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

[Redzeppelin]

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.

I'm not quite sure it's so simple as this. During the medieval time-period in Europe, for example, Latin was the language of the educated/clerical people, and the vernacular the language of the "peasant" class. King Edward III of England spoke French to his advisors, not English. The original writers need not use the language of those they write about - they merely need be accurate in their portrayal of events/ideas. The issue is not that we have "original words" in terms of Aramaic, but that the writers who are writing had first-hand knowledge of their topic. Language is not the definitive argument against apostolic authority in the gospels.

[JBI]

They didn't - trust me. They couldn't possibly have written it in that language, and no historian today of any credibility would agree that the Gospels were written by the historic figure, if the figures ever existed. There is proof against, yet no proof for.

On that notion, the question can go further, Jesus could not have spoken the words in Greek, therefore automatically you are not hearing the word of Jesus.

Either way though, this wasn't the medieval times. People spoke and wrote in Aramaic around the land of Judah, not Greek, unless they were Greek, which the Apostles were not, and neither was Jesus.

[Redzeppelin]

They didn't - trust me. They couldn't possibly have written it in that language, and no historian today of any credibility would agree that the Gospels were written by the historic figure, if the figures ever existed. There is proof against, yet no proof for.

On that notion, the question can go further, Jesus could not have spoken the words in Greek, therefore automatically you are not hearing the word of Jesus.

Either way though, this wasn't the medieval times. People spoke and wrote in Aramaic around the land of Judah, not Greek, unless they were Greek, which the Apostles were not, and neither was Jesus.

1. If the Gospels were not written by those who either were a) apostles, or b) close associates of apostles, then the original apostles and their followers would have challenged those writings; although the Gospels did not contain the names of their writers, all of them were accepted very early on as the teachings of the apostles. The authorship of the Gospels is attested to by Irenaeus (AD 180) who was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna) who had personally been a disciple of John. Here's what Irenaeus says:

"Matthew published his Gospel among Hebrews in their own language,while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia" (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, second series, The Church History of Eusebius, by Eusebius [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004], 222.)

2. That Jesus' Aramaic words were recorded in another language does not do irreparable violence to them; if that were so, no information could be passed from one language to another at all. That, we know, is absurd. While translation alters everything to a degree, it is specifically poetry where translation does the most "violence" to meaning.

3. Since the Gospels were written as - essentially - evangelistic tools - it makes perfect sense that they would be written in languages suited to their audience; hence Matthew written in Hebrew (who was writting primarily to Jews) and Luke writing in Greek (his primary audience Greeks/gentiles). I see no problem with that.

[Pendragon]

''accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.''


Don't know why, but this has always been the pattern regardless of the religion involved. In fact, I have had this same difficulty with a pundit on this forum as well for the same reason.

Why religious pundits fail to demonstrate some measure of humility and admit that they cannot prove their contentions is beyond all reason. In fact religions like the various Christian denominations and Islam all require humility among its adherents above everything else. But ultimately, that problem is between them and their god. Or so I suppose.

If that were all it would take to convince someone, I myself will admit that I cannot prove anything. Faith and proof are not very harmonious, because what you can prove doesn't require faith. I risk everything upon things I cannot prove. Why would I do this? You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

[The Atheist]

If that were all it would take to convince someone, I myself will admit that I cannot prove anything. Faith and proof are not very harmonious, because what you can prove doesn't require faith.

Now I remember what it is about you I like so much - honesty.



I dunno whether you're familiar with Rowan Williams, but I am a huge fan of the man. When theologians can combine common sense, honesty and faith, the result is a pretty damn good argument in favour of religion on its own right.

I suspect you and Rowan are kindred spirits.

In the end, if religionistas would stick to that kind of sentiment, and this kind of sentiment, I doubt many atheists would attack religion at all.

You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

C S Lewis? Who was it said that?

I don't agree with this at all - it's just scare tactics. It suggests that a vacuum of ideology creates a blank page for other, worse ideology.

It might do that, just as worship can encourage religious mania, but it isn't necessarily the case.

[weltanschauung]

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.

awsesome, this.

