Atheists and the argument of faith...?

Question

One has to be very careful in defining one's terms. Faith can mean many things to many people. The Bible (and therefore Christianity, if applied properly) doesn't use the term in the way you describe above. the most common synonym for the Biblical version of faith is "trust". One can say "I have faith in the President, that he'll do the right thing". This statement correctly uses the word faith, but doesn't fit into the "conclusion not based on material evidence..." definition. One makes the above statement based on his knowledge of the President's past choices, but it ultimately is a matter of trust. The Bible asks you to not believe blindly, but "test all things, hold fast to that which is good." (1 Thess 5:21) there is no objective test for God. But, there is no objective test where I worked in NY yesterday, just anecdotal evidence. By that I mean one cannot apply the "scientific method" of hypothesis, testing, data recording, and analysis to my claim of working yesterday in NY.

One can, however, look logically at the proposal of the existence of God (i.e. "if there is a Creator, then we would expect Him to be more complex than his creation", etc.) and follow that line of reasoning while examining the world's religious texts to see which logically follow. If God did exist, and He created beings with the capacity of knowing Him, then we would expect Him to communicate with them in some form. The Bible is the only religious text that I've found to reveal God consistently in this way.
The Bible is comprised of 66 independent books, written by real people, recalling events as they saw them or were reported to them. In today's courts, diaries are admissible as testimony and evidence. These are also a recounting of historical events not that long after they occurred. In some cases, the writings appeared only 30-50 years after the events themselves. This would mean that many people would still be alive to corroborate or disprove the claims made in the New Testament.

All literary critics of ancient manuscripts still follow Aristotle's Dictum which John Warwick Montgomery states is "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself". In other words, unless the document exhibits internal contradictions, or factual inaccuracies (i.e. the Eiffel Tower was built in London) the document is to be presumed true and the burden is on the critic to prove otherwise.

The Bible contains thousands of historical references, none of which have been found false. This fact is so overwhelming, it caused the great archaeologist William F. Albright to say "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source o

One of my purposes in this ministry is to allow you to objectively examine the claims of Christianity. The point we haven't covered may be the most important one of all. Everything that Jesus said or did, including His death, was validated at the resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is a historical fact. Because Jesus is not dead, His statements are no longer considered merely one man's opinion, but the truth. The antidote illustration is still functional here. As a Christian, I believe I know of a cure for not only society's ills, but for man's eternal destiny. Shouldn't I do everything in my power to try and convince people that it works? I don't believe in forcing beliefs upon anyone, for that is contradictory anyway. But, I do think that Christianity is logical, and should be allowed to be examined as such in the marketplace of ideas.

:-) Any atheist on board with an intelligent response for debate?

I hope was hoping for some real debate, unfortunately, no one has yet to respond accordingly. Oh well... done with checking answers. :)

DuckPhup- I can just see you now scrambling on the internet trying to find it! very funny...however does that make a difference in relation to the issue?:)

Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago:

Answer 1

Oh dear, another 12 year old who found out how to cut and paste.

Answer 2

I'm not sure what your question actually is, but I will address some of your points. You are right that Christians give a different definition of the word faith than is commonly used; they do this with many words, including proof.
As for evidence that you worked in NY yesterday, there are many ways to find evidence and proof of that. Chances are, your employer keeps a log of people who come to work. Your coworkers undoubtedly saw you and can give testimony.
Depending on where you work, you may have been videotaped in your office. If you bought your lunch, there may be credit card receipts. All this data can be collected and analysed and conclusions drawn. The most likely explanation would be that you went to work.
Belief in Christianity requires that one accept certain ideas as fact. One must accept that Christ rose from the dead. Other than a few people who claimed to see him afterward--people who had a vested interest in making this true--there is no proof or evidence to support this. Use Occam's Razor. What is more likely--that someone rose from the dead, or that the body was stolen and followers tried to justify their beliefs by claiming he rose from the dead?
One must accept that the Bible is true. There is no basis for this fact. Many, many ancient writings exist; many were believed at the time they were written but are accepted as works of fiction or mythology now. The Bible is just such a document. Most of the books of the New Testament were written decades after the death of Christ, by people who never even met him. The Gospel of Luke was written by someone who wasn't even there. As for being able to dispute the claims of these writings at the time....most of them had a very small area of circulation. Much of the New Testament was written in form of letters. It is unlikely that more than a few dozen people saw them during Paul's lifetime, maybe a few hundred. By the time the New Testament was created, 300 years later, there was no one left alive to debate the truth or fiction of these events.
One must accept that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a virgin. Once again, Occam's Razor must be applied here. What is more likely: an angel came down and impregnated a young girl with the essence of god, or a young woman being forced into an arranged marriage with a much older man who she likely had never even met had a relationship with someone else and ended up pregnant and needed to cover it up? Given that the second scenario happens pretty much everyday (with certain changes like a lack of forced marriages in our culture), I am forced to conclude that the second is far more likely.
If I am not willing to accept these ideas (which I am not, since there is no true evidence), how can I accept Christianity? The answer is that I can't. I am a rational person. I cannot accept that something is true just because someone wants me to believe it and tells me to have faith. I need proof, and there simply isn't any to be had.

