Atheists and Their Fathers

www.probe.org ^ | 2002 | Kerby Anderson

[Junior]

No there isn't. Jesus' words are second hand (someone else wrote them down). Plato's words are first hand (he wrote them down). Can you not tell the difference?

[antiRepublicrat]

Says the man who believes in the Giant Pink Unicorn

Invisible Pink Unicorn, you blasphemer! :)

[Protagoras]

No there isn't. Jesus' words are second hand (someone else wrote them down).

And it has always been told that way.

Plato's words are first hand (he wrote them down).

Prove it. Who says?

Can you not tell the difference?

Yep, can you tell the similarity of no one being able to prove either one? That is my point.

[Bommer]

Irrelevant. Satan can create a mountain of evidence proving Christ never existed.

How can Satan exist without God? And if Christ was God in human form, and if he didn't exist, your whole point is moot.

[Bommer]

However, all of the supernatural events attributed to him in the Bible are a matter of faith that are not supported by independent historical evidence.

How does a supernatural event leave a trace behind for a archologist to dig up? Closest thing out there is the Shroud of Turin, which even if it was enscribed as the death cloth of Jesus, you would discount it as that there were lots of men named Jesus. Basically 99% of history exists on faith. No proof Washington crossed the Deleware in boats is there? Because the boats don't exist! Even if there were boats, how do you prove they were used to at the time?

What is evidence? What is proof?

8000 witnesses were fed on 2 occasions with a few loaves of bread and fish by Jesus, for some reason following him. Lepars, cripples, blind cured. Hell, a Roman Commander had more faith in Christ to cure his servant on his word alone then you have!

However there were 12 Apostles who not only personally witnessed all the events, who knew Jesus personally, wrote of their experience with him in various books and letters. But this is the weird part. Why would any of them willingly go to their deaths to spread his teachings. Peter was crucified upside down, because he did not feel worthy of dying the same way Jesus died. Yet he denied Christ 3 times. Was he just a myth too? How about the other 11?

[Bommer]

No there isn't. Jesus' words are second hand (someone else wrote them down). Plato's words are first hand (he wrote them down). Can you not tell the difference? Plato? Can you prove he existed? How do you know it was his handwriting? They can't even prove William Shakespeare wrote what he wrote. Some insiste that it was Frances Bacon. Guess to believe this Playdoh, Pluto, Platopuss, whoever he is, you have to have faith, which makes your beliefs no more solid then a Christians!

[RoarkMan]

This atheist had a good relationship with his father.

The list of my fellow atheist leaves a lot to be desired. But hey! At least I'm in good company as a Freeper.

[Modernman]

How does a supernatural event leave a trace behind for a archologist to dig up?

That's kind of the point.

No proof Washington crossed the Deleware in boats is there?

Independent eyewitness accounts of the crossing exist. That's different from the supernatural events in the Bible, whose only evidence is the Bible itself.

8000 witnesses were fed on 2 occasions with a few loaves of bread and fish by Jesus, for some reason following him. Lepars, cripples, blind cured. Hell, a Roman Commander had more faith in Christ to cure his servant on his word alone then you have!

That evidence comes from the Bible. You need to provide independent evidence, such as from a contemporary Roman source, that these events actually occurred.

However there were 12 Apostles who not only personally witnessed all the events, who knew Jesus personally, wrote of their experience with him in various books and letters. But this is the weird part. Why would any of them willingly go to their deaths to spread his teachings. Peter was crucified upside down, because he did not feel worthy of dying the same way Jesus died. Yet he denied Christ 3 times. Was he just a myth too? How about the other 11?

I'm not denying that a Jewish preacher named Jesus and his followers existed. I'm simply pointing out that claims of the supernatural events surrounding him have no more evidence associated with them than the supernatural events surrounding another historical founder of a Mid-Eastern religion (Mohammed).

[Beth528]

I did not make the list.If i had those would be among the names.

