Anti-Intellectual Atheism

[Max Logan]

So first, I have no clue what I'm talking about. Then when I reply to your posts, I'm not interesting.

Yea, more likely that you're an idiot who can't argue back w/o saying "Where's your evidence?!?!?" or "Bible is a myth, so all your points go down."

if you don`t understand it, don`t bother replaying

[Max Logan]

You are not starting investigation from neutral grounds. You are starting with the belief that the book is false. This is not good history. In fact- it appears that most of your beliefs are based in unproved, unjustified presuppositions, from everything that you have said thus far.

Having said that -

Since we are currently talking about the intentions of the author- what is a better source of evidence than the work itself? Give me an example of a piece of evidence that would convince you that the author intended to write accurate history.

Its a book. And we have millions of books. What makes Bible more true? Gove EVIDENCE that supports it! Com`on, I didn`t put it that hard!

Religion, brainwash, control, power, influence - I summed it up for you! You meet 4 of the 5

[jasonlfunk]

and ur basing ur views on the assumption that the bible is correct. doing the same exact thing. Max, i would give up on jason... he is to brainwashed

I am not starting with the assumption that the bible is correct. I have arrived at the belief that the bible is correct. You must start at a neutral stance, either this book is accurate history or it is not. Max has started at he belief that it is false. Or at least refuses to reveal the evidence/train of thought he used to get from a neutral stance to a belief it was not accurate history.

I am not brainwashed. A brainwashed person has no reasons - I have reasons for what I believe, and I have provided some them - and upon asking for evidence or refutation I get - "It's a book!" "The church is all about control" "It's fake - lies". I get no answers to the questions I ask. I will pose this one last time, as clear as I can make it.

The question we are dealing with is this: is the bible (specifically the New Testament) historical? My argument is this:

1) The authors claimed to be writing history

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

2) The authors were tortured/persecuted/killed for their beliefs without ever once recanting or admitting that they were lying - even though in doing so they would have been let go.

3) Therefore it is rational to believe that the authors thought they were telling the truth. So they were either telling accurate history or they were delusional.

It would take a very committed group of con artists to pull off the scam that happened in early Christianity if it was false. You would have to find good motivations for doing it - not only just making the story up - but continuing in the lies even after they stood to gain nothing, only death.

4) If the authors were delusional then it would have been easily dismissed by the general public - for the events that they were claiming to have happened were not done in secret.
The things that they authors claimed to have happened were done in large groups, in public places. These were not conversations in hidden rooms, with a mysterious figure that the authors were claiming to have happened.

5) There is no indication that the general public did dismiss the authors accounts of history as false - in fact - many,many believed their accounts.

6) Therefore it is rational to believe that the authors were writing accurate history.


This is my argument for believing that the New Testament is accurate recorded history.

[SmarT]

you do understand that the word belief means you do not know for sure. you can not tell me 100% that the bible is true, your conclusions are assumptions. that don't mean ****

[Max Logan]

thats what I said. he just doesn`t get it.

1)what authors say doesn`t matter. they all lie

2)payback?

3)delusional

4)early history. the common people accepted anything that makes them even with the Greats

5)up

6)irrational statement

[jasonlfunk]

thats what I said. he just doesn`t get it.

1)what authors say doesn`t matter. they all lie

2)payback?

3)delusional

4)early history. the common people accepted anything that makes them even with the Greats

5)up

6)irrational statement

I'm done with this for awhile.

[jasonlfunk]

you do understand that the word belief means you do not know for sure. you can not tell me 100% that the bible is true, your conclusions are assumptions. that don't mean ****

My conclusion was NOT an assumption. I just gave you one line of reasons to get to the conclusion. By definition it is not an assumption.

[SmarT]

it is u you have no real evidence

[Mahdi]

Jasonlfunk you lost the moment you opened this thread and could not state your reasons or beliefs and back them with any kind of evidence

[pron]

He asked the opposing side to present their evidence.

Hence the thread title.