"suppose for a second one of us could have created an ephemeral being, and that "he" (that one of us) could have told him (the ephemeral being): creature of mine, adore-me! the poor little animal then ventured some thoughtless flights, died at the end of the day and a necromancer said to him : pour a drop of your own blood and i'll ressurect you.
the man pricks himself - we would all do the same thing in his place - and he is ressurected. what will the creator do? - what "he" will do, i'll tell you - says a faithful fanatic. since the ephemeral being, in his first life, didnt have the cleverness or foolishness to adore "him", "he" would light an incredible bonfire and in it "he" will throw the ephemeral one, lamenting not being able to keep him alive in the midst of the flames, so that "he" could burn him eternally! - well, then, everyone will say, there isnt such furious madness that could be so cowardly or evil as this! - i beg you pardon, vulgar christians, the creator in question couldn't have existed, i agree; however, he does, in your imagination only, you who are so cowardly and cruel. this is your god, just as you explain it to me, and is of him that proudhon was a million times correct to profess: god is evil."

[JBI]

Or one could take it from the other side, and take the Leopardi approach.

Leopardi writes in his Zibaldone on the Christian morality of the after life, and how it relates to the role of the mother. The mother, if she wants her children to be good Christians, and to go to the afterlife, naturally must want her Children to die quickly. Sickness becomes a blessing, as it enables her Children to die quickly, and therefore lose any chance of sinning, and not making the cut to heaven. Naturally she will wish them to die, but realizes they cannot kill themselves. When they die, naturally she must rejoice, as they are then in paradise. If they recover, she must be saddened to an extent, because they are offered a chance at sinning again.


In other words, once you dunk em in the water, hope they die.

Morality - yeah right. To what extent can we push this? If a man is having an affair, does it become a blessing to the man if the woman dies, thereby relieving him of his desire for sin? If someone is rich, are they naturally less sinful, because they have no desire for their poor person's status? To what extent can we pursue these questions? To what extent is Christian morality moral?

God may not be evil, but according to Christianity, Evil is Good, and man is Evil.

[weltanschauung]

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

[The Atheist]

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

Can't argue with that.

[Redzeppelin]

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?

[JBI]

Honestly Redzepplin you do realize how ironic your quote in your signature is, simply because the Sun Rise is a mere optical illusion - it doesn't actually rise.

[Redzeppelin]

Honestly Redzepplin you do realize how ironic your quote in your signature is, simply because the Sun Rise is a mere optical illusion - it doesn't actually rise.

My friend, do you really want to get into a discussion of the accuracy of language and the conventions of language we use in daily communication? Really? Who in this world says "Honey, let's go watch the earth rotation this evening?"? How utterly romantic. Come on - do you really wish to split this kind of hair with me?

The obvious: The term "sun rise" is an convention we use to describe what we see - it's not meant to be a scientific term. Relative to our position on earth, the sun appears to rise (are we really having this discussion?) and it's a convention of our language to refer to it thusly. Technically, since the earth is revolving at roughly 1000 MPH, I'm never really "standing still" either - right?

As such - though it makes me sound like a humorless bore (which I suspect I am), I will contend that Lewis's usage is non-ironic.

Thanks for noticing...

[JBI]

I know, but it is ironic, being that science has wiped out our belief in the rising of the ssun (Eos). I just couldn't help but find that funny, as this optical illusion transferring over to his belief, interpreted in one way, makes the line making him look utterly quixotic.

[Redzeppelin]

I know, but it is ironic, being that science has wiped out our belief in the rising of the ssun (Eos). I just couldn't help but find that funny, as this optical illusion transferring over to his belief, interpreted in one way, makes the line making him look utterly quixotic.

All this simply means that you bypassed everything I said about language. Lewis's line is only ironic if he actually believes the "sun rises" as opposed to knowing that the phrase "sun rise" is a convention. Your point is only ironic because you've decided to split hairs on how our language conventions work.

Glad you got a laugh out of it.

[NikolaiI]

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

As far as I can tell the basis of morality is empathy. I know it's painful to be insulted, and so I don't insult- I know the pain of being pricked with a pin, so I don't want anyone else to be pricked either. Someone who's never been pricked doesn't know what the feeling is.