Causes of Atheism

[Montrovant]

Actually the bible is agreed among scholars to be the most accurate - intact work of antiquity on earth today. It merits more authority than any other single work - it's historical value alone is priceless.

Bruce Metzger said that of all the literary compositions by the Greek people, the Homeric poems are best suited to comparison with the Bible. He said that in the complete range of ancient Greek and Latin literature, the Iliad ranks next to the New Testament in possessing the greatest amount of manuscript testimony.

Here is how the comparison breaks down according to Geisler and Nix ( all of these men are scholars ) Next to the New Testament , there are more extant manuscripts of Iliad ( 643) than any other book. Both the Iliad and the bible were considered sacred and both underwent textual changes and criticism in their Greek manuscripts. The New testament has about 20,000 lines.

They continue by saying that the Iliad has about 15,600. Only 40 lines ( or 400 words ) of the New testament are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are questioned. This five percent texual corruption compares with one half a percent of similar emendations in the New Testament - quote from Geisler and Nix

So as you can see the top scholars in the world agree that the Bible is today the most accurate - intact work of antiquity on earth. Thanks for reading. - Jeri

What makes Geisler and Nix authorities, and where do you get the information which leads you to conclude that "the bible is agreed among scholars to be the most accurate - intact work of antiquity on earth today."? That's a pretty vague statement. What constitutes a work of antiquity? What determines the accuracy of the work? Are there many intact works of antiquity to compare to?

They are both highly respected bible scholars. Where are your credentials? Do you have any?
In response to the second question - the bible scholars who participated in the research for the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict all concluded unanimously it is the most authentic - intact - as in original state from manuscripts to now - of all books on the earth today. The second to it would be the Iliad. That isn't a vague statement. That is a factual statement and you can buy the book and read it for yourself if you doubt it. The footnotes go on and on and on and on and on.... not like what we find in the book Godless Constitution - what rubbish!

It was compared to the Iliad which if you had bothered to read my post in its entirety - you'd know.

Now tell me. What are your credentials for critiquing the top bible scholars in the world? Anything notable? Are you the author of a book? A scholar?

Here are their credentials......

About the Author
NORMAN GEISLER (Th.B., William Tyndale College; A.B., Wheaton College; M.A., Wheaton College Graduate School; Ph.D., Loyola University) Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at the Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California Veritas Evangelical Seminary. He is the author or co-author of some 80 books including A General Introduction to the Bible, Baker Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, Christian Ethics, and Systematic Theology. He has also written hundreds of articles. He and his wife of 57 years, Barbara, have six children, fifteen grandchildren, and three great grandchildren. They live in Charlotte, North Carolina.

WILLIAM E. NIX (A.B., Wayne State University; A.M., University of Michigan; Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is an editorial and educational consultant based in Dallas, Texas. He has taught at several colleges and seminaries, and served as Dean at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Dr. Nix currently serves at Veritas Evangelical Seminary, Murrieta, CA as Professor of Historical and Theological Studies and Director of Master of Theological Studies. He is also President of The Electronic Bible Society. Dr. Nix is co-author with Dr. Norman L. Geisler of From God to Us and A General Introduction to the Bible. In addition, Dr. Nix has edited several books and written numerous articles. He resides with his wife, Eulaine, in Dallas, Texas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More About the Author
› Visit Amazon's Norman L. Geisler Page
Biography
Norman Geisler (PhD, Loyola University) is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and author or coauthor of over fifty books including Decide for Yourself.

You seem pretty defensive when I simply asked about the people making this claim.

I'm not sure that a Bible scholar necessarily equates to someone I should trust when comparing the Bible to all ancient writings. I think these men probably have a bit of a bias.

Actually, you appear to have misstated your 'fact' about the Bible being the most intact book.....I can only assume you meant the most intact ancient book.

Anyway, that the Bible is accurately translated or copied doesn't really say anything about it's validity.

 

[Machaut]

My problem with the "Free Will" notion of God is that at least in the Abrahamic Religions, God punishes you for making the wrong choices.

Do Americans have free will?

Are they punished for making the wrong choices?

