Nothing Definite about Definitive Proof

Viejita,

As an "atheist sympathizer," I'm here because I'm trying to understand why anyone would care about my personal religious beliefs.

Christians and Muslims believe that they have been instructed to convert others. That belief violates the principle of freedom of conscience, because it assumes that the individual has no right to his or her personal religious beliefs. Or, it assumes that the evangelist's beliefs about that individual are more important than the individual's beliefs about himself or herself. For someone to have a religious belief about someone else violates not only freedom of conscience but also personal boundaries.

Realistically, people cannot control what others believe about them. Look at this way - I suspect Christians and Muslims would feel invaded, and rightly so, if believers from other religions insisted they had a deity-given duty to convince Christians and Muslims to abandon their faiths. So why wouldn't they recognize that their own attempts to evangelize might be seen as invasive?

The other aspect of this is that Christian doctrine attempts to define people in a negative way, such as original sin which saddles humans with the guilt for a crime they didn't commit. (I don't know enough about Islam to know if it has the same teachings.) Again, I suspect Christians would be very (and rightly) offended if evangelists from other religions tried to define them in a similar negative way.

Obviously, there are atheists who are just as evangelistic as the religious people they criticize, and it's fair of the religious people to point this out. The important difference is that atheism does not have an inherent definition of people. No doctrines such as original sin or eternal damnation. So the invasiveness of evangelistic atheism is more of an annoyance.

Viejita, you ask "If you are an atheist then why are you here?"

To understand how believers think and feel about religion and to talk openly with non-believers. In "real life" this is something you don't bring up much - for numerous reasons - to avoid offending believers, to avoid raising a controversial subject, to hide your lack of beliefs for fear that showing them could be detrimental socially or professionally.

Hopefully, this is changing. Now that I’m more attuned to the subject, I find myself looking for openings to mention my feelings to people I think might be like-minded. It’s worked every time – started a good conversation, and was a relief, all around.

Also - keep in mind that some of the essayists are non-believers - it's interesting to get their perspectives on these topics.

John Franson wrote:
"If not believing in God is "faith," then not believing in unicorns is a faith too."

Of course, the OT Bible mentions unicorns a couple of times, so... :)

I wonder why the Xians never ask us why we don't believe in unicorns when their Bible says they existed just as much as Jesus existed?

If not believing in God is "faith," then not believing in unicorns is a faith too. By that definition, I'm quite the pious one. But of course, not believing in something isn't faith. When will religionists learn this?

Believing in something requires evidence. Believing in something extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence. But not believing in something requires only that existing evidence be shown to be insufficient or invalid. The "evidence" regarding God has been shown to be both.

Religionists themselves admit this through their use of the word "faith." If they were certain of their convictions, that word would be unnecessary. Period.

Isaac Watts,

Thanks. I don't remember having read this passage before. It's good.

Norrie, you're a kind man for posting this. And I have found it so late..

Here are Donne's thoughts on the ascension, if any readers wander by..

Behold the Highest, parting hence away,
Lightens the dark clouds, which he treads upon,
Nor doth He by ascending, show alone,
But first He, and He first enters the way.
O strong Ram which hast battered heaven for me,
Mild lamb, which with thy blood, hast marked the path;
Bright Torch, which shin'st, that I the way may see,
Oh, with thy own blood quench thy own just wrath.
And if the Holy Spirit, my Muse did raise,
Deign at my hands this crown of prayer and praise.

GOOD-FRIDAY, 1613, RIDING WESTWARD.
by John Donne

LET man's soul be a sphere, and then, in this,
Th' intelligence that moves, devotion is ;
And as the other spheres, by being grown
Subject to foreign motion, lose their own,
And being by others hurried every day,
Scarce in a year their natural form obey ;
Pleasure or business, so, our souls admit
For their first mover, and are whirl'd by it.
Hence is't, that I am carried towards the west,
This day, when my soul's form bends to the East.
There I should see a Sun by rising set,
And by that setting endless day beget.
But that Christ on His cross did rise and fall,
Sin had eternally benighted all.
Yet dare I almost be glad, I do not see
That spectacle of too much weight for me.
Who sees Gods face, that is self-life, must die ;
What a death were it then to see God die ?
It made His own lieutenant, Nature, shrink,
It made His footstool crack, and the sun wink.
Could I behold those hands, which span the poles
And tune all spheres at once, pierced with those holes ?
Could I behold that endless height, which is
Zenith to us and our antipodes,
Humbled below us ? or that blood, which is
The seat of all our soul's, if not of His,
Made dirt of dust, or that flesh which was worn
By God for His apparel, ragg'd and torn ?
If on these things I durst not look, durst I
On His distressed Mother cast mine eye,
Who was God's partner here, and furnish'd thus
Half of that sacrifice which ransom'd us ?
Though these things as I ride be from mine eye,
They're present yet unto my memory,
For that looks towards them ; and Thou look'st towards me,
O Saviour, as Thou hang'st upon the tree.
I turn my back to thee but to receive
Corrections till Thy mercies bid Thee leave.
O think me worth Thine anger, punish me,
Burn off my rust, and my deformity ;
Restore Thine image, so much, by Thy grace,
That Thou mayst know me, and I'll turn my face.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:
Donne, John. Poems of John Donne. vol I.
E. K. Chambers, ed.
London: Lawrence & Bullen, 1896. 172-173.