[subterfuge]

I'm not saying I don't believe the list is accurate, I just thought it funny they put those guys I mentioned on the list.

I guess it really isn't funny if true.

Anyway, I see this thread is now infested with the God haters so I'm outta here.

subterfuge

[Bommer]

How does a supernatural event leave a trace behind for a archologist to dig up?
That's kind of the point.

That IS the point. Your dealing with God and you want him to leave a fingerprint?

No proof Washington crossed the Deleware in boats is there?
Independent eyewitness accounts of the crossing exist. That's different from the supernatural events in the Bible, whose only evidence is the Bible itself.

Where? Where are all the books from independant eyewitnesses? There are none. I've got more eyewitness accounts in a Bible then any proof Washington crossed the Delaware, yet all my proof is just second hand and yours is hardcore, lost that one my friend!

8000 witnesses were fed on 2 occasions with a few loaves of bread and fish by Jesus, for some reason following him. Lepars, cripples, blind cured. Hell, a Roman Commander had more faith in Christ to cure his servant on his word alone then you have!
That evidence comes from the Bible. You need to provide independent evidence, such as from a contemporary Roman source, that these events actually occurred.

Try Saul from Tarsus, what was made blind for 3 days after just hearing the word of the Jesus.
So the bible of followers is not proof, but any writings from a murderous corrupt regieme that was an enemy of Israel and the Jews as well as Christains is acceptable? Sorry but that is an overly lame request of proof! You still haven't explained why so many of his apostles willingly died for the word of a man who you said is nothing more than a averge preacher?

[Beth528]

I don’t think there’s a person alive that can honestly say that there is no God. Now there are some who try to claim they’re atheists, but way down deep inside of them, when the death angel comes knocking on their door, they’re suddenly going to realize too late, that there is a God.

Revelation 21:7,8

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

[Modernman]

That IS the point. Your dealing with God and you want him to leave a fingerprint?

I don't care one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that your acceptance of the truth of the Bible is not based on anything other than the words in the Bible. That's called faith. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it isn't evidence.

Where? Where are all the books from independant eyewitnesses? There are none. I've got more eyewitness accounts in a Bible then any proof Washington crossed the Delaware, yet all my proof is just second hand and yours is hardcore, lost that one my friend!

Plenty of books about Washington crossing the Delaware. Books written by respected historians. I can find you a list, if you'd like. You, on the other hand, have a book that lists miracles that supposedly happened but that gives no evidence other than the book itself.

You're missing the point, of course. I'm not disputing the existence of Jesus as a historical figure and you're not disputing Washington crossing the Delaware. You are proposing that Jesus engaged in a lot of supernatural events. Other than the Bible, what evidence do you have of that? After all, the Koran claims that Mohammed engaged in a lot of supernatural events, too. Why don't you believe that those events happened?

Try Saul from Tarsus, what was made blind for 3 days after just hearing the word of the Jesus.

So the Bible claims.

So the bible of followers is not proof,

Not of what the Bible itself claims, no. No more than the Koran is proof that the claims therein are true.

but any writings from a murderous corrupt regieme that was an enemy of Israel and the Jews as well as Christains is acceptable?

Sure. The Roman Empire at the time really had no dog in the fight. Beyond maintaining order, they didn't really care about some sort of Jewish religious dispute. That makes them pretty reliable when it comes to any records they might have kept regarding Jesus and his followers.

You still haven't explained why so many of his apostles willingly died for the word of a man who you said is nothing more than a averge preacher?

Faith. Sort of like why Muslims are willing to blow themselves up based on the words of another Middleastern prophet.

[Lucky Dog]

You have used "atheist" in debate in a way that only uses one half of this definition. The other definition, according to "disbelieve" can be what you classify as agnostic. "Disbelief" can mean simple refusal to believe or to withhold belief, not necessarily deny.