 

[amrchaos]

I always get a little quesy when someone states "There was no Jesus"(or something like this) because I really don't have the proper understanding of such a statement.

Are they saying that the Jesus, with all the miracles and so forth as stated in the NT did not exist

Are they saying that even a Jesus, minus those miracles from the NT, did not exist

Or are they saying something else. I hate to ask the question, but what do you mean when you say "There was no Historical Jesus"?

Because depending on what you mean, this statement could be problematic to defend.

 

[JoeB131]

I always get a little quesy when someone states "There was no Jesus"(or something like this) because I really don't have the proper understanding of such a statement.

Are they saying that the Jesus, with all the miracles and so forth as stated in the NT did not exist

Are they saying that even a Jesus, minus those miracles from the NT, did not exist

Or are they saying something else. I hate to ask the question, but what do you mean when you say "There was no Historical Jesus"?

Because depending on what you mean, this statement could be problematic to defend.

Not really.

I mean, obviously, the miracle working God Man of the New Testament is a myth, obviously.

As for a "Historical" Jesus, there's no real evidence for that other than the writings of people who never met him personally. The Gospels contradict each other on lots of key points.

 

[Pennywise]

I gave you one and you don't like it. My posts reveal no such thing. Where in my posts does it say that I hate religion? Locate them.

You gave nothing to indicate that you know the origin of life. For that matter, no one knows, it's an enigma.

So save your proclamations that Jesus was fictional, and that God doesn't exist. You are in no position to claim anything, anymore than I am. The big difference between people like you and people like me, is I admit I could never know the truth. You're just a loudmouth positing your opinions as "facts". Save it.

Let's get this straight. There is no historical Jesus. It took 8 centuries to develop a Christology. That information right there has nothing to do with you and your question to the origin of life. The difference between people like me and people like you is that people like me know that. The historical Jesus, of which there is none, has not a damn thing to do with the origin of life- You uneducated hilljack.

You know nothing, all you have is conjecture (and a lot of anger). Unless you can enlighten the world as to the origin of life, you have no standing to make any claims as to the existence or non existence of a higher power.

Your continued insistence of knowing all is hilarious.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You gave nothing to indicate that you know the origin of life. For that matter, no one knows, it's an enigma.

So save your proclamations that Jesus was fictional, and that God doesn't exist. You are in no position to claim anything, anymore than I am. The big difference between people like you and people like me, is I admit I could never know the truth. You're just a loudmouth positing your opinions as "facts". Save it.

Let's get this straight. There is no historical Jesus. It took 8 centuries to develop a Christology. That information right there has nothing to do with you and your question to the origin of life. The difference between people like me and people like you is that people like me know that. The historical Jesus, of which there is none, has not a damn thing to do with the origin of life- You uneducated hilljack.

You know nothing, all you have is conjecture (and a lot of anger). Unless you can enlighten the world as to the origin of life, you have no standing to make any claims as to the existence or non existence of a higher power.

Your continued insistence of knowing all is hilarious.

False equivalence.

Life exists as does the universe. Neither implies the existence of a higher power. Your erroneous conflation of the origin of life and a higher power is based upon nothing but your beliefs. Your beliefs are a mere conjecture that life originated from a higher power. The onus is on you to (a) prove that your higher power exists, and (b) prove that your higher power is responsible for the origination of life.

In essence you are the one with no standing to make any claims on the origin of life since you are basing your position on nothing more than your personal belief sans any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Pennywise]

Let's get this straight. There is no historical Jesus. It took 8 centuries to develop a Christology. That information right there has nothing to do with you and your question to the origin of life. The difference between people like me and people like you is that people like me know that. The historical Jesus, of which there is none, has not a damn thing to do with the origin of life- You uneducated hilljack.

You know nothing, all you have is conjecture (and a lot of anger). Unless you can enlighten the world as to the origin of life, you have no standing to make any claims as to the existence or non existence of a higher power.

Your continued insistence of knowing all is hilarious.

False equivalence.

