You're lucky to live in a society that was founded on Judaeo-Christian morality.
Atheism has no moral foundation. Morality is entirely subjective on the atheist world view.
If the Nazis win World War 2 the Holocaust would be taught to have been morally good and people like you would have no way of knowing you were monsters.
Whatever you think "atheism" is, it's not supposed to have a moral foundation. Atheism/agnostic/science is simply skepticism whether all the supernatural miracles you have profound belief in actually happened. It's seems highly unlikely, if not impossible. You do understand that some logical people think your beliefs are impossible, right? And you have little evidence they are true?
We have all the moral foundation we need, same as you. Just minus the supernatural stuff. It's pretty easy for me to treat people fairly and believe, e.g. that theft is wrong, without having to also believe that your personal savior was dead, and then through some unknown biological process, came to life again. It's really easy. I do it better than you.
What does it mean to "treat people fairly"? That seems nebulous to me and could vary greatly from person to person. And WHY is theft wrong? What if someone is starving and has to steal to survive? What if a person steals from a wealthy entity to give that money to the poor? Without a foundational of morality, subjectivity of perspective allows a lot of leeway for deviation.
What's your evidence that compassion and empathy are good things? What if things like fornication, adultery sodomy, drunkenness, baby murder are actually evil? Then atheists are much much worse and it's not close. Within your premise you simply beg the question
Because it logically follows from the premises despite atheists trying to deny it. It would be like saying since when does obesity follow from gluttony?
Whatever you think "atheism" is, it's not supposed to have a moral foundation. Atheism/agnostic/science is simply skepticism whether all the supernatural miracles you have profound belief in actually happened. It's seems highly unlikely, if not impossible. You do understand that some logical people think your beliefs are impossible, right? And you have little evidence they are true?
We have all the moral foundation we need, same as you. Just minus the supernatural stuff. It's pretty easy for me to treat people fairly and believe, e.g. that theft is wrong, without having to also believe that your personal savior was dead, and then through some unknown biological process, came to life again. It's really easy. I do it better than you.
What does it mean to "treat people fairly"? That seems nebulous to me and could vary greatly from person to person. And WHY is theft wrong? What if someone is starving and has to steal to survive? What if a person steals from a wealthy entity to give that money to the poor? Without a foundational of morality, subjectivity of perspective allows a lot of leeway for deviation.
None of them have given any of this any thought.
They don't even understand the difference between subjective and objective morality.
What's weird is how Christians can't buy Aliens, Big Foot, Nessie but will buy into Samson kickin' butt on not 10, not 50, not a 100 but 1000 soldiers, David vs Goliath, Daneil in the Lions den, Noahs Arc and on and on, Moses parting the Red Sea, really?
Not only that!
We believe Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
Answering with a quote, a translation btw, from scripture is the easy, secondary way out of answering. Theres a lot of lovely language (and blood and guts) in the bible, but it isnt you. Some poor scribe transcribed those words from the words of some other guy, and they are figurative words that speak of things that are not percievable.
A good editor would say, "Thats nice, Charlie, but were gonna need a direct quote!" I totally respect peoples own thought and words--testimony, if you will--but tertiary sources just dont cut it!"
The majority of earth's population is not Christian and is going to hell according to Christian logic.
I mean I hate to be so elementary but has it not always been a bit suspicious that there is this religion thing that says you will get all these great things, but if you aint on board or don't do what we say there is the other place that's really really terrible! Seems kind of...made up, no? This is of course without getting into the hypocrisy of it which the OP was probably asking about.
I mean if you want to start a cult what do you do? There is some sort of reward for falling in line, and complete horror if you don't ? I don't get it. And I went to Jesuit schools. Who falls for this. Its a bit of a trope, but religion really is the most destructive force in the world historically. Nationalism and race etc... are pretty distant second.
You're lucky to live in a society that was founded on Judaeo-Christian morality.
Atheism has no moral foundation. Morality is entirely subjective on the atheist world view.
If the Nazis win World War 2 the Holocaust would be taught to have been morally good and people like you would have no way of knowing you were monsters.
This is the most basic, simplistic line of thought. Dehumanization can occur in any society. The Catholics in the Ustaze murdered 300,000 non-Catholics in the Balkans in the 20th Century. Where was their morality?
The reason I am kind to others and don’t hurt people or wish to see them hurt is not because I think I am under constant threat of eternal damnation but because I know we’re all in this together and want to give a good example of cooperation and decency to my fellow man. Try to find fault with that.
Right, we understand why you think what you think, it's just completely illogical and there is fault with it. Please provide a reason you should not be completely self-interested rather than "be a good example of cooperation." The only two reasons you could reasonably given to be a "good example" is 1) You think that being a good example is a nice thing to do because you were given the gift of life without asking for it, so you feel a debt to your "fellow man" for taking care of you when you were an infant. Of course according to your own atheistic worldview the only real knowledge is what empirical science says is real so this feeling is just a feeling and completely illogical and not real knowledge and thus you are contradicting yourself. 2) You think that if you act badly instead of being a "good example" other people will treat you poorly in response and you don't want to be treated poorly so you are actually acting for self reasons (a la Hobbes) so you really aren't a "good person" for doing what you are doing.
