was alive during the events in the narrative, and he was more likely than not alive when the book was written. So, if Paul was alive, and the book of Acts is the second part to Luke, that would mean that the Gospel of Luke was written even sooner than Acts. And if Luke is “dependent on Mark and probably also on Matthew” as even you just said, then that would mean that both Mark and Matthew was written before Luke. These 70’s-80’s-90’s dates are held by the minority.

This isn't accurate. Just an FYI.

It is accurate. There weren’t any competing views on the authorship of the Gospels during that period. I will go with what the early church fathers say, not bible attackers/critics who are searching for any given reason to justify their unbelief.

Actually it started mainly with one biblical critic doing this and a bunch of others trying to rescue Jesus from the attack (only to be knocked down again by Strauss). But there are Christian scholars, Jewish scholars, and non-religious scholars all who have studied the gospels from a historical perspective. That doesn't mean they believe the historical portraits they paint, just that they understand what W. L. Craig misses despite how blatantly obvious it is: history is about determining what most likely happened. Miracles are by definition as improbable as can be. So there literally is historical approach, even The Da Vinci Code written as history, that could be less likely than that Jesus rose from the dead.

Well, the testimony of the church fathers is independent from contemporary Christian scholars, Jewish scholars, and non-religious scholars. And besides that, we still have the letters of Paul as corroboration.

No 2 copies are the same.

No two copies are 100% the same, there are very minor differences, but none so drastically difference that doctrine is changed.

If a 12th century monk copied a 2nd century manuscript now lost to us, and we had a 5th century manuscript that had been copied dozens of times from the 2nd century to the 5th, why is the 5th century one more reliable?

I am talking about copies and translations from different languages. If a manuscript has been copied various times in 7 different languages, and each copy in one language harmonizes with the other one, that would make the manuscript reliable especially if you have an early source at which the material was copied from.

Casey, Paul R. Eddy, Boyd, Wright, Stanton, and other non-secular or more conservative scholars disagree, just like those mentioned above.

Ok well explain why they disagree. Even the 70’s and 80’s dates can be said to be within the lifetime of the disciples. It is not hard to believe that of all the 12 disciples, at least 2 of them lived to be over 70 years old (Matthew and John), just like Reverend Jesse Jackson, at age 71, can write a book about Martin Luther King (his friend) and tell you about Dr. Kings death, an event that occurred 45 years ago. So please.

He also says that Papias claimed Matthew was written in Hebrew, which it wasn't.

How do you know?

Actually the standard is closer to 1,000 years than 1,00. And that's if we have a surviving copy rather than a reference or quote in another manuscript.

And thank you for making my point for me. If the standard is close to 1,000 years as you claim, and the Gospels were said to have been written at least 40 years (as even you claim), that would mean that the timeframe of the Gospel writings were like a newsflash compared to other Ancient accounts, as you yourself admit.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Lack of evidences make lousy proofs.

Really? Suppose I tell you that there has been a burglary at your house, but you return home to find certain necessary evidences of a burglary to be missing; you find no sign of forced entry or even of anyone having been there at all, and all of your possessions are accounted for- in other words, there is no evidence of a burglary, and there is an absence of necessary evidence of a burglary. Now tell me once again that lack of evidence makes a lousy proof that there was no burglary at your home...

The moral, of course, is that absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence- but it may be. But the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily evidence of absence.

 

[idav]

Really? Suppose I tell you that there has been a burglary at your house, but you return home to find certain necessary evidences of a burglary to be missing; you find no sign of forced entry or even of anyone having been there at all, and all of your possessions are accounted for- in other words, there is no evidence of a burglary, and there is an absence of necessary evidence of a burglary. Now tell me once again that lack of evidence makes a lousy proof that there was no burglary at your home...

Right, so in this scenario lack of evidence makes a lousy proof that a burglary even occurred.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Right, so in this scenario lack of evidence makes a lousy proof that a burglary even occurred.

Um, no, try reading it again, and do it more slowly this time. The lack of evidence of a burglary is sufficient proof that no burglary occurred. If not, tell me how you would confirm whether a burglary occurred if not by checking to see if anything was missing, any broken windows or doors, etc.?

 

[idav]

The lack of evidence of a burglary is sufficient proof that no burglary occurred.

Interesting since you were the one that said a burglary occurred in the first place and no evidence makes lousy proof. I like how you tried to switch that around for your purposes but it ends the same. When is no evidence proof of something happening or existing?

 

[nash8]

The oldest/earliest we have is the book of John which is concluded to have originated between A.D 100 to A.D 150. The earliest A.D 98 and the latest 150 A.D (Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ interview with Bruce Metzger, who has a masters degree from Princeton University and has a 46 year career in teaching the New Testament at Princeton Theology Seminary. Pg. 79-80).

That's not the same as 70 A.D., and wasn't John supposed to be the latest written book of the gospel Canon?

No, the authors themselves list different genealogies, for various reasons.

That's what I was saying, the different authors list different genealogies. and what are the reasons in your opinion, for different genealogies? I have seen many explanations, but none so far that I deem as the most plausible.


Like what?
Four Gospels: Comparative Charts


Like what, I need specifics.
Amazon.com: Customer Discussions: Paul Took Christianity Away From Christ

For starters, and I'm at work right now so I can't really cite more sources, but more specifically the gnostic aspects of Christianity, especially considering many similarities between gnostic thought and the gospel of St. Thomas that aren't mentioned at all, or nearly as prominently as they are in other gospels.

