Is Atheism Irrational?

[Andyregs]

'Ang on! You accept what the Koran says about Jesus even though it was written some 650 years later?

 

God no. But it has a different version of events. So does that make the written word untrustworthy. You put a trust in the written word, and two people have two contrasting written accounts of the same person. So if either are to claim there's is true something more is needed surely?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Criteria for accepting the written word as historically accurate has been debated for a loooong time with regard to the Bible

 

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gp/gp1_authenticity_stein.pdf

 

The same applies to much of non-Biblical history where there are not 'official' records. Accounts iof events often rely on eye witness accounts or someone else writing up an eye witness account and often bringing many accounts together years after the event. But of course the events described are, shall we say, more normal so are more easy to accept, need less verification

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Much historical documentation widely accepted as true has not or cannot be proven to be true..Egyptian history, early Roman history...multiple often conflicting accounts written well after the events occurred but after much study some are accepted as accurate

 

You can't apply the same criteria to such documents as are applied to contemporary official records yet they are widely acdepted as true or accurate or reliable. It's the content of the Bible and what it's claimed it is that makes it different, not how, who by nor when it was written. Indeed we are finding more historical and archaelogical(?) records to help verify Bible records/events all the time.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The books that went into the Bible were the ones that God wanted included to convey his message..he left out an awful lot that was not needed to achieve his goals.

 

At least that's what I understand

[Jacko51]

But you fail to give due recognition to the fact that the culture at that time relied very much, almost totally, on word of mouth.

 

But the majority of Jews who were alive at the time of Jesus' ministry and crucifixtion who were surely in the best position to judge these stories, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Do you believe that Jesus' intention was to start a new religion or fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament and be revealed as the Messiah? If the former, why do the Gospels claim that he followed the OT prophecies if they were irrelevant to his purpose? If the latter, why were those best placed to realise he was the Messiah, his contemporaries, doubt him at all?

 

There are many many examples of ancient historical writings, which relied on word of mouth, being totally inaccurate. If you read the works of Herodotus, for example, he tells us that the pyramids were built from the top downwards and gives interesting details about the amount of onions and radishes consumed by the builders He tells us that the force which Xerxes brought across the Hellespont in his invasion of Greece was over 3 million!

[Tone]

But the majority of Jews who were alive at the time of Jesus' ministry and crucifixtion who were surely in the best position to judge these stories, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Do you believe that Jesus' intention was to start a new religion or fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament and be revealed as the Messiah? If the former, why do the Gospels claim that he followed the OT prophecies if they were irrelevant to his purpose? If the latter, why were those best placed to realise he was the Messiah, his contemporaries, doubt him at all?

 

Jesus clearly said that he came to fulfill prophecy (Matthew 5:17) but that very prophecy states that he would be rejected (Isaiah 6:9-10, 8:14 amongst many) but it was the leaders who lead the rejection, because as Jesus told them (as well as calling them a brood of vipers) that their "hearts were hardened". But in Acts 2 it is recorded that 3,000 joined the church that very day.

 

There are many many examples of ancient historical writings, which relied on word of mouth, being totally inaccurate. If you read the works of Herodotus, for example, he tells us that the pyramids were built from the top downwards and gives interesting details about the amount of onions and radishes consumed by the builders He tells us that the force which Xerxes brought across the Hellespont in his invasion of Greece was over 3 million!

 

So should historians dismiss all writings such as these, and others, in their entirety?

[Jacko51]

Jesus clearly said that he came to fulfill prophecy (Matthew 5:17) but that very prophecy states that he would be rejected (Isaiah 6:9-10, 8:14 amongst many) but it was the leaders who lead the rejection, because as Jesus told them (as well as calling them a brood of vipers) that their "hearts were hardened". But in Acts 2 it is recorded that 3,000 joined the church that very day.

 

 

 

So should historians dismiss all writings such as these, and others, in their entirety?

 

Of course not, but nor should they take them at face value, especially when the claims of the writings are so beyond anything in normal human experience.

[Tone]

Of course not, but nor should they take them at face value, especially when the claims of the writings are so beyond anything in normal human experience.

 

True, but how else would people in those times convey their witnessing miracles?

[Jacko51]

True, but how else would people in those times convey their witnessing miracles?

 

Were they miracles though? Was Methusala really 969 years old - it says it in the Bible so are we to believe it?

[Tone]

Were they miracles though? Was Methusala really 969 years old - it says it in the Bible so are we to believe it?

 

Two different subjects, but there were witnesses to miracles. If I didn't believe them, not least of all the Resurrection, I would not have a faith. The age of many Old Testament characters can be debated. Nobody has proven to me that Methusala wasn't 969 when he died. But that issue is not fundamental to my belief nor to the existence of God for the sake of this discussion.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Of course not, but nor should they take them at face value, especially when the claims of the writings are so beyond anything in normal human experience.

 

And much/most of the Bible is not taken at face value by historians..much archaelogical research has taken place and is on going which has found texts to verfiy sections of the Bible, to find ancient sites/places mentioed and long since forgotten/abandoned and so on. there is a huge effort that goes into trying to find historical info that backs up (or contradicts) the Bible.

[Andyregs]

Jesus clearly said that he came to fulfill prophecy (Matthew 5:17) but that very prophecy states that he would be rejected (Isaiah 6:9-10, 8:14 amongst many) but it was the leaders who lead the rejection, because as Jesus told them (as well as calling them a brood of vipers) that their "hearts were hardened". But in Acts 2 it is recorded that 3,000 joined the church that very day.

 

 

 

So should historians dismiss all writings such as these, and others, in their entirety?

 

What about the prophecies that weren't fulfilled?

 

And if you don't dismiss them, they are still not evidence of extraordinary events on their own.

[Tone]

What about the prophecies that weren't fulfilled?

 

And if you don't dismiss them, they are still not evidence of extraordinary events on their own.

 

Perhaps they are yet to be fulfilled? Which ones in particular?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

History the further you go back is a bu**er..King Arthur, the native tribes of Britain..all sorts of things..there is not definitive proof but mucho evidence with more and more being sought and found. But they are not dismissed despite there being no absolute proof..it's almost like on balance given the evidence is 'it' true.

 

The Bible represents a special challenge becasue of the extraordinary events that it claims as true..or rather it's believers claim as true..apart form that it's not much different to any other historical document

[Warren]

I see it as quite a big problem in science that cause is looked at from bottom up. So its all electrons etc or evolution can have occurred entirely randomly given enough time. Top down causality is being underestimated or understated as a possibility. For example (from Through the Wormhole TV series) a choir can be looked at as being led by a conductor and it can be argued that its his brain's electrons etc that are producing his actions and the electrons of the brains of the rest of the choir are reacting. All bottom up. Or it can be accepted that cannot explain alone the coordination that the conductor is able to bring and why when he stops conducting the whole coordination and tunefulness of the choir disintegrates. There must be and is some top down causality (what we might call mind and also heart) in addition to the bottom up physics. At universe level, given our current understanding, it is from a research perspective wrong to dismiss the idea of top down causation and the different degrees to which it is needed. The research needs to continue at all levels of scientific study.