Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which you don't have evidence for. The universe is roughly 6000 years old.
Since the age of the earth has been accurately and reliably dated to 4.54 billion years +/- 50 million years by radiometric dating methods, the claim that the universe is a mere 6,000 years old is ridiculous.
Radiometric dating methods have advanced over the years and are very reliable when carefully conducted by a geochronologist who uses the proper isotope for what it is he is dating and takes into account the geologic factors which could otherwise skew the results.
The Bible doesn't even say how old the earth is at any rate. Furthermore, if the earth was only 6,000 years old and the biblical flood was a couple thousand years after the creation of the earth then the flood was about 4,000 years or so ago which would mean that the flood which supposedly covered the entire earth went completely unnoticed by the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations that existed at that time.
Last edited by Michael Way; 02-14-2022 at 09:14 AM..
Since the age of the earth has been accurately and reliably dated to 4.54 billion years +/- 50 million years by radiometric dating methods, the claim that the universe is a mere 6,000 years old is ridiculous.
Radiometric dating methods have advanced over the years and are very reliable when carefully conducted by a geochronologist who uses the proper isotope for what it is he is dating and takes into account the geologic factors which could otherwise skew the results.
The Bible doesn't even say how old the earth is at any rate. Furthermore, if the earth was only 6,000 years old and the biblical flood was a couple thousand years after the creation of the earth then the flood was about 4,000 years or so ago which would mean that the flood which supposedly covered the entire earth went completely unnoticed by the Egyptians and Mesopotamian civilizations that existed at that time.
And somehow many of the megaliths survived the flood.
And somehow many of the megaliths survived the flood.
Exactly. A Global flood as described in the Bible would have completely scoured the earth's surface and erased any evidence of features whether man-made or natural which existed prior to such a flood.
Lol, no. It is amazingly inept considering people do NOT see the many different claimed (and often impossible) gods, and ignores the cognitive biases of those suffering from No-gods-o-phobia.
That you think it is a brilliant argument utterly destroys your fiction that you have a superior intellect.
Ha, ha, ha, you have an extraordinary way of seeing things. Drawing a false equivalence between a "favorite" way of characterizing atheist avoidance of God belief with a "brilliance" of argument is illustrative.
Why do I believe the testimony of the disciples of Jesus?
Because they did believe that they saw the risen Jesus but had not had any expectations of seeing Jesus alive again after having been crucified. While not all Jews believed in the idea of resurrection (the Sadducees didn't), in Judaism the belief was that there would be a general resurrection of all the dead at the end of time. But no one expected that a solitary individual would be resurrected in history prior to the last day. It wasn't in their belief system. When Jesus was crucified he became in the minds of those who had believed that he was the Messiah, just another failed messiah.
So the disciples of Jesus went into hiding, afraid for their lives, and the hopes they had had that Jesus was the Messiah were crushed. But not for long. Something caused the disciples to suddenly begin to proclaim that Jesus WAS the Messiah. As the Roman historian Tacitus wrote regarding Nero's blaming of the Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome in order to shift the suspicion from himself,
But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. [Bolding mine]
It's the bolded part I wanted to focus on. Something momentarily checked what Tacitus called a most mischievous superstition, but then it again broke out and spread throughout Judaea and even in Rome. In my view, that something which caused the ''most mischievous superstition'' to break out was the belief of the disciples that they had seen the resurrected Jesus.
I do not believe that there was a conspiracy on the part of the disciples to claim that Jesus had been resurrected for two reasons. First, while many people are willing to die for something they believe to be true, not many people are willing to die for something the know to be false. While we don't know how many of the disciples were actually martyred, we do know that some of them were. Peter and James the brother of John were martyred. And of course there was Paul. James the brother of Jesus was martyred as well. Secondly, neither the disciples of Jesus nor the Jews in general expected the resurrection of anyone before the 'last day.' So why would they try to foster a belief in something that neither they nor any other Jew believed especially when they had nothing to gain from it except a life of suffering and death (death for at least some of them).
Nor can hallucinations account for the disciples believing they saw the risen Jesus. There were multiple appearances of Jesus to groups of people. He talked with them, and ate with them. Many or most psychologists do not believe that mass hallucinations are possible since an hallucination is an internally generated occurrence and cannot be spread to another person. And while a mirage, which has an external cause, can be seen by a group, the descriptions given by each person are going to vary. A group of people in a boat stranded at sea may see a mirage of a boat coming to save them, or they may each have separate hallucinations, but in either case their descriptions of the 'boat' they see are going to be different. And yes, I know about the reports of groups of people and claims of individuals 'seeing' the virgin Mary, but in no way do they have any similarity to the sightings of the risen Jesus which involved multiple sightings over a period of time, two-way conversations between Jesus and the disciples, Jesus eating with the disciples.