My view was that Chrisitianity was way deeper than we view it today. Today we tend to focus on the moral code first, which I believe was secondary to other more important ideas that Jesus taught.

Love for others was first and foremost, and what Jesus taught to everyone. Moral code was what he taught to a closer group of his "followers", and lastly an esoteric inner knowledge about reality and ourselves he taught only to those who had the "eyes to see, and ears to hear". This aspect of inner knowledge of oneself, as well as the workings of world around you, where what the early church fathers sought to oppress. After all they say knowledge is power, and those in power generally don't want those without power to gain it. Thus the oppression of early gnostic christianity.

We have the Greek copies, and also copies that were translated to Latin, Syriac, Coptic…and later to Armenia, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic. Not to mention quotations, commentaries, sermons, letters, etc of the early church fathers. If all of these copies and translations are in harmony, then that would mean there is an original source at which they all harmonize from.

That is a huge "if" in my opinion. First of all you would have to assume that the people who copied the "originals" had no motives in adding and or subtracting what suited their needs. If the early church fathers were the ones doing the copying, it would be obvious that many of them, such as Iranaeus would want to suppress the gnostic aspects of Christianity. Then you have to realize that each language that a book is translated can take away important details, due to the lack of a particular word to exactly describe the concept being presented. The general story would probably end up being the same, but the suttle nuances which is the parts that I'm speaking of, would most likely be lost.

I doubt that, because Pliny the Younger stated that Christians “met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor to Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal reasons, but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery” (Pliny the Younger Letters 10.96).

See the wiki article on Essenes, for an my view on that. They had very similar practices before the time of Jesus. And the Christos that you speak of within gnosticsim is not a specific person, but rather a mindset and or universal conciousness that a person can hope to achieve through "gnosis". The reasons you listed are criminal reasons lol.

So if they were “chanting verses”, it was obviously some part of the New Testament. Not to mention the fact that they were honoring Christ as “if to a god” and lived up to a certain Christ-like standard. So they whatever verses they were chanting and based on their standard of living, they were obviously accurately portraying Jesus.

There is no references to what "verses" they were chanting, and it may be obvious to you that they were chanting some part of the NT, but to me it's not so obvious. The Christos in gnosticism is similar to a God, and there is definitely also the possibility they believed that Jesus had achieved the Christos, and thus there prayers might have been to him directly, but only as a physical point of directed focus that they may worship the universal conciousness that he contained. And I would agree with the accurate portrayal of Jesus, at least on one level, but it is the deeper levels that I think the gospels are missing that I am concerned with. The basic "outer shell" of Christianity for the most part is portrayed fairly accurately within the gospels, it is the teachings that he taught to only certain members of the group that I think are being left out. There are many times in the Bible that talk about Jesus speaking only to certain disciples or groups of people, even times when he spoke to Mary and the other disciples got mad, or when he spoke to Peter alone.

Ok, I am trying to figure out what his theology had to do with him objectively stating who wrote the Gospels. His interpretation of the scriptures and what sect he opposed has nothing to do with him stating who wrote the Gospels.

It does, if gnostic Christians were the ones who wrote down the first gospels. His oppisition to the early gnostic Christian church would have made it a lot easier for him to leave this information out. Or who knows, maybe Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were gnostic in a sense and he just left out the fact that they were gnostic, but accurately represented who wrote the gospels.

And what do you base this on?? What reasons do you have? Paul got his commission shortly after the Resurrection, and his letters reflect the Christian teaching. So as I said before, regardless of the early church fathers, the belief/concept of Christianity dates back to 5-10 years after the Resurrection, and spread through Rome like a wildfire. The early church fathers didn’t come into the picture until years later but the concept of Jesus Christ and Christianity was already around, and spreading. So it isn’t as if the concept of Christianity begins or is even rooted in the early church fathers or even the Gospels.

My question is, what is the Christian teaching? What were Paul's motives? Did he want to accurately portray the totallity of Christianity, or did he just want Christianity to spread because it had a good core message and moral code? Did Paul realize that there were aspects of Jesus' teachings that would make it less likely for the religion to spread amongst the masses?

I agree with you that the belief/concpet of Christianity dates back to 5-10 years after the ressurection, but what I'm trying to argue is that we have no idea what the core beliefs/concepts of Christianity were besides a strong moral code, and love for others.

We have no evidence that Jesus believed he was the son of God incarnate, and we even have verses where he denies it, or tells his disciples not to worry about that. My argument is that the gnostic part of Christianity has been all but left out of mainstream Christianity today, and my personal belief is this is the part that was held dear by Jesus himself.

And my argument to that, is that Christianity was different at it's beginnings amonst the people, than it would become later as the early church fathers got a hold of it. Let me ask you this, what was the general socioeconomic background of the majority of the early church fathers?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Interesting since you were the one that said a burglary occurred in the first place and no evidence makes lousy proof. I like how you tried to switch that around for your purposes but it ends the same. When is no evidence proof of something happening or existing?

Let's try this again. Suppose I propose to you that NO burglary has occurred at your home. How would you set about determining whether or not I was right? You'd go home, for one. You'd check to see if there were any broken windows/doors/whatever, and whether anything was missing, yes?

Now, if there was no evidence a burglary occurred (an absence of evidence), wouldn't you conclude that there was no burglary (i.e. that the absence of evidence for a burglary was pretty good proof that there was no burglary)?