Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

[DBT]

But it's not about us.

The World is either created by a God or gods, whatever they may be, or it is not.

It can't be both a special creation and the result and work of natural evolution.

Sorry, I was assuming you were discussing the appearance of humans in the world, not the entire creation. The creation of man is typically called the special creation by Christians. I should have been clearer on that.

So in the terminology as you are using it, yes the universe would be considered a "special creation" to those of faith. What happens after that is where the discussion begins.

Ruth

If we are talking about the bible, Genesis describes the creation of the earth, sun, moon and stars, animals, plants and people.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Before I take the time to answer you item by item, it would probably enable better understanding on your part if you read a thread I started a few years ago, and in particular this post of mine in that thread:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...n-though-I-am-a-Christian&p=382833#post382833

So if the Bible is kind of true in some passages but not in others, then how did God slip up on the errant passages? Or did he just sit by as those primitive, superstitious people who wrote the Bible filled it full of myths that have no historical bases? Why spare God and deem him to be a myth too? Frankly, fundamentalism makes more sense than that. At least fundamentalism is more consistent.

Since you were a Christian apologist it is likely that your beliefs fell on the conservative side of the spectrum. I am considered more a moderate on that spectrum, so some of your assumptions about me are likely incorrect.

I'm not sure how you define "conservative," but as an apologist I argued for God's existence, his miraculous powers, and salvation through Christ's death on the cross. Do you hold those beliefs, or are you too moderate? The core supernatural doctrines of the Bible are on the chopping block as much as anything else as far as I'm concerned because they can be and probably are as wrong as anything else in the Bible.

Farther on in this thread, I asked a question: did you intend to infer that religious people as a whole are responsible for adverse impacts on science and education? I am very interested to learn your answer.

No, I wouldn't necessarily blame most religious people for stifling science. Many Christians have made tremendous contributions to science. However, religious scientists make those contributions in spite of their religious beliefs and not because of them. Can you imagine a scientist who has advanced degrees in science who rejects the Theory of Evolution because she cannot reconcile evolution with her belief that God created life? Well, you don't need to imagine because it does happen.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Apparently you didn't read that thread. There is no need for either one of us to waste time if you are not that interested.

Ruth

 

[funinspace]

So if the Bible is kind of true in some passages but not in others, then how did God slip up on the errant passages? Or did he just sit by as those primitive, superstitious people who wrote the Bible filled it full of myths that have no historical bases? Why spare God and deem him to be a myth too? Frankly, fundamentalism makes more sense than that. At least fundamentalism is more consistent.

No they aren't more consistent. They just choose differing plates in the cafeteria line...and then pretend they don't. And then go LALALA at reality (no Floody; and the YEC joke) all over the place...

I'm not sure how you define "conservative," but as an apologist I argued for God's existence, his miraculous powers, and salvation through Christ's death on the cross. Do you hold those beliefs, or are you too moderate?

I'd say you were a fundagelical. Your wording screams such...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Forgive me for interjecting...

You are forgiven.

...but I pretty much agree with Ruths posts. The reasons are easy - I don't doubt Ruth would agree with me that we both wouldn't want to be connected with prosperity churches, as an obvious example among others.

Don't you accept Jesus' promises? In a sense Christian leaders going back to the earliest stages of the sect have been "prosperity preachers." The aforementioned Jesus we are told clearly promised goodies to all those who ask for them in prayer. He was clearly wrong, but that doesn't keep his followers from continuing to ask and continuing to explain away all their prayers' failures. Even if you torture the text to make it say that all the promised rewards are only to be realized in heaven, the message is still one of "believe us and prosper!" Heaven, after all, is the ultimate prosperity, is it not? Besides, if you can't believe that God will make people prosper in this life, then why believe he can grant prosperity in heaven? So whatever else you might say about so-called prosperity churches, at least they have the balls to put their miracles where their mouths are. Liberal Christians by contrast tend to retreat from any circumstances that might serve to falsify their beliefs tucking God and his promised rewards away to a time a place where we cannot check to see if they're real.

Quoting your "Then tell Jesus not to do it to other people" there is a better and clearer context to this part of the narrative, when Jesus warns believers of false doctrine and false prophets under the guise of Christianity whilst preaching in His name i.e. don't be lumped in with them..

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my pointing out that Jesus was a major-league generalizer. In Matthew 23, for example, he angrily denounced the Pharisees as fools and as murderers. He made no exceptions for any of them. And in John 8 he "tars the Jews with a broad brush" telling them they had the Devil for their father. He made no exceptions for "the Jews." So if you're going to say generalizing is wrong, then you better sit down with Jesus and have a very serious talk with him.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Apparently you didn't read that thread. There is no need for either one of us to waste time if you are not that interested.

Ruth

I dismantled all of your arguments. Please concede that you are wrong.

You won't, of course, but I should make clear to you that my main point is that I don't buy the talk about these supposed intellectually sophisticated Christians. I'm not saying they're dumb generally but only in the context of their beliefs. Sure, some Christians might have wised up enough to realize that snakes don't talk, but they'll never give up believing in that invisible man in the sky. Personally, I find talking snakes more believable than talking Gods. We at least know snakes exist, but Gods are less likely.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I do have to say that atheists often seem to want all Christians to be Biblical literalists, or God-breathed Bible types. I find that odd, as us atheist aren't all the same either...

