List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

[NikolaiI]

Depends which version you're reading!

Really good point.

I know so little about things, I now realize. I haven't learned anything about the Big Bang for years, so I am for sure behind the curve. And I was trying to read about Quantum Mechanics, but it is so incredibly complicated. Still it's fascinating to me, and I love to read about it. My first thought when you mentioned it before was about the many-worlds interpretation, which I read more about, but I realize it might simply be too far beyond me for me to really understand it at all.

But when I first read about the many-worlds interpretation it was really intruiging. The idea, as I undrstand it, is that every possibility exists in a hypothetical universe. So there are infinite hypothetical universes, but only one main real one. Or there is an idea that all exist, but simply not to us. It's very fascinating to me. And the other thing I get from quantum mechanics is that at the smallest level, things cannot be measured linearally, things cannot be understood by phsyics which describe larger objects.

I could be misundrstanding it, since it seems like an incredibly complex process, but this reminds me of the buddhist idea that at the core, there is no deep essence or reality. It means that all things exist, but they are not actually things. Every form's natural state is emptiness, so therefore form equals emptiness, and emptiness equals form. This means that all things are alike, and that no thing exists independently of other things. Buddhists had these ideas philosophically, but actually Buddhists spoke of things like the atom, and even Hindus do, both, in scriptures, as far as I know long before the West ever knew of them.

[Redzeppelin]

Zep, that is exactly what I have believed and thought and never really formulated into a well thought process for the longest time. That was so well said that it needs to be copied and saved. I intend to copy that post and save it into my word files. Thanks.

It is an honor to have you speak so highly of something that I was afraid was phrased so poorly because I was composing in a hurry. Thank you so much for your kind words - they mean much. I have tremendous respect for you as a poster and such praise is not lightly taken.

Cheers

[PierreGringoire]

For why I believe in God, I will simply say this, and it's the most important statement I'll ever make. I, as a limited, living entity, can recognize the existence of the infinite in my life. I can recognize that I am limited, and I exist between two poles, which I call the infinite, and nothingness. Now I know with everything in me that I am part of this infinite. I can turn towards it and become like it; yet even if I did not, I could not escape it, since it is my source. Thus, no one can or will ever die. Not that we will necessarily have memory of our past lives, so don't worry aobut perpetual torment. But in fact, everything dissolves into this infinite. It makes sense according to reason. There is reason, but reason exists in the same way. All things are forms, which have their Ideal and Perfection in the Infinite.

This is the only tenable philosophy. And it's a joyous one. For when you truly understand this, then you'll get any philosophy that people can write about. There's nothing higher than this, simply recognizing the infinite in one's life, and turning toward it to try to understand it. We experience deja vu and coincidence, but there's no such thing as either; they are merely indications or clues to a higher plan. But we can turn toward the infinite and discover it within ourselves, discover that we are eternal; and this is basically the basis of all metaphysics or mysticism

1) If a soul is stuck between two polar opposite, one containing infinite essence and the other containing nothingness won't some go up and others go down?
2) Your Philosophy of Oneness sometimes can seem a little vague. According to your philosophy, there are different realms. I can only recognize two -- the spirtual -- and then the material. When an individual says "I am one" as he would in meditation would he picture himself at entire unity with the spiritual realm? Or at entire unity with the spiritual and a material realm?

Each one of these realms give off different energies Its a deep philosophy and a very attractive one. Your general consistency in these forums makes it even more so. But sometimes it seems so elusive. Is there any good books you can recommend for beginners?

[JBI]

Actually, a while back a study was done to test the effects of praying on the sick, and the results showed that when someone was told they were being prayed for, their chances of recovery were worse. I know Dawkins mentions it in his book, though I haven't read his book from cover to cover, or much less chapter to chapter, but the citation of the experiment is still there.

The effects of prayers had only psychological results, resulting in a lesser rate of recovery, because of the patients fear of the seriousness of his illness. The phenomenon of praying for someone helping them recover is mere rhetoric - it doesn't help. If we pray for someone, and they recover, chances are they recover because of a scientific reason - their body accepted the treatment, or the surgeon cut out all the cancer with his knife, or some other convenience. Not because of religious reasons.

[JBI]

Tell me, if someone is mentality retarded, that is, has an IQ of, lets say, 50. Does that mean in heaven he has the same IQ?

What if someone is Blind in the real life? Can he see in heaven?

What if I have a wife, and I die, and she remarries? Do I get to be with her in heaven, or the other guy?

What about age? Does a dead infant ever grow up in heaven?

The concept of heaven is a little vague. It logically makes no sense, and I think most of us get our idea of it in one way or another from Dante. But what of the real questions?
Is a crippled person crippled in heaven? Is a person in pain his whole life in pain in heaven?

The theological oneness offers no real explanation. The oblivion I will end up in sounds more reasonable.

But I guess you can pray for an afterlife, though I guess one you cannot really understand. I'd rather sleep in on Sundays.

[bazarov]

I'd love to hear more details. I've investigated lots of allegedly miraculous medical cures and none of them have been very convincing.

You'll get PM shortly.

Depends which version you're reading!

You're kidding me...again.

