The more I read your and other atheists reasons for rejecting God the more I come to the conclusion that they do not know what they are talking about. Granted, that is most of the world in general but atheists seem to be one step above the ignorance.
However, since you are a person who shows that they accept logic, let's put your suppositions to logical observation. I will post your statements in quotes and explain where the fallacy is.
"I understand how hard it can be for a devoted Christian to recognize this. He or she may feel that accepting the atheist position as a rational one is to denounce Christianity as irrational."
The above shows your ignorance of the Bible and tells me that you have either never read the book or read at least never read it in detail as the Bible itself says that Christianity is irrational. Nowhere does the book ever state that Christianity makes sense from a rational standpoint. Quite the opposite actually as Paul stated that the Cross is foolishness (literal word in koine is Moronic). So saying that Christianity is a rational belief system is false as it was never meant to be rational in the first place. As a result your premise is flawed and as a result so is your logic.
So where did I say the Bible says that Christianity is irrational? Read my statement again. I say that he or she may feel. While I agree with you that faith is an inherently irrational thing, and that the Bible says that faith is needed, where exactly did I make the claim otherwise? I think you have to admit that there are some Christians who believe the Bible and Christianity are indeed completely rational. Just look at Answers In Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. I don't see how you can think there aren't a lot of Christians who believe that their religion is rational, regardless of what the Bible says.
"Atheists and Christians really aren’t that different. I, like most Christians, reject 99.9999% of all the Gods man has ever worshipped. I don’t believe that Apollo tows the sun across the sky in a golden chariot. I don’t believe that dying in honorable combat will reap rewards for me in Valhalla. I don’t believe that if my corpse is mummified in the proper 70-day ritual it will become reanimated each night and I will get to have sex with the goddess of the sky."
Another false premise as I do believe that there was a Thor, a Zeus, and other deities in mythology as did Justin Martyr. The difference was that he explains that these were demons. Indeed, to me there is no such thing as "Mythology" per se. What these beings were is a different story however.
Surely you don't believe every single ancient myth (pardon my term) out there do you? If so, then what is your criteria for telling fact from fantasy? Does writing something down in a book automatically make it true for you?
It could be that Thor was someone who knew how to use a lightning rod. Speculation? Yes, but no more so that your supposed idea that they could not have existed. In fact, it is logically impossible to disprove or prove anything especially in history as you can use no logical criteria to establish a basis of fact.
True, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe something because it was written in a book a long time ago. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I am not claiming that Zeus never existed, I am rejecting the claims by others that he existed due to lack of evidence. When I say "there is no God," I don't mean that I absolutely positively know to an absolute certainty that he doesn't exist, I mean that I am as certain as I can be about anything that I see no compelling evidence for one. I cannot be absolutely certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist, nor can I be certain the Easter Bunny doesn't either. But I am certain they don't in a practical sense, as much as I can be certain about anything.
To establish a fact, one must have "empirical, observational, repeatable evidence." Since you cannot repeat the event (as it only happened once), nor observe the event (since it is in the past and beyond your observation), nor empirical (since you cannot use your senses to prove said event) exactly how are you going to implement the scientific method for proof which you imply to be using?
My not believing in God requires no evidence. YOU are the one who is making the assertion that he does exist, therefore YOU are the one who has the burden of proof, not me. I am simply saying that I don't believe you. If I were to claim that there is an invisible gnome, undetectable by any human means living in my stomach, would you have the burden of proof to disprove it and automatically believe me because you couldn't? Or, would it be my responsibility to provide evidence if I wanted to convince others of it?
The point is whatever Thor, Zeus, etc were (whether that be demon, or man that people embellished stories surrounded them), the point is that I believe that the individuals "the Gods" did exist. In fact the Bible supports this idea that they were real. Whatever the case, your premise is once again false you have failed to prove they were false. I thought that the idea of "belief" was something that atheists tried to avoid as belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. "
Where in the Bible does it support the idea that Zeus and Thor were real? You're making a leap between the Nephilim and the Greek Gods. You have no compelling evidence to support that belief, either, and you're condemning ME?
You who come to me telling that you require proof now accept an idea that has none? I thought intellectuals were interested in FACT. Not belief.
Again, I don't need proof not to believe in something that has no proof. I simply don't accept it because I haven't seen compelling evidence? I am making no assertions, you are. You are claiming that something exists, and it is your responsibility (if you want other people to believe it) to provide proof.
"On all of these possibilities and many more I take the exact same position as many Christians do: they’re ridiculous and I don’t believe in them. The only difference is that I simply go one God further. I don’t see any reason to believe the Bible over any other of these ancient mythologies."
This once again shows your ignorance only this time of what the word Mythology from an academic standpoint means.
One of the things that most people are not aware and that one learns in the Study of Mythology is that not all Myths are false. Indeed, I learned in college that professors are very careful to automatically associate the word myth with falsehood. The figure Robin Hood for example is a myth but some scholars believe there is a basis to accept that he existed. Hence, the words Myth and falsehood are in the true sense of the word not synonymous from an academic point of view. Since you equated the idea that all myths are false which is not the case, your premise is flawed and as a result your logic is as well.
A myth can very well mean a false story. The academic definition of a word is not the only definition. I still use the word theory when referring to an idea or a guess, but I understand that it has a different meaning in an academic setting. This forum is not an academic setting and therefore am using the colloquial meaning. You're trying to distract the topic at hand by being pedantic.
