Can or do "Atheists" have faith or beliefs? (1 Viewer)

[Dragonfly]

Science is clear. I think flat-earthers said that before.

I'm curious.

Can you PLEASE explain how you connect science, flat-earthers, and atheists?

How are any of those actually connected?

 

[RAMOSS]

The Jesus Seminar was a gaggle of liberal theologians who cast beads for which scriptures they personally found palatable. They had an a priori, anti-supernatural bias. They also tended to diss contemporary evidences for Jesus - late-dating the Gospel authors, etc. If they were an important basis for discerning the historical truths of Jesus Christ and his disciples, etc., then you were cheated.

The historical accounts of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus were more comprehensive than a great majority of ancient historical figures.

Have you read these books? They have a wealth of evidence for the historical Jesus.

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr, Gary Habermas.

You keep on cut/pasting that list. However, there is one signifigent detail that is missing from your spam. That is, any evidence that you actually read and understood those books, and understand the criticisms that are rightfully directed to them.

 

[zyzygy]

At the end of his review Dr. Geisler says he prays that that I will channel my “considerable talent and zeal toward the more pressing need of defending Christianity against those who deny the fundamentals of the faith, not those who affirm them.” While this may sound like a noble sentiment, I have to wonder: why did he write Chosen But Free? Why did he choose to identify the faith of Reformed Baptist Churches, conservative Presbyterian Churches, and many others, as irrational and unbiblical? Are we to understand that he has the right to do this, but those of us at the pointed end of his sword must ignore his highly errant and flawed attacks upon our faith? I honestly do not understand the basis of such a statement.

One thing is beyond all doubt: this response proves, even more clearly than did the text of TPF, that Dr. Geisler has no response to Reformed scholarship.

In closing, I would like to ask Dr. Geisler to consider well the nature of this appendix. As I have said, I do not believe he wrote it. I believe someone else, perhaps even a group, cooperated in piecing together disparate and inconsistent comments on the text of the book. But whatever its provenance, it exists today as part of the 2nd edition of Chosen But Free, and the front of the book says “Norman Geisler.” That places the above documented errors (a word that seems extremely weak to cover the kind of misrepresentations we have seen) squarely in his realm of responsibility. And hence I will say with all seriousness, “Dr. Geisler, do the right thing: pull this appendix, print a retraction, and simply do what is right.” You do not attack any fellow believer with such terms as arrogant, over-zealous, pedantic, and prideful while utilizing this kind of utterly inane misrepresentation and argumentation as a shield. It is simply scholarly negligence. Unless Dr. Geisler can explain how this kind of material has some relevance to the actual topic at hand, it should be pullled from circulation with apologies to all concerned, but especially to his own readers. There simply is no other course to follow.
A Most Disappointing Response: Dr. Norman Geisler’s “Reply” to The Potter’s Freedom Raises Serious Issues, But Not the Ones You Would Expect | Alpha and Omega Ministries

 

[NWO_Spook]

When you can bust the resurrection of Christ then your claims about Bible nonsense can be taken seriously.

Bust it? It's not even plausible so how can one 'bust' it? This so-called event appears in an ancient anthology of texts with known flaws, written by a group trying to promote their cult. As the hypothesis defies the laws of nature, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence and that is lacking in this case. Furthermore, the claimant in this case has the burden of proof. Why should anyone who doesn't believe in this absurd tale have the burden to disprove? It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Yup being a jerk is not specific to any ideology/culture/era/geographic region/skin color/hair color or whatever except for maybe those darn Albanians.

Have you ever known any skinheads or any gang bangers?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Well I've got over forty years of studies and two theology degrees in the Bible and have easily reached the opposite conclusion of yours. You gave up too soon.

Ok so you have confirmation bias, but what does that prove?

 

[NWO_Spook]

Most atheists (I believe) would state:

I see no reason to believe in any god(s).

Most are not stating there is no god. That would require proof. Although proving something doesn't exist is running down the road of insanity.

Most simply state they don't believe. Not believing is NOT a belief. Just as not stamp collecting isn't stamp collecting.

I love the distortions employed in trying to prove atheism is a belief system. Why do they spend so much time on this? Is it to lower atheism to the level of a religious belief in order to misrepresent it as such? I loved the 'the courts stated thus' claim, in that a single court deemed it so for the purposes of the suit, therefore it is. As you state, the atheist says there is no reason to believe in a god, or gods owing to a lack of evidence.

That is it. It's not a belief system, it's simply a position based upon reason.

 

[NWO_Spook]

You keep on cut/pasting that list. However, there is one signifigent detail that is missing from your spam. That is, any evidence that you actually read and understood those books, and understand the criticisms that are rightfully directed to them.

Note that the sole basis for Dr. Habermas's belief system is that the Bible is infallible, which is a highly contentious and unproven position from the very outset, which of course, only convinces other 'believers'.

