I answer christiananswers.net "Questions for Skeptics."
Offline Here's the source site for these:
http://christiananswers.net/q-aila/questions-for-skeptics.html
How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?
Maybe Odin or Zeus or Allah did it.
How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?
Provide some examples, please. While archeology confirms the existence of places the Bible mentions, this does not give credence to many of the mythological stories that are set in those places. Indeed, archeology disproves many Bible myths.
Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?
Wrong. Dozens of Biblical prophecies have failed, including Jesus' that he would return to establish God's Kingdom on Earth within the time of their generation.
How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?
I have no idea what you think you are talking about. Psalm 22 says nothing about Jesus or about anyone dying by crucifixion.
How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would come and prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterward 500 years in advance? (Daniel 9:24-27)
The figures given by Daniel from his time do not correspond with the time Jesus was supposed to have been born or the destruction of the temple. They’re not even close.
How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
The individual being spoken of in Micah chapter 5 was supposed to have spurred a revolt against the Assyrians. Since the Assyrians relinquished power 600 years before Christ was born, and if the passage in Micah is indeed a prophecy of Jesus, isn’t it a stark failure?
Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e Jesus.
Odds are irrelevant, since Jesus fulfilled not one of them, and in most cases they were not even prophecies to begin with. By the way, where did you learn math? 48 out of 300 equates to odds of 1 to 10 to the 157th power???
How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?
The verse in question was not intended as a prophecy, it was speaking about events completely unrelated to Messianic speculation, and there is no mention of a "virgin" in the original Hebrew.
How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
How can anyone trust the reliability of scripture considering the lack of those primary sources, and the evidence of interpolation in the copied manuscripts?
Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Yes. I would not be able to say the same if I was a Christian.
Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
This is a pretty empty theology - to believe in God just to be on the "safe side". It indicates both a lack of conviction and a selfish, opportunistic nature. Besides, just in case the Muslim religion is true, wouldn't it be even safer to live as though Allah existed?
In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?
Jesus actually denied that he was God several times in the New Testament. The verses cited in which he is supposed to have claimed to be God are very ambiguous, and in any case are in the minority.
Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
Of course. But I'm not the one claiming that Jesus was infallible.
If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?
Because of a centuries-long campaign of mass propaganda and of vicious suppression of viewpoints to the contrary.
Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired word at least 2600 times?
If I claimed to be the mouthpiece of God 2601 times, does that make my claim more true?
Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
Most best-sellers are fiction. What's your point?
From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
Obviously not from a belief in God, as there are far less atheists in prison then there are in the general population. Constantine, Christianity's first great champion, chose the religion specifically because it required no moral accountability for the believer.
If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
The knowledge that I am answerable to my behavior to fellow human beings, not to some invisible man up in the sky.
Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
Explain how the specific God of the Bible is the only possible answer to this all-encompassing question.
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' >disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie
If Mohammed was a fake, why would two dozen intelligent men hijack airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers for what they knew to be a lie?
How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?
Lots of totally mythical people, or real people whose lives have been mythicized beyond recognition, have had an impact upon culture today.
Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?
Many more of history's greatest thinkers and scientists have been non-believers. Please try to refrain from using the argument from authority.
Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people(including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible?
Abraham Lincoln thought the Bible was myth. So answer your own question. How arrogant is it for countless churches and people to claim they have all the answers?
How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?
Again, what does this have to do with Christianity being the one true religion? With all the possible Gods out there, you hurt your case more than you help it with abstract arguments like this.
How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
Another completely irrelevant question. I seriously doubt, based on the low level of intellect and education you've shown so far in these questions, that you even know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is.
How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
Now you're just throwing around random phrases you read in your Freshman Physics text.
Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?
You'd better have someone read these answers to you V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y.
Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?"
It is absolutely true that everything I say is the absolute truth. That's a lie by the way.
Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?
Damn, you're right! That's exactly it! I don't believe in God because I actually DO believe in him! That makes perfect sense! How about you? Is your unwillingness to believe in Allah actually an unwillingness to submit to him?
Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?
Sure. My current purpose in life seems to be showing up the efforts of Christian apologists as the nonsense that it is. It's a worthy one.
How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?
Self-delusion. Next question.
Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?
Please don't make me laugh.