Is that what's going on?
I just want an explanation for the process to arrive where they did. How did they determine Genesis is literal history, and simply must be held as such, for example, but instructions about giving lots of support to the poor, those aren't critical?

 

[funinspace]

Apparently you didn't read that thread. There is no need for either one of us to waste time if you are not that interested.

Ruth

I dismantled all of your arguments. Please concede that you are wrong.

Somehow I don't think you are making a joke...sigh

I see humility is not something you had or kept from your Xian past.

 

[funinspace]

I do have to say that atheists often seem to want all Christians to be Biblical literalists, or God-breathed Bible types. I find that odd, as us atheist aren't all the same either...

Is that what's going on?
I just want an explanation for the process to arrive where they did. How did they determine Genesis is literal history, and simply must be held as such, for example, but instructions about giving lots of support to the poor, those aren't critical?

Not that I noticed (assuming you meant regarding yourself...).

 

[Learner]

Forgive me for interjecting, but I pretty much agree with Ruths posts. The reasons are easy - I don't doubt Ruth would agree with me that we both wouldn't want to be connected with prosperity churches, as an obvious example among others. Quoting your "Then tell Jesus not to do it to other people" there is a better and clearer context to this part of the narrative, when Jesus warns believers of false doctrine and false prophets under the guise of Christianity whilst preaching in His name i.e. don't be lumped in with them..

How do you tell the false prophets from the true one(s)? And false doctrines from the true one(s)? What is the test one uses to make these determinations?

Its got to be in accordance to the teachings of Jesus, by their fruits you shall now them ... And not in the vein, as like taking verses as examples, and making arguments from the OT such as below, when it should be regarding Christ:

Originally Posted by Learner Perhaps they were rather misquoting. People leading the way, having more of a politcal and power ethic than one of Christ.

Perhaps you should go back to the source and read Exodus 21 again. There is no ambiguity about Biblegod endorsing slavery, and providing explicit instructions on how different slaves are to be treated. Hebrew slaves have special rules, while women get the short end of the stick, as is typical with the Bible. God's instructions in this matter are very difficult to misunderstand or misquote.

There's been quite a few talks on slavery (I don't think I need to go into) in which theists have highlighted the differences and varied degrees in context on other threads. But the above, you should perhaps ask that to the Jews. I'm talking of those Christians who may be misquoting Christ i.e. going against His teachings! (Christians (should) follow the example of Jesus BTW).

 

[ideologyhunter]

This is the same Jesus who was a devout OT Jew, right? The one who was celebrating a Jewish holy day the night before his execution? The one who wanted to restore the 12 Tribes? The Jesus who never knew about or celebrated Christian holidays?

 

[Learner]

Don't you accept Jesus' promises? In a sense Christian leaders going back to the earliest stages of the sect have been "prosperity preachers." The aforementioned Jesus we are told clearly promised goodies to all those who ask for them in prayer. He was clearly wrong, but that doesn't keep his followers from continuing to ask and continuing to explain away all their prayers' failures. Even if you torture the text to make it say that all the promised rewards are only to be realized in heaven, the message is still one of "believe us and prosper!"

I see, ok, I can adapt to your way of putting things. Prosperity as according to Jesus means everyone prospers. Prosperity for those certain preachers mentioned, unfortunately means only they; the preachers get to prosper - not the poor folk who unfortunately fell for the dazzling sermon.

Heaven, after all, is the ultimate prosperity, is it not? Besides, if you can't believe that God will make people prosper in this life, then why believe he can grant prosperity in heaven? So whatever else you might say about so-called prosperity churches, at least they have the balls to put their miracles where their mouths are.

From the looks of the properity church description, I'll take the risk and believe in the 'ulitmate prosperity' in Heaven, thank you very much.

Liberal Christians by contrast tend to retreat from any circumstances that might serve to falsify their beliefs tucking God and his promised rewards away to a time a place where we cannot check to see if they're real.

Sort of defeats the purpose trying to be a believer when you want to go and falsify things.

Quoting your "Then tell Jesus not to do it to other people" there is a better and clearer context to this part of the narrative, when Jesus warns believers of false doctrine and false prophets under the guise of Christianity whilst preaching in His name i.e. don't be lumped in with them..

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my pointing out that Jesus was a major-league generalizer. In Matthew 23, for example, he angrily denounced the Pharisees as fools and as murderers. He made no exceptions for any of them. And in John 8 he "tars the Jews with a broad brush" telling them they had the Devil for their father. He made no exceptions for "the Jews." So if you're going to say generalizing is wrong, then you better sit down with Jesus and have a very serious talk with him.

Hmmm, I don't know about that. Jesus was specific about the Pharisees, who followed their own traditions of men, which is quite clear. He didn't also include the Romans as fools and murderers though, did He? Coz that would be real major-league generalizing.