 

[zyzygy]

Note that the sole basis for Dr. Habermas's belief system is that the Bible is infallible, which is a highly contentious and unproven position from the very outset, which of course, only convinces other 'believers'.

The Bible fails on every count.

 

[NWO_Spook]

The Bible fails on every count.

I grant you that it is hardly a reasonable position to believe the improbable simply because it's in a book that one likes.

 

[jet57]

Those who don't believe in a god/gods are often accused of lacking faith. Or have some inability to believe.

For the sake of this thread can we broad-brush label ALL non-believers in god/gods as "atheists"?

I'm suggesting in this thread that atheists (per the above definition) actually have many beliefs and use some level of faith every single day.
I'm suggesting that in fact atheists and believers share many similar beliefs and faiths.

When I drive my car, or ride my motorcycle on public roads I have faith and believe that everybody else on the road will follow the rules and laws of the road.
I have faith and belief that my spouse is not cheating on me.
I have faith and belief I won't be fired from my job today.
I have faith and belief that the sun will rise everyday.
I have faith and belief my children will be safe and productive people.
I have faith and belief I won't be a victim of a terrorist attack today.

We can make a very long list of the things that every single person regardless of religion or non-religion believe in and have faith in.


So is it even reasonable to suggest that one who doesn't believe in, or have faith in a god lacks some innate ability to believe?
Or that they have no faith?

I once started a thread here that religious believers and non-believers have so much in common with each other that from a 10,000 foot view an observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Of course this angered a few of the religious folks here. They can't be similar in almost every way to an atheist. That's just crazy.

Or is it?

Also, there's no denying at all that some atheists have some truly wacky and outright insane beliefs.

So not believing in "your god" is far and away NOT a sign that atheists lack some ability to believe or have faith.
Is that a correct conclusion?

A "belief" does not mean faith. And "faith" does not necessarily mean "religion" or "God" either: it means trusting.

Word parcing does nothing to pin down atheists. They just see the world day by day and when you die, you just shut off.

 

[Logicman]

Ok so you have confirmation bias, but what does that prove?

Ok so you have non-confirmation bias, but what does that prove?

 

[Logicman]

Bust it? It's not even plausible so how can one 'bust' it? This so-called event appears in an ancient anthology of texts with known flaws, written by a group trying to promote their cult. As the hypothesis defies the laws of nature, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence and that is lacking in this case. Furthermore, the claimant in this case has the burden of proof. Why should anyone who doesn't believe in this absurd tale have the burden to disprove? It's utterly ridiculous.

What follows in this link is far, far superior to what you can dredge up.

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

 

[Logicman]

You keep on cut/pasting that list. However, there is one signifigent detail that is missing from your spam. That is, any evidence that you actually read and understood those books, and understand the criticisms that are rightfully directed to them.

Keep on with your sophomoric, lying rants, Ramoss. You just embarrass yourself with them.

 

[Logicman]

Note that the sole basis for Dr. Habermas's belief system is that the Bible is infallible, which is a highly contentious and unproven position from the very outset, which of course, only convinces other 'believers'.

That's bull. Habermas pulls from a lot of extra-biblical sources also that compliment what he believes about the life of Christ and the resurrection. Evidently you haven't done your homework on Habermas.

 

[NWO_Spook]

What follows in this link is far, far superior to what you can dredge up.

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Actually a lot of it is not historical 'fact' as such and that is simply the author's opinion. The real fact of the matter is those events were reported in various texts that used another text (Q)as a primary source. That is what we know and that is ALL we know.

Habermas is only an amateur if he cannot recognise that, and any superiority you believe in is purely your biased opinion, and as such, somewhat worthless.

 

[NWO_Spook]

That's bull. Habermas pulls from a lot of extra-biblical sources also that compliment what he believes about the life of Christ and the resurrection. Evidently you haven't done your homework on Habermas.

I have done my homework and he uses no sources that I haven't already read. He claimed himself that 'the Bible is self-evident and that its depiction of Jesus' life is an unvarnished historical account'. I think I know what I'm talking about in this regard. Now, do you think you could debate without attacking my level of education and character? Your snide comments litter every response and it's about time you grew out of that silliness.

 

[Logicman]

Actually a lot of it is not historical 'fact' as such and that is simply the author's opinion. The real fact of the matter is those events were reported in various texts that used another text (Q)as a primary source. That is what we know and that is ALL we know.

Habermas is only an amateur if he cannot recognise that, and any superiority you believe in is purely your biased opinion, and as such, somewhat worthless.

Q is a made up document for which there are zero manuscript copies. It's a fallacy dreamed up by those who want to deny authorship for the traditional Gospel writers.

There are a number of fallacies at the heart of Q. You can find the list of those fallacies in the following articles.

