What 'evidence' and 'reasons' exactly are atheists after.

[Stranger]

So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.

Christianity is a subset of the world's religions, which, in turn are a subset of superstitious beliefs in general. Christians can't even agree amongst themselves about substantive details, and the bible is a hopeless, incoherent mess, riddled with contradictions. As for "personal witness stories concerning life changing events", not only are witnesses notoriously unreliable, they are available in abundance for all sorts of different and contradictory superstitions including the different and contradictory religions and different and contradictory versions of Christianity.

Seriously Alan, if this is a god's attempt at communicating and important message to its creation, it's utterly pathetic. That's before we get to the glaring contradictions involved in the beliefs themselves - some of which you regularly draw attention to here. I don't need reasons to dismiss it, I need some hint of a reason to take this hopeless jumble of incoherent nonsense at all seriously.

[Owlswing]

So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.

Problem - There is no " historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ". The first written mention of Jesus Christ is no earlier than 100 years after his supposed death!

[Outrider]

So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

There's a difference between ignoring the evidence of the life of someone that was possibly the foundation of the Jesus myth, and accepting the myth itself as truth; case in point, the concept of 'resurrection'.

And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?

And the equally thousands of personal witness stories concerning life-changing events not-relating to Jesus which show these things happen regardless of belief?  And the equally thousands of personal witness stories concerning life-changing event credited to other religions?

Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.

Like many others, you confuse your belief about reality with reality.

O.

[jeremyp]

So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Oh dear. You're on shaky ground there. We've been discussing that on these boards for years and the evidence really all comes down to a few stories written years after Jesus died by anonymous people with unknown sources (or perhaps just one unknown source). In fact, if you just want to answer the question "did Jesus exist?" you'll find that the hard evidence is really limited to the existence of the Jesus cult as described by Paul. I'm not a Jesus mythicist but my argument for not being one is that Christianity must have been founded by somebody and it's more probable that the character in the Bible is based on that founder than invented completely from scratch. That's it. That's all there is.

And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?

You mean related to a belief in Jesus.

[jeremyp]

Problem - There is no " historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ". The first written mention of Jesus Christ is no earlier than 100 years after his supposed death!

Paul mentions him in the 50's CE, only about 20 years after his death.

[Owlswing]

Paul mentions him in the 50's CE, only about 20 years after his death.

If even one of his disciples doesn't mention him till 20 years after his death that is not exactly current is it?

Where are the records of his actions DURING HIS LIFE?
 

[jeremyp]

If even one of his disciples doesn't mention him till 20 years after his death that is not exactly current is it?

No but I was correcting your assertion that it was 100 years before anything was written down. There is no need to exaggerate the paucity of the evidence. We are talking about a dead man coming back alive: an unknown identical twin would be a more likely explanation than a bona fide  resurrection.

Where are the records of his actions DURING HIS LIFE

There aren't any.

[Owlswing]

No but I was correcting your assertion that it was 100 years before anything was written down. There is no need to exaggerate the paucity of the evidence. We are talking about a dead man coming back alive: an unknown identical twin would be a more likely explanation than a bona fide  resurrection.

There aren't any.

Does this lack raise suspicions in your mind? Does it by any chance call into question the mindless and unquestioning acceptance of the Biblical version by Christians? Do you see it as evidence of childhood brainwashing?

I am perfectly prepared to admit that it took 16 years and a inappropriate sermon shake me out of my previous blind acceptance of the Church's version drummed into me every Sunday, from age 5, at the behest of a High Church (whatever that signifies) Anglican father!

 

[Nearly Sane]

Does this lack raise suspicions in your mind? Does it by any chance call into question the mindless and unquestioning acceptance of the Biblical version by Christians? Do you see it as evidence of childhood brainwashing?

I am perfectly prepared to admit that it took 16 years and a inappropriate sermon shake me out of my previous blind acceptance of the Church's version drummed into me every Sunday, from age 5, at the behest of a High Church (whatever that signifies) Anglican father!

 

Is there any chance you might read what people write and don't indulge in strawmen about what they believe? Jeremyp does not believe in christianity, any form.

[jeremyp]

Does this lack raise suspicions in your mind?

Why would it? According to Jospehus there were hundreds of apocalyptic preachers around at the time of Jesus and the only documentary evidence we have for most of them is what Josephus says about them, which is almost nothing. I suspect the only reason we have anything at all on Jesus is that Christianity survived and became successful.

Does it by any chance call into question the mindless and unquestioning acceptance of the Biblical version by Christians? Do you see it as evidence of childhood brainwashing?

I wouldn't call it brainwashing, but such conditioning is not unique to Christianity.

I am perfectly prepared to admit that it took 16 years and a inappropriate sermon shake me out of my previous blind acceptance of the Church's version drummed into me every Sunday, from age 5, at the behest of a High Church (whatever that signifies) Anglican father!

It took me about the same length of time, but for me it was science and The Selfish Gene in particular.

