Chesterton on Atheism

So you believe in his cult, eh? Interesting that ‘absurdities’ or ‘paradoxes’ is the very word Luke uses of the reaction of the crowds when Jesus performs miracles. They didn’t believe them then any more than you believe them now but that didn’t stop them happening@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers Voltaire doesn't have a cult. He was a writer.

There is no proof that Jesus performed any miracles. The person who wrote the book of Luke wasn't even there.

No proof at in in what you have just said either. How do you know Luke wasn’t there? You are a champion at making uninformed statements@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers Legitimate Biblical scholarship (not "Bible study") accepts that the Gospels weren't written by people of those names. There was no "Luke, the Greek physician." Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and an earlier, lost account. John, written around 120 years later, is completely different as is obvious from reading it.

As for whether people who witness "miracles" believe them, I'm sure many of them do. I'm more likely to accept a supernatural event that happens in front of me than one that someone else is describing to me. It would be great to have the opportunity to witness one, assuming one ever happens.

What you’re saying is of course not right. Legitimate biblical scholarship today accepts that the gospels were probably written by people associated with those names. Your ‘scholarship’ is years out of date and represents the theories that were written in the 19th and early 20th century. You need to refer to a book like ‘Jesus and the eye witnesses’ by Professor Richard Baukham to get modern thought on the gospel writers. What are you saying about John’s gospel is complete nonsense. In fact JAT Robinson dated John as the earliest gospel and he was a rank liberal. You see, pulling stuff off the Internet which is years out of date just gets you confused and misinformed.
When it comes to miracles of course people who see them don’t necessarily believe as when Jesus raised the man from the dead and the people who saw it just wanted to kill him and went on to kill him. You see rank unbelief is not moved by a miracle. If you don’t want to believe then you won’t@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers Bauckham is an Anglican and has an agenda. J.A.T. Robinson is hardly "modern" as he died 40 years ago. He was an Anglican bishop, and while he was involved in shaping liberal Christian theology, that has nothing to do with when he thought John was written. Liberal theology seeks to incorporate modern scientific and moral thinking with Christian doxy. If you're not even clear on your definitions, it's hard to take your accusations seriously.

There is legitimate dispute over when the Gospels were written, what their sources were, and which statements attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him. Picking the scholars you like because you want support for your view that the Gospels are 100% accurate records of eyewitness testimony just betrays your own bias.

Also, belief is not a matter of free will. I don't have any more control over what I believe or "want to believe" than you do. If you disagree, please demonstrate by willing yourself to not believe in God for the next five minutes. If it's subject to your free will, you should be able to do it, same as you can choose what color shirt to put on every morning.

You are completely wrong. See ‘Redating the New Testament by John AT Robinson. Can you name me any scholar who hasn’t an agenda? Every scholar and historian has an agenda. You are very naive of you think otherwise. You are not to be taken seriously.
Of course there is dispute but modern thinking has swung to a much earlier dating of the gospels. Your thinking shows your own bias which you don’t appear to recognise. The fact is the more we know about archeology and the second temple period the more the gospels are found to be accurate representations.
You might be chemically determined but I am not. I have free will. It is th3 gift from God. You are under a delusion my friend. ‘@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers Again, Robinson died 40 years ago, so he hardly represents modern thinking. The modern view is that they were written between AD 60 and 120, and the authors' names weren't added until the second century. Non-canonical gospels like Thomas, Mary, Judas, and others were excluded by the early Catholic Church when the official canon was assembled. I realize that the evidence is inconclusive, however, the existence of the Q (for "quelle" meaning "source") gospel is widely accepted as the basis along with Mark for Matthew and Luke. Just because you've read one or two books doesn't make you an expert, it just reinforces what you thought already.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even if future scholars prove that the Gospels were written right after Jesus' death by eyewitnesses, that doesn't prove they're true any more than Joseph Smith transcribing the Golden Tablets proves that the Book of Mormon is true. There's more evidence for those than for the Resurrection, as the Tablets were supposedly seen and handled by actual people whose existence is unassailable.

Again, if you have free will, you should be able to use it to not believe in God for a few minutes. If you're unable to, then it's unreasonable to demand that I do something you can't or won't do.

You are of course totally wrong again. The authors names were always associated with the respective gospels right from the beginning. No evidence has ever been found for the actual existence of Q although scholars use it as a reference point. It is a totally fictitious ‘document’. I assure you I have read more than a few books on this subject! Certainly enough to know you are just barking off the internet.
The extraordinary claims indeed require extraordinary proof which happened when Jesus rose from the dead. Rather better attested than the Joe Smith incident over 2000 years.
Nope mate! I use my free will to believe truth not lies. Atheism is a lie and as having fully investigated the evidence I am convinced Christ rose from the dead I believe in Him. Free will.
Note that people who actually knew he was raised still exercised their free will not to believe. Parable of the sower! @LeopoldBloom

@Mathers There is no evidence that those names refer to actual people or that they were associated with the gospels from the beginning. If you have objective proof, please provide it.

You are correct that there is no hard evidence for Q, however, the scholarly consensus is that the non-Mark portions of Luke and Matthew came from a separate, lost source document.

There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Such an event would have been noted by the Romans who were supposed to have been present. The story mentions "hundreds" of witnesses, but strangely, none of these made a contemporary record of it.