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q by Mark Goodacre

 

[Logicman]

I have done my homework and he uses no sources that I haven't already read. He claimed himself that 'the Bible is self-evident and that its depiction of Jesus' life is an unvarnished historical account'. I think I know what I'm talking about in this regard. Now, do you think you could debate without attacking my level of education and character? Your snide comments litter every response and it's about time you grew out of that silliness.

You claimed the Bible alone was his sole source of beliefs. That's a lie.

Have you never read any his books that list other sources, such as Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, etc.?

Quit with your silly mischaracterizations and you won't get the push backs you think are offensive.

 

[RAMOSS]

Keep on with your sophomoric, lying rants, Ramoss. You just embarrass yourself with them.

On the contrary. I am willing to go head to head on a monitored debate with you on any of those books... even if I have not read it yet. Any time you want. A formalized one. My bet is that if you think I don't think I am lying, you will pass.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Q is a made up document for which there are zero manuscript copies. It's a fallacy dreamed up by those who want to deny authorship for the traditional Gospel writers.

There are a number of fallacies at the heart of Q. You can find the list of those fallacies in the following articles.

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q by Mark Goodacre

Your links focus upon the 19th century belief in the Marcan or Marcian priority. However, there are other schools of thought on the textual analysis:

The most widely accepted theory is the two-source theory, that Matthew and Luke each independently drew from both Mark and another hypothetical source, which scholars have termed Q. This Q, then, was the origin of the double tradition material, and many of the minor agreements are instances where both Matthew and Luke followed Q's version of a passage rather than Mark's.
The foremost alternative theory under Marcan priority is the Farrer theory, in which Luke has drawn directly from not only Mark but also Matthew. The double tradition is then simply portions of Matthew that Luke chose to repeat, so there is no need for Q.
A hybrid of these two theories is the three-source theory, which posits three sources for Luke: Mark, Q, and Matthew.
The Wilke theory is similar to the Farrer theory but has Matthew using Luke as a source (thus, Matthaean posteriority), rather than vice versa. It has attracted just a few modern proponents.
A final theory holds that Matthew and Luke have no literary relationship beyond their dependence on Mark, but rather each supplemented the triple tradition with oral sources. Where these oral sources overlapped with each other, the double tradition arose, and where they overlapped also with Mark, minor agreements arose. This theory, with few supporters, is usually viewed as a variation on the two-source theory, where Q is not a document but a body of oral material, and thus called the oral Q theory.

Marcan priority - Wikipedia

Either way, my main point still stands, and that is 'the real fact of the matter is those events were reported in various texts' and they may not be 'historical fact' at all, as Habermas claims. He cannot make that judgment based upon the extant material therefore, he has taken a leap of faith to arrive at his conclusion of the 'Bible being self-evident and that its depiction of Jesus' life is an unvarnished historical account'. We do not know that is fact at all.

 

[NWO_Spook]

You claimed the Bible alone was his sole source of beliefs. That's a lie.

No, he said it himself: "The Bible is self-evident and that its depiction of Jesus' life is an unvarnished historical account". Extraneous sources cannot prove this, nor do they prove his 'historical points'.

Have you never read any his books that list other sources, such as Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, etc.?

Of course I have read his other sources ( I have already supplied my credentials in this area): Tacitus & Pliny merely talk about early Christians and their communities. Tacitus states they were followers of Chrestus who was executed under Tiberius. Josephos's text on Christ is considered an interpolation and Martyr and Clement, Origen etc. are apologists who lived much later. None of whom prove a damn thing Habermas claimed as historical fact.

Quit with your silly mischaracterizations and you won't get the push backs you think are offensive.

He said it himself: 'The Bible is self-evident and that its depiction of Jesus' life is an unvarnished historical account'. Extraneous accounts do not prove his 'historical facts' either.

Do hark back to an earlier conversation where I stated that I believe in the historical Jesus, but I take issue with the mythological Jesus. Let's not conflate the two.

 

[Daisy]

Tell me something.

If god inspired everything in Revelations, and god is omniscient, then why would it be so hard for people to grasp?
Wouldn't a smart god that's omniscient make things very very VERY clear and concise?

Why would any god demand that people follow his word, but then jumble up the words into incoherent jibberish that can be misinterpreted, twisted, and confusing?

Is god just a jerk?
Or perhaps he's just stupid?


Or perhaps, that nonsense didn't come from a "god" at all? <--- this is the one I'm going with

You've already made it clear to me that I am wasting my time answering your questions...

 

[RAMOSS]

You've already made it clear to me that I am wasting my time answering your questions...

Have you actually made an answer that was not a cut/paste from a web site that promotes a specific theology? Or, in this particular case, is it a question that the JW website does not answer?

 

[Logicman]

On the contrary. I am willing to go head to head on a monitored debate with you on any of those books... even if I have not read it yet. Any time you want. A formalized one. My bet is that if you think I don't think I am lying, you will pass.

Don't bother me with your jack-legged nonsense.