 

[Learner]

This is the same Jesus who was a devout OT Jew, right? The one who was celebrating a Jewish holy day the night before his execution? The one who wanted to restore the 12 Tribes? The Jesus who never knew about or celebrated Christian holidays?

Yes of course. There is only one leader with sepcific teachings, otherwise we'll ALL get confused etc.. My point anyway, was as according to Christ, and through Christ alone ... you know the rest.

Matthew 23:8 - 10 CSB
8. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ because you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters.a 9. Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven.a 10.You are not to be called instructors either, because you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

 

[WAB]

This is the same Jesus who was a devout OT Jew, right? The one who was celebrating a Jewish holy day the night before his execution? The one who wanted to restore the 12 Tribes? The Jesus who never knew about or celebrated Christian holidays?

Yes of course. There is only one leader with sepcific teachings, otherwise we'll ALL get confused etc.. My point anyway, was as according to Christ, and through Christ alone ... you know the rest.

Matthew 23:8 - 10 CSB
8. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ because you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters.a 9. Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven.a 10.You are not to be called instructors either, because you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

But alas, Learner, certainly you've heard of Saul, or Paul, who lived after Jesus and may not have even met Christ?

Paul modified, with or without knowledge *I think*, the messages contained in the gospels. Perhaps he did it for political reasons he thought were efficacious and would be helpful.

Beyond that, there is the Council of Nicaea. Lots of High-Hats with their own agendas.

And how many versions of Christ's teachings in print? How many versions of the "official canon" alone?

What are we to make of apocryphal books?

Ever read Enoch? How about the so-called documents purportedly "written" by Jesus Himself?

There is a very good reason for liberal Christianity. And there is a very good reason for the Universal church, and similar institutions.

There are very good reasons for agnosticism, and atheism.

VERY good reasons, my friend.

A literal, forever hell with eternal, conscious torment, is impossible. Unless Yahweh and Jesus are Themselves corrupt.

In which case, the universe is in DEEP DOO-DOO.

Which it is anyway, GOD or no God (gods, etc, etc, etc&...)

 

[ideologyhunter]

Jesus people: don't put off buying that yarmulke and learning to make challah.

 

[WAB]

Jesus people: don't put off buying that yarmulke and learning to make challah.

Anti-semite much Ideologyhunter?

And now you'll remind me that Palestinians are semitic.Don't bother, I know! Oy!

Listen to Roger Waters a lot?

Just sayin'...

 

[steve_bank]

Jesus people: don't put off buying that yarmulke and learning to make challah.

Anti-semite much Ideologyhunter?

And now you'll remind me that Palestinians are semitic.Don't bother, I know! Oy!

Listen to Roger Waters a lot?

Just sayin'...

Maybe the point is Jesus was a Jew who probably 'kept kosher'.

Christianity grew to be anti Jewish but they are followers of a Jewish rabbi and preach from Jewish scripture, another one of those Christian ironies.

 

[WAB]

Jesus people: don't put off buying that yarmulke and learning to make challah.

Anti-semite much Ideologyhunter?

And now you'll remind me that Palestinians are semitic.Don't bother, I know! Oy!

Listen to Roger Waters a lot?

Just sayin'...

Maybe the point is Jesus was a Jew who probably 'kept kosher'.

Christianity grew to be anti Jewish but they are followers of a Jewish rabbi and preach from Jewish scripture, another one of those Christian ironies.

Could be? But I know plenty of bent "progressives* who can't stand Jews, Zionist or not. And dissing Jews is PC at this silly point in time, so idiots can get away with it, I mean idiots like communist Roger Waters, who pretends that he is only anti-Israel/anti-Zionist. He just doesn't like Jews.

I suppose it could be he just doesn't like fascists, being he's a communist (though he might not call himself that, as few communists anymore actually do - except for the wingnuts, like Rage Against the Machine's guitarist, which is a shame because he's brilliant).

 

[ideologyhunter]

Jesus people: don't put off buying that yarmulke and learning to make challah.

Anti-semite much Ideologyhunter?

And now you'll remind me that Palestinians are semitic.Don't bother, I know! Oy!

Listen to Roger Waters a lot?

Just sayin'...

The accusation implies a 100% failure to understand my post, whether that's my fault or yours. 100%.

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe the point is Jesus was a Jew who probably 'kept kosher'.

Christianity grew to be anti Jewish but they are followers of a Jewish rabbi and preach from Jewish scripture, another one of those Christian ironies.

Could be? But I know plenty of bent "progressives* who can't stand Jews, Zionist or not. And dissing Jews is PC at this silly point in time, so idiots can get away with it, I mean idiots like communist Roger Waters, who pretends that he is only anti-Israel/anti-Zionist. He just doesn't like Jews.

I suppose it could be he just doesn't like fascists, being he's a communist (though he might not call himself that, as few communists anymore actually do - except for the wingnuts, like Rage Against the Machine's guitarist, which is a shame because he's brilliant).

I have heard Jewish slurs from blacks along with Jewish conspiracy theories. Did you know Jews control the music industry and force black artists to use crude language?

IMO progressives are acting like the communists of old in China and Russia. Witch hunts to root out non conformist thought and speech.