Answer 3

Yes, you try to make a good arguement. But your logic is flawed and biased by your beliefs. The first point that stands out is the one you made about "god" makeing man and haveing a way to communicate with him. The last time I checked, there is no reliable way to communicate with him. I and many other people have tried from the heart, with two and more gathered, with the "Lord's prayer" formula as well as free form selfless prayer for someone else in need. None of which have yielded any results that constitute an actual answer. So your statement is false reguarding communication with "god". Also, no one has proven that Jesus ever came back from the dead. Just because it was written about in the bible, doesn't mean that's proof to anyone who finds the bible to be full of lies and impossibilities.

Answer 4

You seem to have a very analytical understanding of the Bible and your faith, and I applaud you for that. The issue here in these forums isn't an issue of you defining your faith. Rather too many times, religious people try to prove their faith or prove the existence of their God using circular logic. I can say for sure that many religious people don't have the same understanding you do.

Yes there is no way to objectively test God. That is true. So why must the religious right impose their "logic" in a science class room in which objectivity is key?

Answer 5

So... you are plagarizing... copy-and-paste from a Liars Fro Jesus (LFJ) web site... http://www.comereason.org/exst_god/exs040.asp... (Answering an Atheist)... without giving credit.

Apart from the fact that what you plagarized is incredibly lame, and is riddled with lies, misconceptions and logical fallacies, it gets interesting where it says: "One can, however, look logically at the proposal of the existence of God (i.e. "if there is a Creator, then we would expect Him to be more complex than his creation", etc.) and follow that line of reasoning..."

That statement introduces a 'fatal flaw' into the arguments, by inferring that the 'complexity' of creation demands a more complex 'creator'.

The main argument for a creator seems to be 'complexity'; i.e., something as complex as the universe and the earth and life must have a creator... it is the only thing that makes sense. But, if you think about it (Christians are not renowned for their critical thinking ability), it makes no sense at all.

The argument implies that a complex creation requires that the creator must be more complex than the creation... otherwise, the creator would have been unable to create it. But IF complexity requires a more complex creator, THEN the fact of the creator's complexity means that it must also have been created. Remember, according to this argument, complexity cannot arise by itself. That being the case, then, we end up with an infinite regression... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... etc... ad infinitum... ad nauseum.

That, of course, is impossible... and thus, so is the concept of a creator... IF the argument for a creator is predicated on 'complexity'.

The simple observable fact, though, is that complexity arises from simplicity, in accordance with elementary natural rules.

Interested parties should look up "self-organizing complex systems".

Answer 6

Isn't that what faith is, the belief in things unseen? You have faith whether you want to admit it or not. Whether it is only in yourself or others. Why does it bother you so much? Are you asking for help in this or just proof that you are better and smarter than those of us that believe in God? I hope you are not an admirer of people like Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandella, George Washington, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur or even Charles Darwin, for they were all great men of faith in God. Be careful of ridiculing others for their beliefs, they just might have something you don't. Learn from them, allow yourself to be open to all possibilities, don't let a few bad examples turn you away from anyone or anything. By doing so, you are all the better for it and even if you don't accept their beliefs; you just might make some great relationships. May the God I believe in Bless you.

Answer 7

Circular logic, full of fallacies. When you get right down to it, the bible cannot be proven. It was manmade.

The ressurection of Christ is a historical fact!?!?!?!?

LOL, I haven't seen any empiracle evidence yet, you are basing your argument for validation of the bible on the bible, you are "begging the question".

Answer 8

Dude, didn't you run out of points already? All you question about are the life choices of Atheists. Does that mean that you're really questioning about your own life choices?

Get a ******' life dude.

Answer 9

You wrote - The resurrection of Christ is a historical fact.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

Where's the actual documented empirical proof?

Answer 10

Which bible? Yours?