I'm really grateful for this discussion. More than anything, it's taught me about myself, my tolerance levels and my inadequacies in expressing myself clearly. This has pushed me to read deeper into my favourite subject, uncovering more facts and surprise twists. It's been really enjoyable.
Our debate has helped with my thought processes and given me time to reflect on the important things in life such as honesty, truth, beauty, and the love of exposing bullshit. Thanks @abolitionist.
If you want to catch up with the debate so far, the previous episode is here.
Ok, so all the semantic-pedantic circular avoid-the-real-subject word-games – I've answered repeatedly in different ways to help you understand, but for old times' sake, just one last time...
Any 'truth' that has been viewed through the lens of a totalitarian ideology (such as religious dogma) is in danger of being warped. There's an agenda. They're selling you something.
If God has not spoken clearly, we can't actually know anything.
Do you think your god has spoken clearly? Take Christianity, for example. How many versions of Christianity have there been over the years? How many are there now? Surely, if the god had spoken clearly, there'd be only ONE.
The problem with Mark...
Most scholars, since the 19th century, agree this was the first gospel to be written, around 70 C.E., as a 3-act drama. They also believe it to be the work of an unknown writer. Early Christian sects thought that using names of Jesus' disciples would lend more credibility to this anonymous gospel writing. No EVIDENCE whatsoever of divine intervention.
As early as 1901, scholars argued that Mark was an artificial construct whose purpose was to present a theological message rather than history.
Lots of scholars think this:
Bart D. Ehrman, Chair of Dept. Religious Studies, University of North Carolina. See: Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (2005). Awesome book!
Dr Mitchell G Reddish, professor and chair of Dept. of Religious Studies, Stetson University. See: An Introduction To The Gospels.
E. P. Sanders, Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, England; Arts & Sciences professor, Duke University, North Carolina. See: The Historical Figure of Jesus (1995)
Dr Richard Carrier, PhD Ancient History. See: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might have Reason for Doubt.
...and many many more. Google it.
So, there's plenty of evidence for you to work with. Now it's your turn to provide EVIDENCE Mark is who you say he is.
I'm sorry you can't trust your senses, Abo. That must be an awfully confusing way to live a life. I wish you a speedy recovery.
It's also clear you can't answer the questions which is why you need to avoid them with word games and philosophy. Poor you.
If atheism is true, I don't see any reason to assume that "place" is a relevant concept, because I don't see any reason to assume that senses or brains are reliable, so...
Are you saying you need ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that your entire world would fall apart if the bible turns out to be nonsense? No wonder you cling so desperately to it all. Poor you.
It's not important to ABSOLUTELY know everything. It's ok to have uncertainty. It's exciting to discover new facts about our reality as we go along. It's fun. Isn't it great to live in a vibrant, dynamic universe rather than a rigid god-game-matrix where everything's pre-decided?
What are the underlying arguments that prove Muzzy Mo's visions were delusional?
Internal critique?
You mean you have feelings and thoughts which lead you to the conclusion it must be real and true? Do you think feelings and thoughts are a reliable way to truth? Have you ever met someone suffering from schizophrenia or high on shrooms?
the same ways I know atheism is false
Please share the numerous and serious fatal inconsistencies to help me understand how atheism is false.
What about the fatal inconsistencies in the bible? If we look at just a few examples in the gospels we see wild discrepancies in the stories.
Let's have a fun quiz: Who's lying?
ANSWER will be revealed at the bottom of the quiz
RE: birth of Jesus
- Matthew: baby Jesus was born in a house
- Luke: baby Jesus placed in a manger (animal feed trough – not usually kept inside a house) because there was no room in the inn.
RE: shortly after the birth of Jesus?
- Luke: the fam travel to Nazareth.
- Matthew: they flee to Egypt.
RE: the resurrection
- Matthew: Disciples go to Galilee, see Jesus, get their directions.
- Luke: Disciples meet Jesus in Jerusalem where he tells them not to leave the city (they don't). They spend 40 days with him then off he flies to heaven.
ANSWER: They're all lying! :D
Fun fact
Luke reckons Jesus was born in the year of a universal census. Proper historical records show that the first universal census occurred in 74 C.E. under the emperor Vespasian, years after Jesus' death. Hmm.
Historical sources
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are not real historical sources, silly! They're stories written to push a religious agenda. There is no reliable corroborating evidence to support them. Hell, the gospels even contradict each other. Matthew copied lots from Mark and Luke pilfered from them both.
Place is important. If we're reading the unerring word of god, why would he say Jesus was from Nazareth when ALL contemporary historical records lean towards the fact that Nazareth didn't exist until at least 100 years after Jesus' death? Later archaeologists couldn't find evidence it existed as a city or town until at least 2nd century C.E.
The answer is because the propagandist, Matthew, needed to pair the Jesus story to previous prophesies. Now, Mark said nothing of Nazareth or even anything of the birth of Jesus. Mark refers to Jesus as the 'Nazarene' (long-haired religious type). It was Matthew who mistranslated this and set down the blooper of 'Jesus of Nazareth' for all to see and enjoy :D
It's a shame you can't reconcile your world view with reality. Poor you.
Can you answer some of my questions now please? You still haven't addressed the ones from the previous blog and I'm really looking forward to your comments. Thanks. :)
Other eclectic articles