What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
I'd say stop throwing around vague generalities and start providing some specific examples.
Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
Please take a history course before you ask any more imbicelic questions like this.
Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
No, because that's patently untrue. Scores of ancient religions have leaders who rose from the dead. Is it possible that you are this ignorant, or are you hoping that your readers will be?
How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?
If the story of Perseus is just a myth, how do you explain away the dead body of the Gorgon?
If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His >condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?
Well, gee, I thought he was the son of God, gifted with divine powers. Surely making himself invisible wouldn’t be too hard?
If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
Ask the guy who made up the story.
If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
Jijitsu.
How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
What fucking testimony? All we have is that one account in Corinthians of 500 supposed witnesses which in itself is not corroborated by anything. None of those 500 gave any of their own testimony. We don't even know who they are. So the Corinthians passage is worthless in terms of evidence.
If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His life?
Do you consider someone cursing a fig tree because it won't bear fruit out of season to be a sane act?
If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by suddenly “realizing” that he/she is “God” therefore isn't God?
If God is unchanging, would he wish that he had never created mankind, as he is said to do in the Bible?
Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?
Do you know what a straw man argument is?
How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
Some college-level education might help answer these questions for you. You really think the Bible, taken as a whole, is “unified”? Have you even read it?
Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
Sure. This archaic phraseology doesn't detract from the value of the DI as a political document.
Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just another faith system?
Science doesn't make a pretense of being dogmatic.
What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
What do you make of the fact that none of them have any awareness of Christianity?
If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who then caused the universe?
It was Zoroaster.
How do you explain the thousands of people who have experienced heaven or hell and have come back to tell us about it?
Show me one Muslim who claimed to have experienced the Christian heaven or the Christian hell, and who then converted from Islam to Christianity. Come on, there’s “thousands” of people who experienced the afterlife, surely one of them must have been a Muslim who converted as a result? No?
How do you explain the countless people who have received miracles from God?
They were the bounties of a merciful Odin.
What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
A hell of a lot more than what you've offered up, my friend.
- Login to post comments
First, it seems clear to me that Jesus was a real person, that his teachings recorded in the Bible were at least similar to the teachings he professed while alive, and that he was probably crucified or executed in some other manner. This seems reasonable for one very good reason: much of what is written in the gospels is an obvious fabrication made to reconcile facts about the historical Jesus with the prophecies about the Messiah found in the Old Testament. If Jesus had not been a real person, these reconciliations would not be necessary, as Jesus could have been written to exactly fulfill the prophecies.
For instance, the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah would be of the house of David, and born in David's city, Bethlehem. However, Jesus was known as "Jesus of Nazareth," and is assumed to be a Nazarene throughout the New Testament. Matthew knew that if Jesus were the Messiah, he would have to be born in Bethlehem, not Nazareth. To reconcile this, Matthew completely fabricated the story about the census, the Roman order to go back to the home town to register, and the fleeing of Jesus to Egypt. We know from Roman records that no such census ocurred in Judea, and that no such order was given. There is also no record whatsoever outside the Bible that Herod ordered children killed during that time period.
From this, it becomes clear that Matthew was willing to fabricate portions of his account of Jesus in order to reconcile historical facts about Jesus with prophecies in the Old Testament. The reason for this is clear. Matthew was an ardent and devout follower of Jesus, and truly believed in Jesus' teachings. He was told to go out and tell the story of Jesus, and convert others to his faith. He was told that the apocalypse would come in his lifetime by Jesus himself. He thus had a very clear motive to make Jesus appear to others to be the Messiah, and the easiest way to do this was to make it appear as though Jesus was fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament.
If Matthew was willing to fabricate an entire census and Roman order which never happened, what is to stop him from fabricating a quote from Jesus that ties him to Psalm 22?
Simple, the story didn't piss anyone off or lead to the deaths of the believers. Their actions against the established authorities (that the Bible told them to obey as those authorities came from God) did that.
Christianity wakes people up to the fact that they're not good - I'll agree with that to a point. Then they get comfort from the belief that they can do whatever they want as long as they ask forgiveness and promise not to do it again (until it becomes expedient).
If I didn't realize that doing bad things to others was a dick thing to do forgiveness would be a great selling point for the religion.