You’ll be very happy to learn that they actually do. It was likely written by a very educated person who knew the Greek language very well and was a fan of Paul, and was written somewhere between 80 and 90 AD. The credit to “Luke” as a physician and companion to Paul, first appeared around 180 AD.
The first explicit claim that Paul wrote it appeared in 180 AD. That doesn't mean there was no evidence prior to that.
Scholars agree that the person who wrote Luke also wrote Acts. Acts ends with the imprisonment of Paul in 64 AD so it seems silly to claim it was written 20 years later.
It was also dedicated to Theophilus. It's absurd to think an "anonymous" work would be dedicated to a likely patron.
If there’s an earlier explicit mention before 180 AD, I would welcome seeing it. But that’s as early as we have.
Yes, almost definitely the same person wrote Luke and Acts of the Apostles. As to dating Luke:
Paul was writing his works in the 50s and he doesn’t reference any of the Gospels so we can infer that they didn’t exist. They are referenced by authors like Ignatius of Antioch around 110 to 115 so we can assume that the Gospels did exist by then.
The Gospels infer the destruction of Jerusalem so that puts their authorship after that. Mark is inferred to be dated shortly thereafter around 70 and given that Mark heavily influenced Luke and Matthew and would have needed to be available for some time, it’s estimated that they were written 10-20 years after Mark’s completion.
We believe Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
Answering with a quote, a translation btw, from scripture is the easy, secondary way out of answering. Theres a lot of lovely language (and blood and guts) in the bible, but it isnt you. Some poor scribe transcribed those words from the words of some other guy, and they are figurative words that speak of things that are not percievable.
A good editor would say, "Thats nice, Charlie, but were gonna need a direct quote!" I totally respect peoples own thought and words--testimony, if you will--but tertiary sources just dont cut it!"
Another person who hasn't looked into this even a little bit...
The first explicit claim that Paul wrote it appeared in 180 AD. That doesn't mean there was no evidence prior to that.
Scholars agree that the person who wrote Luke also wrote Acts. Acts ends with the imprisonment of Paul in 64 AD so it seems silly to claim it was written 20 years later.
It was also dedicated to Theophilus. It's absurd to think an "anonymous" work would be dedicated to a likely patron.
If there’s an earlier explicit mention before 180 AD, I would welcome seeing it. But that’s as early as we have.
Yes, almost definitely the same person wrote Luke and Acts of the Apostles. As to dating Luke:
Paul was writing his works in the 50s and he doesn’t reference any of the Gospels so we can infer that they didn’t exist. They are referenced by authors like Ignatius of Antioch around 110 to 115 so we can assume that the Gospels did exist by then.
The Gospels infer the destruction of Jerusalem so that puts their authorship after that. Mark is inferred to be dated shortly thereafter around 70 and given that Mark heavily influenced Luke and Matthew and would have needed to be available for some time, it’s estimated that they were written 10-20 years after Mark’s completion.
Everything we know about Julius Caesar comes from copies of sources written by men who lived a century after he did.
By your ignorant logic we can dismiss Julius Caesar and everything we know about him as fiction invented by lunatics.
The Gospel of Luke was not written by the Apostle Luke. Show me any line in there in which the author states his name or identifies himself. The whole thing is written anonymously and we can be very sure that it was composed around 80-90 AD.
****The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.
***Luke wrote two works, the third gospel, an account of the life and teachings of Jesus, and the Book of Acts,
"Holy Spirit?" Has that gotten to be a patent, accepted as real from frequent usage, like "It" in "You get it?!" Used to be "Holy Ghost" and part of the Our Father ("In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost") when I was an altar boy. That and a boatload of Latin that also seems to have lost favor. I liked ghost better, seemed more honest: maybe too honest and descriptive. Then You have a hard cover bible that was translated from a transcription by poor scribes from original words, not from God--who only speaks to saints and madmen-- but from, arguably, one or more of Christs Disciples decades after their deaths. All of which would be fine w me if it were honestly treated historically and as lovely mythos! But you have billions of people doing ecrything from humble homage to world wars over simple, highly maleable, vulnerable *stories!* the cost has been too much to ignore. (Sorry Jeff! Misdirected! Meant for the Holy Spirit post) agree! With your post! J
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Sp
Answering with a quote, a translation btw, from scripture is the easy, secondary way out of answering. Theres a lot of lovely language (and blood and guts) in the bible, but it isnt you. Some poor scribe transcribed those words from the words of some other guy, and they are figurative words that speak of things that are not percievable.
A good editor would say, "Thats nice, Charlie, but were gonna need a direct quote!" I totally respect peoples own thought and words--testimony, if you will--but tertiary sources just dont cut it!"
Another person who hasn't looked into this even a little bit...
Now theres a pithless statement! Classic non-comment.
Winston please look atvwhat you said. The Sophomorism lies with you. Callow accusations. And you call the other person childish?!
Atheism is unabashedly stupid.