You are incorrect. Please note the definition I offered (from an authoritative source) for agnositic:

ag·nos·tic n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

There is no element of “disbelief” of the divine (unless you are going to call skepticism “disbelief,” which is a real stretch) nor is there any element of “denial” of the divine in this definition.

Again, please note the definition I offered (from an authoritative source) for atheist:

a·the·ist n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

You might want to use the terms used in atheist circles. A "hard atheist" is one who makes the positive proposition that there are no gods. A "soft atheist" is one who simply does not accept the positive propositions of divine existence.

You have made a distinction without a difference. The reason or method a “hard” or “soft” atheist arrives at, and states, or accepts, the conclusion that “there is no god” is irrelevant. If a "soft atheist", to use your term, simply does not accept the positive propositions of divine existence", it is the same as denying divine existence unless the "soft atheist" also allows that the positive proposition may be true. If the "soft atheist" holds that either proposition may, or may not, be true, the individual is not an atheist of any variety, but an “agnostic.”

[Lucky Dog]

I stand firm and do not disagree with your definitions. You saved me the leg work actually. Look at the definition of Agnostic that you posted.

(For convenience I have repeated the definition below:)

ag·nos·tic n.
1.
a. One who believes [emphasis mine] that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Notice the word "faith" is not in that definition.

Please note the word (“believes”) in the definition I have emphasized. Belief and faith are synonymous terms. Consequently, your statement is erroneous.

A person can also be skeptical regarding their faith and still affirm that what they believe is true until such time that they decide is not true. In this manner, a person can be both an agnostic and a aheist/atheist.

Again, you are incorrect. In logic there is the “law of the excluded middle,” i.e., something cannot simultaneously exist and not exist, or simultaneously possess characteristics that are mutually exclusive. The terms theist, deist, agnostic or atheist are, by definition, all mutually exclusive. Consequently, by the rules of logic, one is a theist, deist, agnostic or atheist not any combination of these terms.

As for your retort to my statement on truth, I think you missed the point. I'm not arguing the nature of truth as Socrates did. I’m stating that denial of something is based on a person's acceptance of what they believe to be true. Whether their perception of truth is correct or not is inconsequential to the fact that people make denials based on their perceptions.

On the contrary, I don’t think I missed your point at all. Rather, your statement is core of the disagreement attributed to Socrates and Protagoras. Your use of the word “perceptions” is nothing more than a substitution for the phrase “subjective opinion” in the argument I quoted. Consequently, just as in the debate between Socrates and Protagoras, the issue comes down to whether an individual’s “perceptions” or “beliefs” are internally consistent, logically valid and sound since this is the only way a “belief” or “faith” can be tested objectively.

[antiRepublicrat]

Again, please note the definition I offered (from an authoritative source) for atheist: a·the·ist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Yes, disbelief. Refusal to accept belief in deities. That is different from claiming there are no deities. Face it, "atheist" has two separate meanings.

The reason or method a “hard” or “soft” atheist arrives at, and states, or accepts, the conclusion that “there is no god” is irrelevant.

You fail to understand. The soft atheist doesn't say "there is no god." That is the positive proposition the hard atheist puts forth, they actively state there is no god and seek to prove that. The soft atheist has the presumption that no propositions are true until proven. So the proposition of deity dies by default with the soft atheist.

If the "soft atheist" holds that either proposition may, or may not, be true, the individual is not an atheist of any variety, but an “agnostic.”

No, the soft atheist holds a more skeptikal position. There is no belief anywhere. He rejects proposals, including proposals of deity, flat-out absent proof. You aren't given the benefit of the doubt that an agnostic gives, "Well, you may be right..." it's "You are wrong until you can prove otherwise." It is closer to agnostic than hard atheist, but it isn't agnostic. And it is part of your authoritative dictionary definition.

[Lucky Dog]

…The soft atheist doesn't say "there is no god."…He rejects proposals, including proposals of deity, flat-out absent proof.

Since there is no flat-out proof that there isn’t a God, does your soft atheist also reject the claim that “there is not a god?”