[NikolaiI]

1) If a soul is stuck between two polar opposite, one containing infinite essence and the other containing nothingness won't some go up and others go down?
2) Your Philosophy of Oneness sometimes can seem a little vague. According to your philosophy, there are different realms. I can only recognize two -- the spirtual -- and then the material. When an individual says "I am one" as he would in meditation would he picture himself at entire unity with the spiritual realm? Or at entire unity with the spiritual and a material realm?

Each one of these realms give off different energies Its a deep philosophy and a very attractive one. Your general consistency in these forums makes it even more so. But sometimes it seems so elusive. Is there any good books you can recommend for beginners?

I wouldn't say the individual is ever at entire unity with the spiritual or material realm. The spiritual realm is all about God. From the top to the bottom it is full of God, revealed, known and praised by all. The material world is more covered. Some people believe in God but many questions are unanswered. Many people don't believe in God. But we have been here for so long. Every one of us has committed crimes, but also not one of us has not been a saint. The only way we can discontinue our existence here is to surrender wholly to God. God is the only one who can take us out of here. Once we go back to God, however we never fall down again into desires.

[The Atheist]

You'll get PM shortly.

Thanks!

You're kidding me...again.

I wish I were.

The differences between different editions of the bible is quite stark, even though lots of times the changes are subtle. Some churches still swear the KJV is the only correct version of the bible, while others seem to have made stuff up completely. I usually use the RCC version for accuracy as they've got by miles the largest biblical scholarship and have a much longer history than all the others (barring Orthodox), but even then there's disagreement from scholars and historians - and that's before you get to the Apocrypha...

[togre]

Just a quick fact check-- There is a vast degree of scholarly certainty as to the text of the Bible in the original languages. The two critical editions (editions that check all manuscript evidence, examine any differences and evaluate which are more likely to be original) of the Greek New Testament are in virtual agreement on what the original text is. The scholarship of these two editions (one edited by Nestle`& Aland and United Bible Societies 4th Ed.) is without equal and have verified the text of the autographs with an accuracy unequaled with any other ancient writings. The standard critical edition of the Hebrew Old Testament, Biblia Hebraica Stuitgartensia (BHS) has a less impressive manuscript selection to choose from (many Hebrew manuscripts were burned by Romans, Christians and Muslims) yet also provides an incredible accurate manuscript. It's accuracy has been demostrated and strengthened with the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts.

So all translations start with the same things.

Yes, translation is in some part interpretation. Yes there are different schools of thought as to whether a translation should strive to preserve the verbage of the original at the expense of readabilty or go for flowing prose with more interpretation/sacrifice of accuracy. But (and I belong to as by-the-Book group as you could find) the majority of translations even with weaknesses say exactly the same thing 99% of the time. If you found someone without a dog in the fight you could have them determine the accuracy of a translation. We are not reduced to "does it say this or that?" ever because of uncertainty caused by a poor text or translation issues.

Now agreeing whether or not the original is true/God's Word is another matter, one that transcends scholarship.

[The Atheist]

Just a quick fact check-- There is a vast degree of scholarly certainty as to the text of the Bible in the original languages.

I think treatment of the Apocrypha alone refutes that.

Even with a 95-99% commonality, there is still lots of room to move, and as far as scholarly agreement goes, I suggest you need to look at some secular work on the bible which tends to show that some parts have been mistranslated.

Huge subject, and not one which I'm an expert on, but I'm relying on the evidence presented by a historian member of the Royal Society and a couple of other bible scholars. If you want to pursue the idea that the differences are negligible, here's a good place to start.

[togre]

Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible. A look at the history of it, the manner in which Jerome and other early translator included with their translations of Scripture but not as Scripture only as other "good writings" as well as the exclusion of Apocrypha from lists of canonical books in the early church, not even to mention the contents of the Apocrypha, which I agree are not entirely harmonious with the Bible.

As far as the 99% commonality--I have studied the entirety of the Gospels in Greek and a majority of the Epistles in Greek, my studies in Hebrew are not as extensive, but I would estimate I have read 30-60% of the Old Testament in the original. I have found maybe 2 cases where the manuscript evidence was not clearly in favor of a specific reading of the original and where the difference changed the meaning of the passage (99% of differences are 1 letter, a past tense or present tense, the word 'said' vs the word 'speak' or other minuscule things that in a less important document would be totally ignored). Even in these cases, where the meaning of the specific passage could be changed, the unified teaching of Scripture was not affected by either possible text.

Secular work on the Bible usually has an axe to grind. But usually the difference isn't the translation of the text itself but rather the idea that there is a different, older text that we don't have that we have to get at through cutting and pasting the existing text. If I have missed your point, please provide specifics and I will be happy to respond to them.

Also, I followed your link. Is your suggestion simply to engage in discussion on that forum or was there a specific thread you felt would benefit me?

[Redzeppelin]

Bravo, togre. I don't read those languages, so I'm stuck reading other commentators, but what I've read verifies what you say. The number of extant NT texts in the original languages is exceeding large (either 1500 or 5500 - not near my source) and covering a short length of time (something like 50-100 years); whereas something like The Odyssey has far fewer texts over a much longer span of time. The larger the number over the shorter time span the more accurately a text can be checked and verified. As well, scholars have indicated that the texts agree 99.5% of the time, and the areas that do not agree have zero effect on the actual theology (i.e. minor variants in spelling, etc).