If the NT is meant to be a historical document, it is an amazing one. It's a historical document that doesn't square with history.
It's not a historical work - John 20:31 states its purpose. Didn't you read that part?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
mm-hm
it was. your argument is "psalm 22 talks about piercing hands and feet. since we have no knowledge of any ancient form of punishment [AND YOU STILL HAVE YET TO ESTABLISH INDUCTIVELY THAT THE PSALMIST IS EVEN TALKING ABOUT PUNISHMENT] involving the piercing of hands and feet besides crucifixion, it must be crucifixion. of course, crucifixion wasn't invented yet, so it must be a magical prophecy." this is an argument from ignorance, with a couple other logical fallacies in there i'm sure (like the leap that the psalmist is describing a civil punishment).
ok, if you really only take abductive reasoning to mean "having an idea" (which i suppose after all the frills that's all it comes down to), then i'll let you have the "victory" that it's abductive reasoning. but it's bad abductive reasoning, since it leads us to a hypothesis that is neither testable nor verifiable.
we don't. note the word know. even your bible website only furnishes us with hypotheses based on centuries-old wall paintings. while this is useful to historians in forming a possible picture of the ancient world, it's hardly conclusive.
by the way, once again, you only offered one ancient civil punishment on that list, and it was assyrian, which means it comes about 400 years after the traditional dating of psalm 22 (i'll assume you accept the traditional dating). the rest were either descriptions of torture or claiming war trophies, or were roman and thus far too late to have any bearing on when psalm 22 was written. if we take it for granted that psalm 22 was composed by david, then i'll need a list of documented civil punishments (preferably executions but i'll take anything) from around 1000 b.c.e. otherwise, i'll still consider my argument as valid.
do you know what an objection is? it's when you offer a hypothesis (the psalmist saw into the fucking future) and i raise objections, in this case much more scientifically probable explanations. i do not offer these explanations as definitively what happened, i'm just offering them as much more likely than magic. you, however, offer prophecy as the definitive explanation. therefore, it's up to you to show me what's wrong with my alternatives and why your hypothesis is the most likely--indeed, unassailable. if you're unwilling or unable to do this, then please have the balls to at least say, "yes, your scenarios are more probable in a rational sense, but i still hold my beliefs." i would actually respect that. but don't try to flip the script and say, "oh, you have to prove your objections or my hypothesis is still virtually proven." that is also an argument from ignorance.
i consider this self-evident. or at least i consider it self-evident that this explanation is logically simpler than introducing an unobservable variable of supernatural activity.
once again, i invite any third parties present to weigh in on this.
oh no, no, no, nooooo, i did not. i said "when psalm 22 was written" (traditionally, around 1000 b.c.e.). i still have seen nothing to the contrary.
this i will give you. my mistake entirely.
depends on what you mean by "believe." if you mean "accept unequivocally as fact," then no, there is almost no historical claim, no matter how recent, that i "believe." i take historical claims in degrees of likelihood.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I blame the lizard men....
It is for MANY of the reasons listed in this thread that I believe human imagination does a better job finding (as well as obscuring) the truth than any government agency, lobbyist group, banking collective, intelligence bureau, or cult could ever hope to do...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You don't think that christianity was designed to comfort people? "Yes, you're bad and your life may suck, but if you love and accept this person as your god, you'll go to a perfect place after you die."
Christianity says you were born tainted, but you have the power to attain eternal fulfillment, just follow these steps. (ie: believe in god)
Christianity is all about giving people comfort and making them comfortable with the world. (My dog got run over by a car, but it was god's will, so it is ok. I just got a promotion over someone else, that's because I'm a better person and god is rewarding me. The origins of the universe and everything else is not something I have to worry my pretty little head over, because god did it all. Something else bad happened, it's the devil. etc etc ad nauseum.)
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
I jest not, The JEWS KNOW THEIR LANGUAGE BETTER THAN CHRISTIANS DO, The translators of The Dea Sea Scrolls, translated the Psalms and it matched with what the Jews have always said, and the translaters were Catholic and Orthodox christians at that!
FWY, The jews are right about one thing. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL ANYTHING IN PROPHECY.
i don't think the average jew is any more familiar with biblical hebrew than the average catholic used to be with latin.
a jewish person speaks whatever language he or she grew up speaking.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson