I envy people who have Faith

[BlueBloodedBlue]

I don't but it must be a real comfort to believe in a higher power and have something that gives a meaning to everything.

That's it really.

@Malie

Okay well it’s very interesting that when I was a student the unanimous opinion of so-called ‘scholarship’ was that the gospels were very light written in the second century AD and essentially made up. Then along came of all people John AT Robinson, one of the most notorious of liberal scholars, who argued that all that ‘scholarship’ was built on faulty research and the gospels were in fact early documents, with John’s gospel being the earliest. This was fascinating because Robinson was obviously in no way an evangelical Christian and did not take the evangelical position on the Bible. However it did pave the way for more serious study of the faults of dating theories and more recently Professor Bauckham has come up with a very interesting text on ‘Jesus and the eye witnesses’ with reference to Jewish thinking in the first century, making a very strong case that the gospels are eye witness accounts. The fact is we know more about the Second Temple period now than we have ever done and discoveries are confirming details of the New Testament.

Thanks, but can you as requested share some sources (research, studies etc) that we can read objectively? Otherwise we're just getting your opinion and your reading of sources, which is biased. I'm sure you understand that being provided with someone's perception of sources isn't the same of sharing those sources. Thanks in advance.

Not at all you are the one who is saying that nothing made something, that chaos made order, that intelligence came from non-intelligence and that information came from nowhere. Wonder whether there is any proof of these things?

as the story of Noah was written thousands of years before Christ how could Christianity have co-opted it?

I do not think you understand what co-opting means.

I refer you back to York Minster. The early Christians had a habit of locating sacred sites belonging to the previous or current religion of the time and building their sacred sites on top. These sites had been there for hundreds or thousands of years. That's how co-opting works - you take something from an older culture and use it to support your own narrative. The Romans did it, early Christians did it, Islam has also done it.

I looked up your scholars and they are clearly well regarded researchers in their field - but both operate from a premise of belief, so they have already taken the leap that there is a god. Within that, their work has value, but to an atheist it is meaningless.

I'm quite willling to accept the revision of the dating of the gospels, that doesn't affect my beliefs at all. I've been reading up on the historical reliability of the gospels and the main thing I'm seeing is that there is considerable disagreement among biblical scholars and theologians. That's understandable, it happens with all analysis of ancient writings. So within what has been written, you are choosing to believe one faction. That doesn't mean that faction is right - as I have been saying throughout this thread, it is impossible to know. One can only choose to believe, as you do, or not believe, as I do.

Well first begin by showing that atheism is a fact please

That isn't possible, since atheism is a faith position. As is belief in a god. You cannot prove the existence of god, I cannot prove the non-existence of god. The difference between us is that I accept our faith positions as equal in validity, whereas you are determined that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Which is arrogant.

Not at all you are the one who is saying that nothing made something, that chaos made order, that intelligence came from non-intelligence and that information came from nowhere. Wonder whether there is any proof of these things?

This is the classic 'God of the Gaps' fallacy. It's basically 'we don't know so it must have been God'. That isn't how science works, @Malie . Science admits it when it doesn't know something and works to find out. Faith just jumps straight to belief.

@pointythings The Romans were reusing their temples after converting to Christianity, rather than the church appropriating them. The Roman Christians declared their old gods as fake and instead began to worship the God of Israel.

www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/10/07/were-pagan-temples-all-smashed-or-just-converted-into-christian-ones

Oh boy your reasoning is incredible. Don’t you realise that Christianity came out of Judaism and that Jesus was a Jewish Messiah in fulfilment of the prophecies found in the Jewish scriptures. There was no ‘co-opting’ by Christianity as these were their scriptures. You really have some strange ideas. No doubt you think the gospel is well written by men sitting in an office with a typewriter or a computer and a row of books at the back of them

it is of course not the God of the gaps fallacy it is of course the recognition that a universe which is reasonable and rational as a rational creator at the back of it under the universe that can be studied rationally is created rationally. The problem is you’re mixing up all sorts of theories in your mind. God is not the God of the gaps but the root of all things

You have also this misunderstanding of faith. Faith is not irrational belief but built on knowledge and facts.

@Malie

Not at all you are the one who is saying that nothing made something, that chaos made order, that intelligence came from non-intelligence and that information came from nowhere. Wonder whether there is any proof of these things?

I don't believe in the concept of a god due to the absence of proof otherwise.

You do believe in the concept of god and claim you have evidence that concept is true.

So share that evidence with us.

Or concede that, like me, your belief is just that. A belief.

Not a provable concept you have factual, undeniable evidence of.

It's ok to say you just believe something but can't prove it. I'm unsure as to why that seems such a difficult concept for you to grasp. It's literally what faith is. Belief in the absence of evidence.

Faith (noun): strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

@Malie The prophecies in Jewish scripture were also a matter of belief though.

