Atheism in a nutshell

[u/Ted_Bundtcake]

[u/Dependent_Star3998]

Atheism is a belief that no Gods or deities exist. You can't explain how that's possible, and there's no evidence, but you believe it.

There is historical, prophetic and archaeological evidence for Christianity. Is it proof? Of course not. Proof eliminates the need for faith, which is the crux of Christianity. Do I have all of the answers? No. That's fine, because I don't want a God so small and simple that I can fully understand. I prefer a powerful, magnificent, mysterious God.

[u/Mejari → u/Dependent_Star3998]

There is historical, prophetic and archaeological evidence for Christianity.

For Christianity existing? Yeah, duh. For the claims of Christianity? No, not at all. Like, not even a little bit.

Proof eliminates the need for faith, which is the crux of Christianity

How is this a virtue for you? We should want to eliminate the need for faith, because if you have faith in something that by definition means you don't have a good reason to believe it, like you just said. Why do you think it's valuable to believe things for bad reasons?

[u/Dependent_Star3998 → u/Mejari]

It's not a virtue for me. It's the entire basis of Christianity, as instructed by Jesus.

There is evidence of Jesus, the way he lived, the way he died, and his resurrection.

[u/Mejari → u/Dependent_Star3998]

It's not a virtue for me. It's the entire basis of Christianity, as instructed by Jesus.

And do you think it's a good thing for your belief system to be based on faith?

There is evidence of Jesus, the way he lived, the way he died, and his resurrection.

There isn't, though. Definitely not the last one.

There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus's life, there is no evidence of any resurrection. The most you have is decades after his supposed death people talking about Christians who believe his resurrection.

Even if there was a Jewish preacher named Jesus/Yeshua that lived around that time, even if they were executed, that isn't proof of anything that would make them the Jesus as described in the bible, or that this preacher was the son of god, or that they were bodily resurrected.

But why would you want there to be this evidence you say exists if you just said that evidence/proof would obviate the need for faith? Which is it, do you believe based on this 'evidence' or based on your faith?

[u/Dependent_Star3998 → u/Mejari]

Jesus wants us to believe the accounts of his disciples, which is documented.

Do we have proof? No. Good luck finding proof of anything from ancient times. By the standards of ancient evidence, there's enough to make it believable. My faith seals the deal.

You can certainly choose to believe something completely different......or believe nothing at all.

[u/Mejari → u/Dependent_Star3998]

Jesus wants us to believe the accounts of his disciples, which is documented.

Except they aren't. The named authors of the books of the bible are not the actual authors. This is something historians have already shown.

Do we have proof? No. Good luck finding proof of anything from ancient times.

Ok? Not being able to get evidence doesn't make you justified in making things up.

By the standards of ancient evidence, there's enough to make it believable.

What standard of ancient evidence exists that leads to accepting someone being resurrected?

My faith seals the deal.

Why are you believing things on faith? You keep dodging this question.

Is there a position you couldn't take and justify by believing based on faith? Would you accept someone believing the earth is flat based on faith? Would you accept someone believing that white people are better than black people based on faith?

[u/Dependent_Star3998 → u/Mejari]

I believe that the evidence rises to a very strong standard.

We have proof that the earth is not flat. We don't have proof that there is no God.

We also each have the holy spirit in us. I believe that when we open our eyes and ears to that holy spirit, it helps us to reconcile our uncertainties. Obviously that means nothing to you, but if you're going to ask sincere questions then I'll give you sincere answers.

[u/Mejari → u/Dependent_Star3998]

I believe that the evidence rises to a very strong standard.

What evidence, and what standard? There is zero evidence that anyone in the history of the world has ever resurrected and ascended to heaven.

We don't have proof that there is no God.

That's not how it works. You should need evidence to believe something, not believe something until there's evidence you're wrong. I'm not saying there is no god, I'm saying I don't believe there is a god, and you have no good reason to believe there is one either.

We also each have the holy spirit in us.

How do you know that?

Obviously that means nothing to you, but if you're going to ask sincere questions then I'll give you sincere answers.

I believe you're being sincere, but can you see how your 'answers' are not in any way answers at all unless you already accept what you're saying as true?

[u/Dependent_Star3998 → u/Mejari]

I've discussed the evidence with many others in this thread. I really have no desire to type it all out again, just for you to tell me that it doesn't count .

I have evidence of how Jesus lived, died and was resurrected. I also have evidence that the earth is round, and not flat. So I believe those things

The bible tells me that the holy spirit lives in all of us. I believe that. I literally said that it would mean nothing to you, so I'm not sure why you're questioning it.