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

Stevens-Arroyo is a black hole voraciously trying to suck us all into the way he percieves and thinks about things.

Some of his apologists (above)have already crossed the event horizon. (Not even light can escape).

All this name calling, whew!

Get away! Get away!

Bill Boland stated "If you define faith as belief in what you cannot prove, then I think atheism fits in there, as you believe God does not exist, but you have no proof."

I don't define faith with those words.

The faith of Christianity, for example, involves a belief system in which certain beliefs are held by its members, certain behaviors are expected, certain rituals are performed and certain holidays observed. ATheism contains none of that. Is not believing in Lizard Men a faith? No, it's simply lacking a belief which is all atheism is.

As usual, Stevens-Arroyo has hit the nail on the head.

I have a question for some of you, as intriguing as your points of view often are:
If you are an atheist (i.e. certain there is no God) then why are you here? I'm not trying to be rude, I honestly don't understand why any of these questions should be of interest to someone who possesses the kind of negative certainty that is necessary to claim atheism.

Unlike the term "christian," which seems to have a multitude of definitions and justifications -- each of which seems to exclude the others -- "atheist" has a pretty straightforward etymology.

ken,s logical starting point of observation.
monotheism should be the logical starting point for observation,just look in nature around you,there is maker behinde the natural state of the world,he see us but we cannot see him,can you see the soul, i mean your own soul that is so near in your own chest ,can you make an atom of air ,a drop of water,can you make it to the sun ,the sun rise from the east could you make it rise from the west,can you make a mountain ,can you make another atlantic ocean,can you stop breathing air,can you make your own supply of air,can you cause life and cause death ,can you put soul back in dead body?

1-there is maker for this universe.
2-he see us but we canot see him,if we humanbeings can eye ball god then he is not god.we certainly can see what he makes but our qurater pound brain canot even imagine his attributes. unless he send us divine scripture to tell about him.
3-he is one
4-he is by him self no son no daughter no wife.

ken,s logical starting point of observation and the son of god logical starting point of observation ,donot exist in nature nor in scripture .
please read the last and final divine revelation (Quran) MERCEY to man kind.

Bill: "If you define faith as belief in what you cannot prove, then I think atheism fits in there, as you believe God does not exist, but you have no proof."

If that were true, we could all be characterized as having faith in an infinite number of things, as we all believe that an infinite number of things--most of which we do not assign names to but could conjure up through imagination--do not exist. In that case the word "faith" loses all meaning. The word seems useful in reference to things one believes in, not things that one does not believe in.

In the same way we could all be characterized as atheists, since even those who believe in one god reject the existence of an infinite number of possible others. Stevens-Arroyo doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that he is an atheist (and perhaps doesn't like himself?) because he starts from the common narrow theist perspective: my god exists, and therefore I can define the terms faith and atheism relative to my belief. This assertion of personal belief has no justification other than the personal belief itself.

Ken: "We assume, with varying degrees of faith, the axioms from which we derive our further proofs."

Here is the red herring that theists toss in to obscure their lack of evidence: "we all start from assumptions, so we all employ faith, so our arguments are equally logical."

The problem with this vague reasoning is that the assumptions behind the conclusions of evolutionary biology are testable. Any serious student of biology knows that if these assumptions are true...(1) if there is variation, (2) if that variation is heritable, and (3) if some variants leave more descendents in future generations than others...then evolution will have occurred, because changes in the proportions of those variants will follow. Continued change over time also requires the assumption that new variants arise through mutation. We can test each of these assumptions scientifically, and we have a clear understanding of how the data would look if any of the assumptions were falsified. There is no faith involved.

The problem with your argument is that none of your assumptions are testable. Faith is just another word for an unverified, subjective, and untestable assertion. Good science is our best guard against such assertion.

To Mike K.
>There is no "faith of atheism". Faith is a belief...

