Can the real atheists please stand up?

Originally posted by @moonbus
Something better than somebody's say-so x,000 years ago. It's a lot easier to propagate stories about miracles in a time when there is widespread ignorance about basic physical and physiological processes. People then did not have microscopes, they did not know enough about fertilization to realize that a man born of a woman only, with no male chromosomes, ...[text shortened]... ave been a clone of the mother (i.e., female) or not physiologically viable. We're not planaria.

You’re limiting God to natural laws. And I’m pretty sure people back then understood the action that produces a baby, which is why Joseph initially had reservations about marrying Mary when he found out she was preggers.

Originally posted by @moonbus
People then did not have microscopes, they did not know enough about fertilization to realize that a man born of a woman only, with no male chromosomes, would either have been a clone of the mother (i.e., female) or not physiologically viable. We're not planaria.

There was a very interesting thread about this a year or two ago. Despite the thought-provoking ideas that were presented, the rebuttals were along the lines "Are you calling God a liar?" "Do you think you're clever than God?" and "The Lord Moves In Mysterious Ways." 😛

Originally posted by @fmf
There was a very interesting thread about this a year or two ago. Despite the thought-provoking ideas that were presented, the rebuttals were along the lines "Are you calling God a liar?" "Do you think you're clever than God?" and "The Lord Moves In Mysterious Ways." 😛

You’re like divegeester. You think a God that’s capable of creating the universe and raising people from the dead can’t figure out how to keep a fire from going out or how to impregnate a woman.

You ascribe or accept supernatural powers for God in one instance but take them away in another 🙄

Originally posted by @romans1009
You’re limiting God to natural laws. And I’m pretty sure people back then understood the action that produces a baby, which is why Joseph initially had reservations about marrying Mary when he found out she was preggers.

I'm not limiting God to anything at all. I'm asking for some reason to believe that what the Bible says happened really did happen as described. I appreciate that for you the Bible appears to be its own authority: 'if God said so, it must be so.' But to someone who is not already convinced God said anything at all, quoting the Bible to certify the truth of the Bible is begging the question. You wouldn't believe Homer's Illiad is true simply because the Illiad says all those things happened, would you?

Many of the claims in both the OT and NT are, to put it mildly, incredible. If you expect me to believe in miracles and impossibilities, I expect something better than that someone of unknown credibility said so x,000 years ago, when a perfectly plausible explanation is at hand which does not require belief in miracles and impossibilities.

Josef was darned right to be suspicious. Who wouldn't be? So the question is, whose interest was served by leading him to believe his wife-to-be had been faithful to him? Hmmm… Any obvious suspect strike you? Frightened young girl, betrothed to an old man, no chance of landing another mate if this one bolts; she was scared shirtless to go back to her family and confess her dalliance with some unknown Tom-Dick-or-Harry. So she lied. And Josef 'confirmed' it, even if he didn't believe it, rather than look like a cuckolded old fool to his compatriots. It's a lot more plausible an explanation than that a virgin gave birth to a healthy human male, isn't it?

Oh, but then your immortal soul is damned, so you can't have that explanation, can you? Hmmm… That's a plausible explanation, maybe even a compelling reason for you, why you would want to believe in the virgin birth, and a whole lot of other impossible stuff too, despite the lack of evidence or any rational explanation how such things are even possible. So you put them all in the box marked 'miracles' and hope you're going to be rewarded with eternal life for having done so.

I would defend to the death your right to believe in miracles and impossibilities, on faith, and you can rationalize it all you want; just don't try to convince me it's based on any evidence, because it isn't. It's based on a ragtag bundle of hearsay and anecdotes, with no unbroken chain of custody for the surviving MS fragments. The earliest surviving complete codices, the Masoretic Text, date to the late 9th century. That is a huge gap, and in any historical investigation, gaps are not trivial. So, yes, there are compelling reasons to believe that the story has been tampered with, more than once, before arriving on our doorsteps.

Originally posted by @moonbus
I'm not limiting God to anything at all. I'm asking for some reason to believe that what the Bible says happened really did happen as described. I appreciate that for you the Bible appears to be its own authority: 'if God said so, it must be so.' But to someone who is not already convinced God said anything at all, quoting the Bible to certify the truth of ...[text shortened]... believe that the story has been tampered with, more than once, before arriving on our doorsteps.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I simply posted an interesting article on the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy.

I don’t believe in God and didn’t become a Christian because I wanted immortality. I’ve always believed God exists and was curious about the claims made by Christianity so decided to look into the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. While I was doing that, I read the Bible. Wanting immortality or being afraid of hell had nothing to do with it. I’ve just always been interested in the “big questions.”

Evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Old Testament certainly has some compelling Messianic prophecies, notably Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think anybody comes to the knowledge or realization of God’s existence on a carnal level. It happens on a spiritual level and I think God reveals Himself to people who set aside their skepticism, humble themselves and are genuinely interested in knowing if He exists.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I don’t believe in God and didn’t become a Christian because I wanted immortality.

?
Sort yourself out dude.

Originally posted by @romans1009

Evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Old Testament ....

There is no evidence.
It is a story.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
There is no evidence.
It is a story.

What lead you to this conclusion? I'm guessing you mean there is no evidence that you are currently aware of? Because that does not mean there is no evidence.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
There is no evidence.
It is a story.

You reject the evidence. Your opinion is, it's a story.

Fixed.

Originally posted by @romans1009
You’re like divegeester. You think a God that’s capable of creating the universe and raising people from the dead can’t figure out how to keep a fire from going out or how to impregnate a woman.

You ascribe or accept supernatural powers for God in one instance but take them away in another 🙄

If God exists as described in the bible, then every supernatural claim in the bible is utterly and completely possible. If God does not exist as described in the bible, then there is no point going any further because the bible is fraudulent.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What lead you to this conclusion? I'm guessing you mean there is no evidence that you are currently aware of? Because that does not mean there is no evidence.

Doesn't the Bible say that faith is the evidence of things not seen? And doesn't it say that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear? This cedes the point that there is no evidence other than faith. So you are arguing for a position ("Evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Old Testament certainly has some compelling Messianic prophecies, notably Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9" ) that the Bible says cannot be argued except by appeal to faith as evidence.

Hebrews 11:1-6 King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Originally posted by @js357
Doesn't the Bible say tfaith is the evidence of things not seen? And doesn't it say that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear? This cedes the point that there is no evidence other than faith. So you are arguing for a position ("Evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Old Testament certainly has some compelling Mes ...[text shortened]... meth to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Yes but it is not a blind faith, it is based upon reason.

Romans 1:20

New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I'm sure you would consider a complex spaceship as evidence of an intelligent designer. Why would you not consider a human cell which is equally if not more complex than a spaceship as evidence of an intelligent designer?

Depends on what kind of cell?

A prokaryote or a eukaryote?

Their evolutionary pathways and corresponding domains are well established facts.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
?
Sort yourself out dude.

Did you miss the words that followed “because...?”

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
There is no evidence.
It is a story.

There’s an open mind lol.

Someone with an open mind would have asked what the evidence was and then reviewed it and come to a conclusion. You’ve come to a conclusion from a position of ignorance.