Life exists as does the universe. Neither implies the existence of a higher power. Your erroneous conflation of the origin of life and a higher power is based upon nothing but your beliefs. Your beliefs are a mere conjecture that life originated from a higher power. The onus is on you to (a) prove that your higher power exists, and (b) prove that your higher power is responsible for the origination of life.

In essence you are the one with no standing to make any claims on the origin of life since you are basing your position on nothing more than your personal belief sans any evidence whatsoever.

Nonsense. Explain the origin of life. Without that knowledge there is no way to prove or disprove its genesis.

Thanks.

 

[Pennywise]

Let's get this straight. There is no historical Jesus. It took 8 centuries to develop a Christology. That information right there has nothing to do with you and your question to the origin of life. The difference between people like me and people like you is that people like me know that. The historical Jesus, of which there is none, has not a damn thing to do with the origin of life- You uneducated hilljack.

You know nothing, all you have is conjecture (and a lot of anger). Unless you can enlighten the world as to the origin of life, you have no standing to make any claims as to the existence or non existence of a higher power.

Your continued insistence of knowing all is hilarious.

False equivalence.

Life exists as does the universe. Neither implies the existence of a higher power. Your erroneous conflation of the origin of life and a higher power is based upon nothing but your beliefs. Your beliefs are a mere conjecture that life originated from a higher power. The onus is on you to (a) prove that your higher power exists, and (b) prove that your higher power is responsible for the origination of life.

In essence you are the one with no standing to make any claims on the origin of life since you are basing your position on nothing more than your personal belief sans any evidence whatsoever.

And what is this "your higher power" jazz? I'm agnostic. I'm one of the few in this conversation saying no one knows the truth.

Thanks again.

 

[rdean]

What caused occult and mystical beliefs?

 

[amrchaos]

I have never seen or heard a child talk about god before that child heard about god from others.

Maybe true. I'll try this thought again since the lame poster I originally addressed it to failed to respond (no doubt due to fear of sounding even more stupid).

So what about this- taking the assumption by atheists that God is solely an invention of man, why would man invent a deity unless man was first compelled to wonder of the origins of his own life?

A child may not speak of God, but a child will neither contemplate the existence of their own life, nor the heady intricacies of when the universe began, or what was the genesis that sparked life.

KNOWELEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA. For thoudands of years mankind everywhere ON EARTH know there is GOD. but you??

I don't think could be a true statement even if a god exist.

Understand, the way your statement is phrased suggests one god, when the very concept of monotheism is actually NEW to mans understanding. That is just one flaw disproved by the fact that for most of Mans existence, the belief in multiple gods dominated mans theological beliefs.

Another problem is this concept of knowing that is problematic. Man do not know god/gods. Man believe(assume it is true) there is god/gods. Man does not know much details about god/gods but is taught these details about god/gods from a religion that purports to have these details.

In short, I don't really know what "knowledge" that human DNA is suppose to import to the human mind, but I doubt that it is knowledge of a god or gods. The assertion you made need both some cleaning up and scientific evidence(because you are using science by invoking the properties of DNA) to support this claim.

 

[GISMYS]

Maybe true. I'll try this thought again since the lame poster I originally addressed it to failed to respond (no doubt due to fear of sounding even more stupid).

So what about this- taking the assumption by atheists that God is solely an invention of man, why would man invent a deity unless man was first compelled to wonder of the origins of his own life?

A child may not speak of God, but a child will neither contemplate the existence of their own life, nor the heady intricacies of when the universe began, or what was the genesis that sparked life.

KNOWELEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA. For thoudands of years mankind everywhere ON EARTH know there is GOD. but you??

I don't think could be a true statement even if a god exist.

Understand, the way your statement is phrased suggests one god, when the very concept of monotheism is actually NEW to mans understanding. That is just one flaw disproved by the fact that for most of Mans existence, the belief in multiple gods dominated mans theological beliefs.

Another problem is this concept of knowing that is problematic. Man do not know god/gods. Man believe(assume it is true) there is god/gods. Man does not know much details about god/gods but is taught these details about god/gods from a religion that purports to have these details.

In short, I don't really know what "knowledge" that human DNA is suppose to import to the human mind, but I doubt that it is knowledge of a god or gods. The assertion you made need both some cleaning up and scientific evidence(because you are using science by invoking the properties of DNA) to support this claim.

