Hey everyone! Beth is back for more! I just got her email a bit ago, which is not really good timing. My parents are getting here tomorrow about the time that I get up, so I really don’t have any time to reply in detail. But that shouldn’t stop you from commenting or emailing replies to heavingdeadcats@gmail.com. I’ll be happy to incorporate your replies into the post as well as my reply to her. I feel like I’m on a merry-go-round here!
Here is the email in its entirety. She is replying to my statements (from Conversations With christians 4a) which are not in block quotes:
~
Whether you agree to the label or not is irrelevant. It doesn’t make it any less true. What history and science resources are you looking at to come to these conclusions? How are you so sure that you are getting the whole story? Please give some of your resources. I am quite curious as to what you’re reading to come to such wild opinions. For instance, name one contemporary document from Jesus’ time that refers to him. Better yet, name one person who wrote about meeting him, outside of the gospels. You can’t because no such documents or evidence exists. Since you insist that he existed, that he was magical and had special powers and rose from the dead, the Burden of Proof is on you, as you are making the positive claim. Please provide references. Simple inflammatory statements are baseless.
No, I do not agree to the label because your accusation that I am “cherry picking” is baseless in itself. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is unimportant, however. It does not change the fact you are wrong.
I will gladly share my sources with you. One I use quite frequently is tektonics.org. It has great articles that address many of the issues you appear to have with Jesus and the New Testament especially. Furthermore, I’d like to establish that while I do not doubt that Jesus once walked the earth that the rest, as far as him being the son of God, performing miracles, and being resurrected is all a matter of faith. I cannot prove that to you.
Why didn’t jesus write anything down himself? He was a god-man after all. Why not document his life and teachings to share for future sheep to get his message accurately? Why rely on flawed men to write things down 40-80 years after his supposed death? This doesn’t bother you in the slightest? You don’t find it odd? Read the rest of this entry »
Remember Craig the christian from last month? He emailed me yesterday about the recent post I wrote: Cherry-Picking and a bible Lesson for Atheists. I’ll quote his email and then post my replies.
Craig said: I do not have a problem with your use of the Skeptic’s Bible per se. The issue I have with the Skeptic’s Bible is the use of the King James Bible, which relies on later documents for its translation (8th and 9th century if I remember correctly) as opposed to the 1st and 2nd century documents other translations use (NRSV & NET to name a few).
Neece’s reply:
If you know of a more accurate interpretation of the bible that I can link to online and read online, can you link me? Otherwise I’ll stick to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Because it’s the one people know best, and it’s the one I was indoctrinated with, and it honestly shouldn’t matter that much for the following reasons below.
Craig said: Unchecked, the Bible can be made to mean a number of things. The Bible has been used to support slavery and patriarchy. It has also been used to try to define marriage and condemn homosexuality. I’m sure we will get into these matters at a different time. My point is, that the Bible does none of these.
There are three different courses of action on can take when interpreting tricky passages from the Bible
1. Cherry-pick from the texts
2. Ignore difficult texts
3. Admit that we don’t know what the text means and hope that future research will shed light on the meaning.
(Neece’s note: Craig thoughtfully included commentary regarding the quotes I chose in the bible lesson for atheists from April 7th, but I am omitting them here. If you’d like me to include them, comment below and I’ll add them to the bottom of this post.) Instead of getting tangled in the apologetic thinking of the commentary, I said this: Read the rest of this entry »
As an atheist, it’s important to understand what the Burden of Proof is, and how it works. Why? Because theists misuse it against us. In return, we need to be better educated and set them straight.
The burden of proof (latin: onus probandi), falls under the maxim ‘necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’ or, “the necessity of proof lies with he who complains”. The burden of proof usually lies with the party making the new claim, in terms of law.
But where we are much more interested is in science, where the burden of proof lies with someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim. They therefore must supply evidence to support it.
So if someone makes a bold claim, it isn’t another person’s responsibility to disprove it, but rather the responsibility of the person making the claim.
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, meaning the less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. Read the rest of this entry »
Hey everyone! Beth is back for more! I just got her email a bit ago, which is not really good timing. My parents are getting here tomorrow about the time that I get up, so I really don’t have any time to reply in detail. But that shouldn’t stop you from commenting or emailing replies to heavingdeadcats@gmail.com. I’ll be happy to incorporate your replies into the post as well as my reply to her. I feel like I’m on a merry-go-round here!
Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method
The first comment I got on the post was from a man named Brian. When I got up this morning and read his comment I was inspired to reply. After a few minutes I realized my response was quite lengthy and decided a follow-up post was in order. After his comment you’ll find my thoughts. So here is his comment in its entirety:
Read the rest of this entry »