 
[/quote]

[Alan Burns]

Christianity is a subset of the world's religions, which, in turn are a subset of superstitious beliefs in general. Christians can't even agree amongst themselves about substantive details, and the bible is a hopeless, incoherent mess, riddled with contradictions. As for "personal witness stories concerning life changing events", not only are witnesses notoriously unreliable, they are available in abundance for all sorts of different and contradictory superstitions including the different and contradictory religions and different and contradictory versions of Christianity.

Seriously Alan, if this is a god's attempt at communicating and important message to its creation, it's utterly pathetic. That's before we get to the glaring contradictions involved in the beliefs themselves - some of which you regularly draw attention to here. I don't need reasons to dismiss it, I need some hint of a reason to take this hopeless jumble of incoherent nonsense at all seriously.

There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge.  But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him.  This is aptly illustrated in the scripture reading from Tuesday's daily mass concerning the two disciples walking away from Jerusalem who encountered the risen Jesus on the road without recognising Him.  They were confused about the recent happenings and no longer wished to stay in Jerusalem.  But Jesus opened their minds to the true meaning by quoting the scriptures to them and explaining their relevance.  "Did not our hearts burn within us" was their response when they understood - and they eventually returned to Jerusalem to join the other disciples.  This experience is true today for those who discover God in their lives - the words from scripture take on new relevance and feed us with ever deeper wonder and awe in the knowledge and power of God's love.

[Outrider]

There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge.  But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him.

Old Testament god vs New Testament god - two fundamentally different characters.  If you've got one god, it's suffering from a multiple personality disorder.

O.

[Stranger]

There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge.

Which just illustrates the point I was making. There isn't a clear message with lots of witnesses, just a confused mess. Why wouldn't a just and fair god with an important message for its creation not make its message clear to everybody?

But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him.

So, you're right and all the rest are wrong.    Even if I were tempted to take such an assertion seriously (which I'm not) there are still the glaring contradictions in what you believe.

[Owlswing]

Christianity is a subset of the world's religions, which, in turn are a subset of superstitious beliefs in general. Christians can't even agree amongst themselves about substantive details, and the bible is a hopeless, incoherent mess, riddled with contradictions. As for "personal witness stories concerning life changing events", not only are witnesses notoriously unreliable, they are available in abundance for all sorts of different and contradictory superstitions including the different and contradictory religions and different and contradictory versions of Christianity.

Seriously Alan, if this is a god's attempt at communicating and important message to its creation, it's utterly pathetic. That's before we get to the glaring contradictions involved in the beliefs themselves - some of which you regularly draw attention to here. I don't need reasons to dismiss it, I need some hint of a reason to take this hopeless jumble of incoherent nonsense at all seriously.

Hear! Hear! or is it Here! Here! whichever applies!

[ippy]

There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge.  But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him.  This is aptly illustrated in the scripture reading from Tuesday's daily mass concerning the two disciples walking away from Jerusalem who encountered the risen Jesus on the road without recognising Him.  They were confused about the recent happenings and no longer wished to stay in Jerusalem.  But Jesus opened their minds to the true meaning by quoting the scriptures to them and explaining their relevance.  "Did not our hearts burn within us" was their response when they understood - and they eventually returned to Jerusalem to join the other disciples.  This experience is true today for those who discover God in their lives - the words from scripture take on new relevance and feed us with ever deeper wonder and awe in the knowledge and power of God's love.

This post of yours reminds me of the person that is supposed to have said: 'I'ts not so much the end of that worries me it' more what happens the day after'?

Your posts are at the very least as sensible as that, you by some of the contents of your posts seem to be reasonably rational until someone mentions the dreaded subject whereupon  you, it seems to me, then enter the twilight zone? Puzzling?

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

[torridon]

There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge.  But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him.  This is aptly illustrated in the scripture reading from Tuesday's daily mass concerning the two disciples walking away from Jerusalem who encountered the risen Jesus on the road without recognising Him.  They were confused about the recent happenings and no longer wished to stay in Jerusalem.  But Jesus opened their minds to the true meaning by quoting the scriptures to them and explaining their relevance.  "Did not our hearts burn within us" was their response when they understood - and they eventually returned to Jerusalem to join the other disciples.  This experience is true today for those who discover God in their lives - the words from scripture take on new relevance and feed us with ever deeper wonder and awe in the knowledge and power of God's love.

No True Scotsman fallacy.  Believers who are not quite on message, aren't really true believers, they don't really know the 'true' Scotsman God.  Anyway, you'll need something stronger than personal witness testimony to cut it with people who value critical thinking.

[ippy]

No True Scotsman fallacy.  Believers who are not quite on message, aren't really true believers, they don't really know the 'true' Scotsman God.  Anyway, you'll need something stronger than personal witness testimony to cut it with people who value critical thinking.

I remember the 'Twilight Zone' programmes, I can remember 'Captain Kirk' doing one of the series something to do with Gremlins I think?

Again, I was just thinking Alan's belief is just about as credible as that Gremlins edition of the 'Twilight Zone', the time he must be wasting going to all of the various pointless services etc etc.

Commiserations Alan, you need them, regards, ippy.