The Golden Tablets, on the other hand, were attested to by actual people for whom we have census records, photographs, and descendants alive today. Several of them continued to support Smith's account, even after they were excommunicated and had no reason to. If they were lying, it's also possible that the gospel writers were lying.

After reading the Bible, I became convinced that it's nothing more than historically-based fiction. What's interesting is how many different denominations there are, despite the fact that all of them are reading the same Bible. Of course, I'm sure you think the only correct one is yours. You've already implied that the Mormons are wrong.

You still haven't demonstrated that your belief is due to free will. Just giving examples from your story book isn't convincing. I'm asking you to demonstrate it.

The proof lies in those who would say they weren’t associated with them. They were always accepted by the earliest church and those who are nearest to the events so the proof lies with those who 2000 years later said they weren’t . You don’t seem to realise that the objective proof lies with those who say they are not the same people who the early church near the events believed were associated with the gospels. If you have objective proof they won’t then please provide it.
Then you go on about Q about which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for and yet liberal scholars will say there is. Sorry it is a figment completely made up fictitiously.
Please provide objective proof it never existed.
There is very strong objective historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead as seen by the rise of the early church against all the odds, the immense change in the disciples, the fact that none of them betrayed the cause even under torture and the fact that so many people of immense intelligence of investigated the resurrection and found it out to be to be historically true. You are absolutely wrong in comparing it with this nonsense of Mormonism.
You can say what you like about the Bible and your opinion of it but it’s changed my life and the lives of millions around the world. Sorry you have that opinion but the parable of the sewer says that when the seed falls on hard ground then it just is taken away. You can argue all you like about three well but I know that God has given us very well and the power to choose Jesus or reject him and if you choose to reject him then that is your choice.
‘ he came to his own but his own did not receive him but as many as received him to them gave he power to become the children of God…born of God’ I know I didn’t become a Christian by a load of natural reasoning but because I was born of God.

Anyway been nice to chat@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers By that standard, Islam must be true because it started with an illiterate Arab goatherd and rapidly spread across the Middle East and North Africa.

It's nice that the Bible improved your life. I know people whose lives were improved by the Nation of Islam and by Scientology, and those religions were made up just a few decades ago. Your mistake is assuming that because your particular version of Christianity works for you, it should work for everyone. The problem is, your arrogance is repulsive and is pushing more people away from your religion than it's attracting. Of course, that's the point as what fun would Christianity be if it didn't make you special?

Imagine that you arrive in heaven and everyone who ever lived is there - good people, evil people, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists - everyone. Would you be happy or maybe a little angry?

You are of course wrong because Islam spread by military conquest where is Christianity spread in the face of great persecution. Just read some history. You of course as most people do mistake certainty for arrogance because of course we live in a world where to express certainty in religion is repulsive to peopke. But then it was repulsive 2000 years ago because they crucified Jesus and killed most of his first disciples. It is still repulsive today because most Christians are persecuted in the world today so you’re in good company thinking it repulsive@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers Actually, Christianity spread through Latin America at the point of a sword. And after the first few hundred years, once it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it spread through Europe at the point of a sword too. You need to study the history of your own religion. Just because Christians were persecuted early on and the religion spread through word of mouth doesn't mean that applied throughout its entire history. The history of Christianity is a bloodbath for the most part, including all the wars fought between different Christian groups.

Also, "most" Christians in the world today aren't being persecuted. They are being persecuted in a few Muslim countries, but Muslims are also persecuted in a few places, like the Uighurs in China and the Rohingya in Burma.

I also notice you didn't answer my question, I assume because it makes you uncomfortable.

True Christianity has never spread through the point of a sword. Jesus taught that his kingdom was none of this world. Today there are more Christians being persecuted than ever before. Because you don’t like the evidence you just don’t believe it@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers LOL "true Christianity." You're literally engaging in the "no true Scotsman" argument. I could just as easily say that "true Islam" is spread peacefully, and "true atheists" have never harmed anyone.

I already admitted that Christians are being persecuted in some countries. You said that "most Christians" are being persecuted, which is either a lie or a mistake on your part. However, Christians aren't the only people being persecuted today. In some countries, being an atheist is a death sentence. Are you concerned about that, or you're only concerned when it's your people being persecuted? I'm against all religious persecution.

Most of the Christians being persecuted today are in the Middle East, and are Orthodox Christians. Do you even consider Orthodox Christianity to be a valid denomination? You've already admitted that you think Mormonism is fake. I can only imagine your opinion of Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Coptic, not to mention Episcopal, Metropolitan Community Church, Quakers, and other denominations that aren't hard-core fundamentalist Protestant.

You are just spouting your usual non-information. Some of us happened to have been to these countries. Of course there were aspects of Christendom that was spread by the sword but you’re talking about things which were not the kingdom of God as preached by Jesus if you know anything about his teaching. A Christian is someone who has a living relationship with Jesus Christ. That is all@LeopoldBloom

@Mathers I've been to some of those countries, too. At least you are now admitting that in some places, Christianity was spread through violence. If your definition of "Christian" is "someone who has a living relationship with Jesus Christ," that would include many of the people who spread it violently. It would also include Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Quaker, Mennonite, and every other Christian denomination.

Interestingly, the term "personal relationship with Jesus" originated with 17th century German Pietists. In many denominations, the believer's relationship with Jesus is also through their participation in a faith community.