"I simply do not accept the Bible as the Word of any God."
Nowhere does the Bible call itself the Word of God and the early Christians never saw it this way. To be fair you cannot be blamed for this as that idea WAS an invention of the later Christians. According to the Bible the Word of God is Jesus.
Nor does the Bible ever call itself infallible and in fact the idea that any book has to be perfect to be from God is absurd. At the time of the writing the books were never seen as a single conglomerate work but letters to different people at different times. To be honest anyone who says that a book has to be perfect to be from God is absurd as it is not whether a book is perfect but whether the writers were telling the truth that matters.
2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..." Again, you're being pedantic, pointlessly splitting hairs over semantics. You cannot ignore the fact that many Christians DO believe that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says that it is inspired of God, that God cannot lie. Therefore it presents itself as the message of God.
I can get you books today that are for the most part logically perfect and yet they would not be called the inspired Word of God. Indeed it is not whether the writers were perfect in every way that says whether they were telling the truth for if that were a criteria no one on earth today could claim to be truthful. The problem is NOT whether God inspired the book but in WHAT WAY did he do it? Where exactly in the account the the letters to Timothy does it say that inspiration means perfection? All it says that scripture is "God breathed." You ASSUMED that meant infallible just as you ASSUME that there is no God.
I do not believe there is a God because there is no compelling evidence for his existence. I do not believe something simply because it cannot be disproven, otherwise I would believe everything everybody said all the time. That course is not an advantageous one.
However, what is a criteria for establishing truth is multiple witness testimony even if the testimony is not completely accurate. So simply put the Bible does not have to be perfect as it is witness testimony that establishes truth not the perfection of writing.
I mean are you going to sit there and tell me that because some of the witnesses did not agree how the Titanic sank that it means that the event did not happen? (And please do not tell me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the accounts in their names as I am going to tell you to get an education and do some research for a change.)
Here you are creating another straw man argument. Where did I argue that because the Bible contradicts itself that it must mean God doesn't exist? Where? You're blinded by your assumptions about atheists. Your Titanic example is flawed for a few reasons. 1) A shipwreck is something that happens all the time, and is not a miraculous claim, therefore it's easy to believe that a ship called the Titanic sank in 1912. 2) There is physical proof of the Titanic sinking. Newspapers all over the world at the time reported on it. There are eyewitnesses (up until recently living eyewitnesses I believe). There is the ACTUAL SHIP at the bottom of the Atlantic and there is VIDEO FOOTAGE of the ship before and after it sank.
If someone told me a ship called the Titanic sank in 1912, grew fins and danced a hula all the way down to the bottom and now lives as an invisible celestial shark that we all must worship, but there were no corroborating records for it, no video footage, no eyewitnesses, no newspaper clippings, then yes I would have trouble believing it. I wouldn't believe it until that person brought me better evidence for it. The Jesus story was written by those who CLAIM to be eyewitnesses almost 2,000 years ago. No contemporary records exist at the time (and don't bring up Josephus, either. The mentions of Jesus were forgeries added by Christians hundreds of years after the fact) The authorship of Matthew at least is very debatable, considering the fact that here was a supposed eyewitness using other gospels as source material. Unfortunately for you I have put some basic study into that issue, and not just from "Atheists suck and the Bible r00lz University."
" It didn’t matter whether or not Paul’s words about blood included transfusions or not."
This one ALONE proves to me that you never read the book in any detail as Paul never said anything about blood. THAT was James in Acts. If you had truly read the book with any depth or thought at all you would have known this. All this proves to me is that you flipped through the book and then shrugged your shoulders and believed what you wanted as you claim Christians do. And please do not tell me that you did not require doing that as the book was so obviously false. Unlike you I DID read the book thoroughly coming from an atheist background and found that the book does have proof that God was behind it.
Again, more pointless hair-splitting. Oh my God I was wrong about who authored Acts. So what? Are you saying it really did matter to me? Can you read my mind? Who's going to win next year's Super Bowl?
If you read the book and found proof in the book that God was behind it, good for you. I need more than that. I don't simply accept every wild claim written down in a book at face value, as you apparently have the habit of. I think that using the Bible as its own proof is circular logic. You can't use the subject in question as proof of its own conclusion.
"That’s why I almost find it insulting when other claims it was the Watchtower who turned me off to God. To me, it’s implying that I didn’t put any thought into it whatsoever, that it was an emotional response and I’m still under the spell of Watchtower reasoning."
The funny thing is that from what I can tell you have not put any reasoning into ANYTHING at this point about this topic. Obvious errors and speculation is the best that you have come up with and to be honest I am not impressed in the least.
Well, I'm not impressed with you, either. You've brought nothing to the table, here. Just theist arrogance.
Indeed, one of the biggest fallacies that you made is the idea the emotion and reason separate when emotion is the BASIS for reasoning as scientists are now discovering and something that I have suspected for a long time. You can get the information on this here. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/05/vulcans_nixed_y.html
I am rather disappointed in all of your reasoning as to be honest you seem to have none in this case. Rather, you like most atheists suffer from something called World View Confusion. Again to be fair this is something that many Christians suffer from as well.
World view confusion is defined as "taking an account and placing that account in a foreign frame of reference." Something that every atheistic website has done from what I have seen.
No, that's simply not falling victim to a "special pleading" fallacy. You don't get to make special criteria for your worldview to pass muster.
But again it is this contradictive thinking that has been the basis off most atheists for I have seen the following over and over again.