Then there is Paul who was willing to give up the life he had as a Pharisee for a hard life of suffering to spread the gospel. According to the reports in the book of Acts, the other men who were with Paul, while not seeing Jesus, did hear a voice which they couldn't make out what was being said, and did see a light. This then, if you believe the text, rules out an hallucination on Paul's part.
And the reports of Jesus' resurrection go back to the very beginning of the church long before the Gospels were written and before Paul wrote. There are what scholars refer to as pre-pauline creeds. One such creed is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 in which Paul refers to a creed which he received from others and was passing on. Most scholars believe that Paul first heard this creed from Peter and James the brother of Jesus when he went to meet with them some three years after his Damascus road experience which resulted in his conversion. He wrote of this in his letter to the Galatians in chapter one.
Then there are legends of some of the disciples such as Thomas who reportedly went as far as India to spread the gospel. Legends sometimes have a basis in fact. Why would there be a history of Christianity in India if Thomas didn't actually go there? And why would Thomas have gone there to spread the gospel if he didn't personally believe the gospel he went there to proclaim?
Since I accept the testimony of the disciples of Jesus for the reasons given above that excludes believing the claims of other religions.
I think the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is strong. I also realize that many others do not.
I've read many a version of what you believe to have happened, and of course there are all the other versions in other holy books you don't address. What to believe, what not to believe and why? Needless to say, all believers have got their version down pretty well, but how can all the contradiction and unknowns be so easily dismissed? I really don't know. Was Jesus born of a virgin? Did Jesus turn water into wine? Just as you post another comment later in this thread about the age of the earth despite what the Bible says, you seem willing to believe a good deal more in the Bible that sure seems equally suspect at best far as I'm concerned. If not more so.
I'm not one to get into all these details, like you have done. I thank you for your time and effort to explain what you do, but how you are able to dismiss what I cannot? I really don't know. Take this version of what to believe for example. What is your opinion about this? How can you be so sure any part of your version is accurate? Truly happened?
"Indeed, if you read the Gospel narratives closely, it’s not easy to say what actually happened. All four of them skip the actual Resurrection. That is, we never see Jesus waken. The first inkling of change comes when a few women close to him visit the tomb. Accounts differ on who turned up at the tomb that morning: Mary Magdalene, a close friend of Jesus, alone or with Mary, his mother, and with Salome (who is either Mary’s sister or the mother of apostles James and John).
In John’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone. To her amazement, she finds the stone rolled away. In panic, she runs to tell Peter and another (unnamed) disciple, who rush to the tomb and find it empty. They appear to think someone has stolen the body. Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene sits outside the tomb by herself, crying softly.
After a while, she walks back into the crypt, where she sees two angels in white. They speak to her, and then a mysterious figure appears at her side to ask her why she’s crying. She thinks he’s the gardener, then she recognizes the voice if not the face when he calls her by name. She cries: “Rabboni!” –in Aramaic, “teacher.” "
Since the age of the earth has been accurately and reliably dated to 4.54 billion years +/- 50 million years by radiometric dating methods, the claim that the universe is a mere 6,000 years old is ridiculous.
Radiometric dating methods have advanced over the years and are very reliable when carefully conducted by a geochronologist who uses the proper isotope for what it is he is dating and takes into account the geologic factors which could otherwise skew the results.
The Bible doesn't even say how old the earth is at any rate. Furthermore, if the earth was only 6,000 years old and the biblical flood was a couple thousand years after the creation of the earth then the flood was about 4,000 years or so ago which would mean that the flood which supposedly covered the entire earth went completely unnoticed by the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations that existed at that time.
snj90 still apparently follows Archbishop Ussher from the 1600s. Ussher concluded that creation occurred on October 23, 4004 BC at around 6 pm. I don't think he figured out if that was daylight savings time.
When it comes to claims about supernatural occurrences during past history that no one can really confirm actually occurred, how can anyone not know that these sorts of claims were quite commonplace during those times? Again one need study only a bit of history to realize how many people came to believe the most outlandish of things, often resulting in death (for themselves and/or others). How does one explain this fact away? Seems to me most people really don't bother to learn this truth about us. As if ancient testimony is somehow full-proof and true in some cases but impossible to believe in other cases.
I mentioned the example of witches being burned at the stake, for example. A good example, because those claims also involved many people truly BELIEVING what they saw. Many claiming witness to the same "black magic." A good example, because that happened only a very short time ago compared to claims going back thousands of years. How can this truth be dismissed or explained away? Did these people not truly believe what they thought they saw? Of course they did. Indeed, how many countless accounts of supernatural events have been sworn to be absolute truth but later realized to be absolute nonsense!?!
"Many of the 3,800 people were burned at the stake centuries ago."