Mankind all over the world for all time that man has been on earth man has known in his heart that GOD is real. why??? because mankind has his dna programed with knowledge that THERE IS GOD!!!

 

[GISMYS]

Mankind all over the world for all time that man has been on earth man has known in his heart that GOD is real. why??? because mankind has his dna programed with knowledge that THERE IS GOD!!!
===That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:19

 

[amrchaos]

Mankind all over the world for all time that man has been on earth man has known in his heart that GOD is real. why??? because mankind has his dna programed with knowledge that THERE IS GOD!!!
===That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:19

Again, your statement suggest 1 god and that knowledge is being carried to each man through DNA. Then you give us a NT quote that actually talks about 'knowing' god through our senses, not as being programmed into our being.

So I guess a different approach to this is necessary for you to understand What I Am Saying.

1)If man is programmed with the knowledge of god, as you asserts, then why are there manuals(such as Torah, Bible,Q'uran,Vedas and so on)?

2)These manuals also each asserts to impart knowledge of this god yet conflict in their characteristics and properties of God. Why is that?

3)Finally, if man has knowledge of God/Gods programmed into them, and I am assuming this knowledge is actual truth, then why is mankind split in terms of the most basic definition of what God/Gods is?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I always get a little quesy when someone states "There was no Jesus"(or something like this) because I really don't have the proper understanding of such a statement.

Are they saying that the Jesus, with all the miracles and so forth as stated in the NT did not exist

Are they saying that even a Jesus, minus those miracles from the NT, did not exist

Or are they saying something else. I hate to ask the question, but what do you mean when you say "There was no Historical Jesus"?

Because depending on what you mean, this statement could be problematic to defend.

Not really.

I mean, obviously, the miracle working God Man of the New Testament is a myth, obviously.

As for a "Historical" Jesus, there's no real evidence for that other than the writings of people who never met him personally. The Gospels contradict each other on lots of key points.

The bible has been copied and translated so many times and each had its own agenda to push. I once read that its that "Jesus" is a composite of several/many different teachers, profits and a whole lot of wishful thinking but really, there's no way to know.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What caused occult and mystical beliefs?

Fear.

 

[Pennywise]

What caused occult and mystical beliefs?

Fear.

Perhaps. Maybe it was simple curiosity.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I have never seen or heard a child talk about god before that child heard about god from others.

Maybe true. I'll try this thought again since the lame poster I originally addressed it to failed to respond (no doubt due to fear of sounding even more stupid).

So what about this- taking the assumption by atheists that God is solely an invention of man, why would man invent a deity unless man was first compelled to wonder of the origins of his own life?

A child may not speak of God, but a child will neither contemplate the existence of their own life, nor the heady intricacies of when the universe began, or what was the genesis that sparked life.

KNOWELEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA. For thoudands of years mankind everywhere ON EARTH know there is GOD. but you??

"thousands of years"?

2

The christian god is a relative newcomer. If its true that some sort of belief in an invisible super being is "programmed into human DNA", it would be the christian version.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What caused occult and mystical beliefs?

Fear.

Perhaps. Maybe it was simple curiosity.

About what?

Why the crops failed or the baby died or the sun dimmed during an eclipse?

We have huge brains. Why wouldn't even the most ignorant and uneducated turn to logic and reason instead of magic?

 

[Pennywise]

Fear.

Perhaps. Maybe it was simple curiosity.

About what?

Why the crops failed or the baby died or the sun dimmed during an eclipse?

We have huge brains. Why wouldn't even the most ignorant and uneducated turn to logic and reason instead of magic?

No, curiosity about life in general and the purpose of existence.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Perhaps. Maybe it was simple curiosity.

About what?

Why the crops failed or the baby died or the sun dimmed during an eclipse?

We have huge brains. Why wouldn't even the most ignorant and uneducated turn to logic and reason instead of magic?

No, curiosity about life in general and the purpose of existence.

This is actually an interesting conversation - esp if it doesn't get nasty - but I have work to do.

I'll be back -