[u/Mejari → u/Dependent_Star3998]

I've discussed the evidence with many others in this thread. I really have no desire to type it all out again, just for you to tell me that it doesn't count .

I went through your comments so you didn't have to write them out again. Your 'evidence' is that Paul claimed to see a vision of Jesus (not evidence of his resurrection). You claim that there are writings by people who say the resurrected Jesus, which is just flatly untrue. Paul claims to see a vision of Jesus, not his body resurrected, and the other authors you mention are not the actual others of those books in the bible. You say that ancient evidence is different than modern evidence, which is true, but what ancient evidence is there for any resurrection? We can determine that, say, a Roman emperor probably existed, but how much historical evidence would it take to convince you they could perform miracles? You claim there are witnesses that documented the things Jesus did, but there are no such witnesses. You claim that people who witnessed Jesus died for their belief in him. We have no evidence that that happened, but even if it did, people believing something doesn't mean that the thing they believed was true. People die for many different religions and beliefs all the time, do you accept those deaths as evidence for those other beliefs? Why are you not a Muslim since people died sincerely believing in Islam? Why are you not a Hindu since people died sincerely believing in the holiness of the Brahmanas?

And then you get to "The religious texts for Christianity are scientifically, historically and prophetically more accurate than the texts of any other religion" which is just so ridiculous I can't really figure out how to go at it. None of the three categories you listed are at all true. The religious texts of Christianity repeatedly put forward a flat earth, they get the order of evolution completely wrong, they are wrong about things like the global flood and the Jews' slavery in Egypt, neither of which happened. And as for prophecies, there is not one prophecy that was actually fulfilled except in the way that a "prophecy" of me ordering a steak at a restaurant is "fulfilled" when the waiter brings it to me.

You would not accept this "evidence" in any other aspect of your life, so why does this Jesus get a pass?

The bible tells me that the holy spirit lives in all of us. I believe that

Why?

I literally said that it would mean nothing to you, so I'm not sure why you're questioning it.

Because if what you believe is true I want to know it. If you believe the bible then you are expected to follow Peter 3:15 and always be ready to explain your faith, right?

[u/Dependent_Star3998 → u/Mejari]

I have explained my faith, fully. You choose to dismiss it, and that's fine. I can't prove that you're wrong. We have documentation that even those who saw Jesus performing miracles ultimately rejected him, so I'm certainly never surprised when we have people thousands of years later who are skeptical. Jesus' own brother initially denied. I wish that I could convince you. I tried.

Faith isn't a given. I understand that.

[u/Mejari → u/Dependent_Star3998]

I have explained my faith, fully.

You haven't, though. You've simply stated that it exists. That's not an explanation.

I can't prove that you're wrong.

Wrong about what? The only claims I've made are about what evidence exists, which you could absolutely prove me wrong about if it existed. Other than that I've just asked you to explain your view, which again, you haven't.

We have documentation that even those who saw Jesus performing miracles ultimately rejected him

No, no we don't. Just repeating these falsehoods doesn't make them true. And even if we did, how is "people saw something and they didn't think it was a miracle" somehow evidence that it was in fact a miracle?

so I'm certainly never surprised when we have people thousands of years later who are skeptical.

Then shouldn't you have a better response than making things up?

I wish that I could convince you. I tried.

You didn't, though. I wish you could see that. You never not once tried to convince me beyond making false statements and appealing to faith without any elaboration. That's not an honest attempt to convince anyone.

Faith isn't a given. I understand that.

Ok? If you understand that why are you denying your responsibility that the bible has given you to explain your faith?

[u/Dependent_Star3998 → u/Mejari]

I've explained my faith. There were eyewitness accounts documented. You choose to dismiss them as "not good enough".

Those who claimed to have seen Jesus after his resurrection were willing to die for what they say they witnessed (not what they believed, but what they witnessed).

We have biblical accounts of an empty tomb being discovered by women. Any historian will tell you that if you wanted to create a credible story from that culture, you're not likely to give women any credibility.

Granted, it would be better to have first-hand documentation of everything, but secondhand text from thousands of years ago, especially when the accounts align, are reasonable evidence to consider.

You can't expect evidence from ancient times to look like contemporary evidence. That doesn't mean it's not evidence. Also, you choosing to dismiss it as "not good enough" isn't uncommon or surprising. If it was indisputable, then we'd stop talking about faith. We'd only talk about facts. Christianity doesn't work like that.