Condemning God because you don't like religion is idiotic.
You have the philosophical depth of a child. It's amusing that you're accusing me of being callow while you spout the same idiotic nonsense 13 year olds spout about religion.
Im tired of trying to get you rubber-wall commentators to see reason. Wordsweary, the retired poet. The most cogent, querying, thoughtful questions and propositions only elicit from you reflexive rubber ball bouncing personal insults without substance. You simply ignore cogent questions and developed reasoning, with examples and quotations, and fire back with vapid insults.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Sp
Condemning God because you don't like religion is idiotic.
You have the philosophical depth of a child. It's amusing that you're accusing me of being callow while you spout the same idiotic nonsense 13 year olds spout about religion.
Im tired of trying to get you rubber-wall commentators to see reason. Wordsweary, the retired poet. The most cogent, querying, thoughtful questions and propositions only elicit from you reflexive rubber ball bouncing personal insults without substance. You simply ignore cogent questions and developed reasoning, with examples and quotations, and fire back with vapid insults.
There hasn't been anything cogent or thoughtful from the atheists on this entire thread.
There's 2000 years of scholarship on this issue and you haven't read a word of it.
If there’s an earlier explicit mention before 180 AD, I would welcome seeing it. But that’s as early as we have.
Yes, almost definitely the same person wrote Luke and Acts of the Apostles. As to dating Luke:
Paul was writing his works in the 50s and he doesn’t reference any of the Gospels so we can infer that they didn’t exist. They are referenced by authors like Ignatius of Antioch around 110 to 115 so we can assume that the Gospels did exist by then.
The Gospels infer the destruction of Jerusalem so that puts their authorship after that. Mark is inferred to be dated shortly thereafter around 70 and given that Mark heavily influenced Luke and Matthew and would have needed to be available for some time, it’s estimated that they were written 10-20 years after Mark’s completion.
Everything we know about Julius Caesar comes from copies of sources written by men who lived a century after he did.
By your ignorant logic we can dismiss Julius Caesar and everything we know about him as fiction invented by lunatics.
We have several books that Julius Caesar wrote about his military campaigns, not to mention commentaries on him by contemporaries such as Cicero and Aulus Hiritius.
But setting aside all that, it’s one standard of proof to contend that there was a man who ruled Rome or that there was an author named Homer who wrote the Odyssey, and it’s a very different standard of proof to contend that there was man who was God incarnate who performed miracles and came back to life days after being executed.
Everything we know about Julius Caesar comes from copies of sources written by men who lived a century after he did.
By your ignorant logic we can dismiss Julius Caesar and everything we know about him as fiction invented by lunatics.
We have several books that Julius Caesar wrote about his military campaigns, not to mention commentaries on him by contemporaries such as Cicero and Aulus Hiritius.
But setting aside all that, it’s one standard of proof to contend that there was a man who ruled Rome or that there was an author named Homer who wrote the Odyssey, and it’s a very different standard of proof to contend that there was man who was God incarnate who performed miracles and came back to life days after being executed.
So you think the source documents for these things actually exist.
lol...
There's 12 manuscripts which bring Caesar's words to us. The oldest surviving document is from the 9th century. 900 years after the man lived.
We have several books that Julius Caesar wrote about his military campaigns, not to mention commentaries on him by contemporaries such as Cicero and Aulus Hiritius.
But setting aside all that, it’s one standard of proof to contend that there was a man who ruled Rome or that there was an author named Homer who wrote the Odyssey, and it’s a very different standard of proof to contend that there was man who was God incarnate who performed miracles and came back to life days after being executed.
So you think the source documents for these things actually exist.
lol...
There's 12 manuscripts which bring Caesar's words to us. The oldest surviving document is from the 9th century. 900 years after the man lived.
It is impossible to take you seriously.
I guess you missed the part where having copies of writings about a human man who was a general and dictator for Rome calls for a different standard of proof than those claiming that God was born as a human male in Bethlehem and was resurrected after death.
So you think the source documents for these things actually exist.
lol...
There's 12 manuscripts which bring Caesar's words to us. The oldest surviving document is from the 9th century. 900 years after the man lived.
It is impossible to take you seriously.
I guess you missed the part where having copies of writings about a human man who was a general and dictator for Rome calls for a different standard of proof than those claiming that God was born as a human male in Bethlehem and was resurrected after death.
There is more evidence the tomb was empty than there is that Caesar even existed.
Whatever happened the people that wrote the gospels believed he was resurrected and most of the people who told the story went on to suffer grisly deaths rather than renounce their claims.
Im tired of trying to get you rubber-wall commentators to see reason. Wordsweary, the retired poet. The most cogent, querying, thoughtful questions and propositions only elicit from you reflexive rubber ball bouncing personal insults without substance. You simply ignore cogent questions and developed reasoning, with examples and quotations, and fire back with vapid insults.
There hasn't been anything cogent or thoughtful from the atheists on this entire thread.
There's 2000 years of scholarship on this issue and you haven't read a word of it.
fini! You are stunningly obdurate and narrow. This comment shows it. Please reset and open focus. Good luck!
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.