The OT is in just as good a shape: the rules for translating texts are exceedingly strict in the Jewish community - and the Dead Sea scrolls confirmed that the OT is also extremely accurate in its transmission through the centuries.

Secular scholars definitely have an agenda and axe to grind when it comes to criticizing the Bible - but it's cohesion and integrity stand up.

[The Atheist]

Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible.

Don't the Orthodox and RC churches have differing treatment of Apocrypha? I'll gladly retract that if I'm wrong, but I'm operating on memory of many years ago when I looked into it myself.

In terms of the harmony with the rest of the bible, I've seen arguments for and against what you're saying, but I have no idea, having only read translations.

Secular work on the Bible usually has an axe to grind.

And religious ones don't?

Also, I followed your link. Is your suggestion simply to engage in discussion on that forum or was there a specific thread you felt would benefit me?

You'd need to talk to some of the people there - start a thread. When it comes to translations, I can only go with what I'm told.

I've probably muddied the waters with the Apocrypha comment, but the main issue with the bible is not what it says in the original texts, or even which texts are used, but how it's interpreted and re-written for 21st century readers & audiences. Even whether it's taken literally or figuratively isn't agreed on by any kind of consensus that I can see. (in number of churches, because the biggest by far - the RCC - is not biblically literalist)

Christianity's views on the same book range from liberal Anglicanism - which several Anglican bishops agree comes under the broad heading of agnosticism - through the RCC to fundamental bible literalists who insist the earth is 6012 (or some equally-absurd number) of years old to Fred Phelps to Jehovah's Witnesses and everything inbetween.

It interests me that you feel there's great consensus on the book. That being so, why isn't that consensus apparent? Different sects teach entirely different things about identical passages. Even whether Jesus own ressurrection was corporeal or not doesn't have a consensus, which I find a little surprising, him being god and all.

That's the problem, not what Josephus was rumoured to have said in 36 AD, or whether the Jews were really slaves in Egypt. The past is long gone, but the way the bible is interpreted by various churches often bears no relation to other sects, today.

[islandclimber]

Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible.

I'm confused here.. How does the apocrypha change nothing?? Of course it is not regarded in the same way as the canonical books of the bible.. but many versions of the bible contain different apocryphal texts... Secondly, some of the books Eastern Orthodox Christians accept as Canonical, Roman Catholics and Protestants consider to be Pseudepigraphical... and the apocrypha varies by branch as well.. so I am not sure how you qualify your above statement that everyone agrees on what is canonical and what is apocryphal in the Scriptures... that is a completely unfounded statement...

Second, the New Testament took quite some time to take the form it has taken today.. It wasn't even the first set of Christian scriptures to appear... That distinction would belong to Marcion's Canon from the supposed heretic and gnostic Marcion of Sinope... and he entirely rejected the old testament, claiming it was not in the slightest compatible with the teachings of Christ (and I must say I agree to an extent)... It was emerging Proto-Orthodoxy that took a position againts Marcion and the other developing gnostic Christian branches...

I don't feel like spending too much time on this but you have the Muratorian Canon, the Diatessaron (which came from the syrian church and was the first real proto-orthodox development of a canon), the canons of those famed Christian scholars Origen and Irenaeus... Irenaeus' argument for a 4 gospel canon included the statement that because the world they lived in was divided into 4 zones it only made sense that there were 4 gospels, no more, no less... how compelling Clement of Alexandria freely accepted apocryphal gospels as scripture.. he practically made use of an open canon... and so on and so forth (Eusebius, The Synod of Laodicea, Amphilochius, Jerome, Augustine), and this doesn't even mention the development of the Eastern Canon, The Pe****ta, the Armenian Canon, the East African canon... also it wasn't even until the protestant reformation that the Roman Catholic Church even really officially defined the biblical canon... and I have only barely touched upon it all... I took several courses on this in University as I find it quite interesting to see how this incredible work(for the bible really is quite incredible) was developed, how it was molded and shaped and transformed over the centuries into what is commonly accepted today...

So, even neglecting translation issues which I find to be a much smaller fish to fry, there are huge differences between branches of Christianity on what is accepted as Canonical and what is not, and there is an immensely long progression of changes to the New Testament throughout the history of Christianity,.,

[JBI]

There's the translation issue, and the text issue. The text of the Old Testament was pastiched from various texts, and oral components over many years. there is no doubt some sort of "textual corruption" from the original. In fact, various books have been discovered containing older variations or older versions of the texts. The definitive Hebrew only exists because of, I would argue, Jewish Scholarship insisting it exists. We can thank Rabbi Akiva for the whole Torah fencing, insisting it be studied in the original.

The new Testament is stranger. I don't think you can get any serious theologian or historian to agree that the apostles were actually written by people who knew Jesus. The simple proof is that they aren't written in Aramaic, rendering any claims of "original words" unlikely, as Aramaic was the tongue of the land of Judah at the time.