Does your soft atheist also reject the logical “chain of causality” leading to a “primary cause” for existence?

[antiRepublicrat]

Since there is no flat-out proof that there isn’t a God, does your soft atheist also reject the claim that “there is not a god?”

Yes, but that position wins by default since there is no proof that there is a god. The hard atheists's assertion is unneccessary.

Does your soft atheist also reject the logical “chain of causality” leading to a “primary cause” for existence?

We can say that it is unknown. Your "primary cause" is unproven, therefore no more valid that any other whacky idea.

[Lucky Dog]

Since there is no flat-out proof that there isn’t a God, does your soft atheist also reject the claim that “there is not a god?”

Yes, but that position wins by default since there is no proof that there is a god. The hard atheists's assertion is unneccessary.

By the rules of logic, you are incorrect. If, as you implicitly declare, there is no proof for either position, then neither can “win by default.” You have assumed that the “status quo” or “starting position” for debate is that there is no god and that it is incumbent upon those who assert otherwise to prove their case. Such as assumption has no better foundation, logically, than its counter to which you apparently object. The opposing side can, and does, assert that the “status quo” or “starting position” is that there is a God and that atheists must prove their case. Since atheists cannot, these theists of deists claim that their position “wins by default.” Therefore, for one side to assert a “win by default,” as you have, is as illogical as for the other side to do so.

Does your soft atheist also reject the logical “chain of causality” leading to a “primary cause” for existence?

We can say that it is unknown. Your "primary cause" is unproven, therefore no more valid that any other whacky idea

Your comments make it seem that you are unfamiliar with formal logic. The concepts of “chain of causality” and “primary cause” are not “wacky ideas,” but long established precepts of logic dating back, at least, to Aristotle’s writing, if not before. In fact, without such a concept, the discipline of logic could not exist.

Recall that this line of reasoning began all the way back at post 59 with the following:

“I think, therefore I am” [cogito ergo sum] --- Descartes

The universe had a beginning…i.e., a creation moment [The Big Bang Theory]

If there was a creation moment, then the existence of a Creator is established ipso facto.



These two positions establish existence and creation.

Not even an atheist can logically quarrel with “existence” since to do so is clearly counter productive. Logically, if there is existence, then it began at some point by, or with, a “cause.” Furthermore, in logic, “nothing” (as in the lack of facts or actions) or “nothingness” (as an event or agent) is ever causal. Consequently, an atheist, to logically win his case, must try to establish that something other than God was, or could have been, the primary cause of existence. Any attempt to do so takes the argument back to “a moment of creation.”

The only possible logical counter to the other position, “a moment of creation,” is to contend that the Big Bang Theory is in error and that the universe has “always existed” and therefore has no cause. Since physical evidence and mathematics strongly support the Big Bang Theory, one would have to come up with equally strong evidence or counter explanations of current evidence to refute it. While such is certainly possible, as some have tried, it has not yet been widely accepted because of intractable discrepancies that keep cropping up in the counter-explanations. Again, as with the case of “existence,” an atheist, to logically win his case, must try to establish that something other than God was, or could have been, the primary cause of creation.

Only an agnostic can escape the burden of logic to establish his position.

[antiRepublicrat]

By the rules of logic, you are incorrect. If, as you implicitly declare, there is no proof for either position, then neither can “win by default.”

Yes one can, effectively. The theist makes the positive assertion with no proof that the soft atheist simply doesn't accept. The soft atheist has no burden. Until the theist assertion if existence is proven, then the lack of existence is accepted.

You have assumed that the “status quo” or “starting position” for debate is that there is no god and that it is incumbent upon those who assert otherwise to prove their case.

That's how it works. You have an existence to prove, and until then, nothing.

The opposing side can, and does, assert that the “status quo” or “starting position” is that there is a God and that atheists must prove their case.

That is not logical, unless you also accept the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH) exists by default, to be disproven. And you can't disprove it because of the conditions set by the religion.