And as we have already discussed, the story of Noah was considerably older than that. Nothing you have said contradicts what I have said - so it was the Jewish faith that took on the story of Noah from older traditions. That's how it works.

it is of course not the God of the gaps fallacy it is of course the recognition that a universe which is reasonable and rational as a rational creator at the back of it under the universe that can be studied rationally is created rationally. The problem is you’re mixing up all sorts of theories in your mind. God is not the God of the gaps but the root of all things

That is what you believe. Your belief does not make it true, as we have been saying. You persist in saying that your beliefs are superior to non belief because they are founded in fact. They are not. At least we atheists on this thread have the humility to admit that we cannot know. All we get from you is arrogance and a superiority complex.

@Malie

Faith is not irrational belief but built on knowledge and facts.

I mean it's literally not, by definition!

faith
/feɪθ/

noun: faith

1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

or

2 strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

@Vincitveritas that's interesting and also plausible. However, I have spent time in Egypt working as an archaeologist and there's clear evidence there of Islam deliberately desecrating temples, most likely because the temples contained depictions of people and other living things, in contravention of Islamic doctrine. Interestingly the same thing happened to the Egyption cult of Aten, which didn't last long and whose artefacts were deliberately destroyed by the reinstated polytheistic society and priesthood that came before. In the early 90s, archaeologists were able to extract rubble used in some of the structures built at Luxor and found that they contained a wealth of imagery from the Aten era - because they were rubble from temples that had been destroyed and used as building materials. Peaceful transitions of faith to faith happened, but so did the other kind.

You are of course wrong. Your definition of faith is wrong. This is the Richard Dawkins definition of faith which is of course blind faith. That is the Faith of the atheist - blind faith

@Malie what @wellhelloitsme has quoted is the dictionary definition of the word faith. Nothing to do with Dawkins at all. Simply a matter of language and its meaning.

@pointythings I can well believe it, just look at what Henry VIII and his henchmen did to the monasteries and churches during the English Reformation! When converting pagans, the Christian Church tried to harmonise with some of the key holidays and replaced them with Christian ones, e.g. Saturnalia with Christmas.

I am talking about what is rational. Atheism is irrational. If the whole universe has no meaning we should never find out it has no meaning. Just as if there were no light and therefore no creatures with eyes we would never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. If we are the result of a cosmic accident how do y oh know you’re thinking is rational ask the universe is irrational?

Oh my gosh!! The very definition of religious “faith” means to hold a conviction, a belief, that does not require or need proof or evidence! That it is exactly what it means. Please look it up.

That is the point you cannot know. Why atheism is irrational. Agnosticism is a more honest approach because it says one does not know. Let’s face it even Dawkins says he is only 70% sure there isn’t a God and he is an evangelical fundamentalist atheist. Even people like Brian Cox and David Attenborough will not rule out the possibility of there being a God as a cause. We did not know what 96% of this material universe is.

@Malie

You are of course wrong. Your definition of faith is wrong.

As you are a Christian and claim to believe in being a good person, you may want to think about why you speak so unpleasantly to people.

You're the opposite of humble. Your words are arrogant and dismissive of others.

I've never met someone who is a kind and decent Christian who speaks the way you do to and about others. I know lots of lovely Christians.

They'd be mortified that you speak this way.

And the definition faith I shared is not 'my' definition of faith, or Dawkins'.

I didn't use the phrase 'blind faith', I shared the dictionary definition of faith.

This is where you don't seem to understand fact vs belief.

You can say you believe the dictionary version is incorrect. You are entitled to that belief, of course. But it's not 'my' definition. It's 'the' definition.

It's a very manipulative style of 'debate' you use, one where you refuse to acknowledge that your position cannot be proven correct.

Atheists on this thread, including me, have had the humility to say we don't believe in the concept of god due to lack of proof otherwise.

You show no humility at all.

And as mentioned upthread you showed zero compassion to a vulnerable woman in huge pain who posted the other day. Atheists on the thread instantly empathised with her and offers her best wishes and support.

It was incredibly telling that you didn't.

That is your definition of faith but it is not the Christian definition of faith. As a Christian I think I know better than a secularist what my definition of faith is. 😀

Where do I say I’m a good person? The first qualification for being a Christian is to admit you’re a sinner! I do not believe that on a discussion thread to tell people that their assumptions about me are wrong as I know who I am. The dictionary definition of faith is not a Christian definition of faith. I was trying to point it out to you but of course you’re so stuck with secular definitions that you won’t listen.
I know of course we come to the usual part where you start name calling and accusations. Is it because you have no rational argument?

As a Christian I think I know better than a secularist what my definition of faith is.

At last, you get it.

You can have 'your' definition of faith, absolutely.

It doesn't change the dictionary's one.

And it doesn't make it factually wrong.

It means you believe it's wrong.

It's ok to believe things that can't be proven.

Be humble enough to do that.

It could be life changing for you and allow you to have meaningful discussions with people who hold different beliefs to you instead of coming across as aggressive and unpleasant to deal with.

You are wrong. You will find this definition for religious faith in all contemporary dictionaries. Please Google this fact.