How can anyone ignore these documented histories, countless such stories from all over the world? Ignore and/or dismiss what they tell us about how we humans came to believe all manner of truly crazy things just hundreds of years ago let along thousands of years ago? For anyone who knows anything about our history in this respect, it's more than a bit of a stretch to believe anyone rose from the dead thousands of years ago. A stretch I certainly can't make without a bit more in the way of convincing evidence. Certainly more than mere say so going back thousands of years. More than the argument "it is written." Or again what of all the rest written in all the other holy books? Also with followers to the tune of billions of people.
Clearly what we believe along these lines has something to do with other than the truth of these matters. That's the thing. That's the issue...
snj90 still apparently follows Archbishop Ussher from the 1600s. Ussher concluded that creation occurred on October 23, 4004 BC at around 6 pm. I don't think he figured out if that was daylight savings time.
Just like others who have posted in this thread and/or about this topic, there is clearly an inability to think objectively for purposes of distilling the truth from all the rest. The confirmation bias is altogether obvious and profound. The rooster causes the sun to rise when it crows sort of cause/effect logic and reason. Never mind all the facts and evidence to the contrary. An amazing dynamic to witness. An amazing history of the world. "Believe it or not..." we humans can and do believe just about anything!
I've read many a version of what you believe to have happened, and of course there are all the other versions in other holy books you don't address. What to believe, what not to believe and why? Needless to say, all believers have got their version down pretty well, but how can all the contradiction and unknowns be so easily dismissed? I really don't know. Was Jesus born of a virgin? Did Jesus turn water into wine? Just as you post another comment later in this thread about the age of the earth despite what the Bible says, you seem willing to believe a good deal more in the Bible that sure seems equally suspect at best far as I'm concerned. If not more so.
I'm not one to get into all these details, like you have done. I thank you for your time and effort to explain what you do, but how you are able to dismiss what I cannot? I really don't know. Take this version of what to believe for example. What is your opinion about this? How can you be so sure any part of your version is accurate? Truly happened?
"Indeed, if you read the Gospel narratives closely, it’s not easy to say what actually happened. All four of them skip the actual Resurrection. That is, we never see Jesus waken. The first inkling of change comes when a few women close to him visit the tomb. Accounts differ on who turned up at the tomb that morning: Mary Magdalene, a close friend of Jesus, alone or with Mary, his mother, and with Salome (who is either Mary’s sister or the mother of apostles James and John).
In John’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone. To her amazement, she finds the stone rolled away. In panic, she runs to tell Peter and another (unnamed) disciple, who rush to the tomb and find it empty. They appear to think someone has stolen the body. Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene sits outside the tomb by herself, crying softly.
After a while, she walks back into the crypt, where she sees two angels in white. They speak to her, and then a mysterious figure appears at her side to ask her why she’s crying. She thinks he’s the gardener, then she recognizes the voice if not the face when he calls her by name. She cries: “Rabboni!” –in Aramaic, “teacher.” "
I thought I explained fairly well in answer to your question regarding why I believe in God. My belief in God is based on certain historical events concerning Jesus. We know that Jesus existed and that he was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. We know that at least some of the disciples who were with Jesus during his public ministry were martyred for proclaiming the gospel. I've tried to show why the disciples had no reason to conspire that Jesus was raised from the dead if in fact he hadn't been. I've tried to show why the disciple's sightings of Jesus couldn't have been hallucinations.
You bring up the issue of contradictions in the Gospels. But contradictions and discrepancies in peripheral details of an event don't determine whether the event actually happened. The survivors of the Titanic were eyewitnesses to its sinking but they disagreed on whether the ship went down in one piece or in two pieces. But it did go down. And as it turned out, it went down in two pieces. There are three different versions of Nero's involvement or lack thereof regarding the fire that burned Rome. But there was indeed a fire despite the conflicting details.
As I pointed out, long before the Gospels or Paul's letters were written the early Christians believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Paul's pre-pauline creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 goes back to the beginning, or very close to the beginning of the church long before the discrepancies contained in the Gospels.
I don't expect you or anyone else to accept or perhaps even to understand what I've said here. I simply answered your question as to why I believe that God exists.
Just like others who have posted in this thread and/or about this topic, there is clearly an inability to think objectively for purposes of distilling the truth from all the rest. The confirmation bias is altogether obvious and profound. The rooster causes the sun to rise when it crows sort of cause/effect logic and reason. Never mind all the facts and evidence to the contrary. An amazing dynamic to witness. An amazing history of the world. "Believe it or not..." we humans can and do believe just about anything!
Your analysis employs known facts, logic, and reason to support your views. But you go off the rails by using the existence of very human flawed beliefs, illogic, and irrationality as a bludgeon against accepting any analyses that cannot quite be fit into the narrow scope of scientific validation. It does not follow that ONLY scientifically validated things are true.
Your black or white acceptance of ONLY those things that can be validated as true is beyond myopic, especially in those areas where your own knowledge is deficient. It protects your atheism but it leaves no room for "very likely true," "likely true," "quite possibly true," "might be true," or any other shades of true. We frequently have to operate on those shades of truth in this imperfect world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