If you define faith as belief in what you cannot prove, then I think atheism fits in there, as you believe God does not exist, but you have no proof.

Bill

Ken, you stated "Atheism by definition means more than not totally committed to the idea of God. "

No, it isn't. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in any gods or goddesses.

You then stated "It sounds like some of the atheists who post here are actually agnostics."

You're incorrectly implying that it's one or the other when, in fact, it can be both. Agnosticism/gnosticism deal with knowledge while atheism/theism deal in the realm of belief. One can be an agnostic atheist, which is one who lacks a belief in any gods/goddesses but not claim knowledge that no such think exists. Similarly, one can be an agnostic theist which is one who believes in a god but does not claim knowledge that such exists.

Mike P wrote:

" Pilate's account of Jesus' trial to Caesar is undeniable proof."

????
What are you talking about? Please share this hither-before-unknown document with the rest of the known world. Hyperlink, please.

Re: To those who claim that atheism is a religion or faith: should you be defined as an "a-Santa Clausist" if you don't believe in Santa Claus? If you don't believe in Santa, are you practicing a religion of not believing in Santa?

Ken states: "If God created man in His image, it would be logical to start from there. If we are just the result of selected mutations arising from a primordial soup that emerged from chemical reactions, it might be logical to start from there. But neither can be assumed."

Well, there is plenty of evidence for natural selection. Loads of it.

There seems little evidence that "God" created man in his image beyond "The Bible says so". There is some evidence against this view (vestigial organs such as the appendix, for example...why would Yahweh need one of those?).

You can call "reason" "faith" and dwell in such obscurantism all you like, I will assume the proposition that is supported by the most convincing evidence.

Atheism by definition means more than not totally committed to the idea of God. The alpha-privative is closer to anti-Theist. It sounds like some of the atheists who post here are actually agnostics. (the Greek translates into Latin as ignoramus, but negative connotations belong to the hearers by association, not the speakers.)
It is wonderfully, almost charmingly naive to believe that atheism is the starting point of reason. But reason and logic are instrumental, not foundational. Garbage in, garbage out. The faith that we accuse atheists of professing is exposed here in the presuppositions they fail to acknowledge. If God created man in His image, it would be logical to start from there. If we are just the result of selected mutations arising from a primordial soup that emerged from chemical reactions, it might be logical to start from there. But neither can be assumed. We are not tabulae rasa. We assume, with varying degrees of faith, the axioms from which we derive our further proofs.

Mike P tells us:

"But he [Jopsephus] is not the only one. Pilate's account of Jesus' trial to Caesar is undeniable proof."

Lest this go unchallenged, there is no such document authored by Pilate extant. The poster has either been misled or is attempting to mislead.

If the poster has some secret knowledge of such a document, I invite him to share it with us (and, of course, the academic community).

Or does the poster mean Tacitus, perhaps?

Mike P: Josephus first published Testimonium Flavianum in 93 CE. It's not contemporaneous to the supposed life of Jesus. Secondly, Josephus wasn't a Christian and would not have refered to Jesus as "Christ". If you Google "Josephus on Jesus" you'll find that the consensus appears to be that the references are interpolations.

Also, I'm surprised you would attempt to use Toledoth Jeschu in support of Jesus. Besides being a polemic against Jesus, it's written version dates back to the 4th century at the earliest. There's nothing contemporaneous about it.

Everettf,

"As an atheist, I would need evidence that a god, any god exists. That evidence cannot use the bible, faith, scripture or hearsay. Can any theist provide the evidence? If a god were to be found true, I would still not worship it."

What a fascinating comment. Help us to understand why you would not worship a "god" if he was found to be true. I think you've shown us the real reason people do not want to believe in God. But I'm interested in your logic first.

ANNONYmous et al

You said, (on the other thread); (On Preserving Faith in writing or oral recitations) etc.)

".... It's what many books and many pastors have echoed over many years ..."

During my International Smuggling days, ( Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, India etc., and all over there)

I remember when I would be sleeping, then awakened In some Inter Continental hotel, Marriott or in where ever Islam country [includes Turkey & Iran et al) THAT::

In ARABIC and now ON-LOUD- SPEAKERS systems, For all the world to hear ( I find that repulsive and insane) The Mosques & their Cantors (reciters or religious singers or Imam, would wake me up in that "...Allah Akbar..." Stuff!

It was as if the “Islamic Rooster” "Cocka Doodle Do's" or some Holy “alarm clock” was set off for your rude, or crude morning awakening. (Noon & Evenings too) . Ya Ya Mon! I

Hence: therefore ISLAM is a Publicly Forced thing as an Institution that is all knowing or Partially knowing or non knowing at all , by the noise makers turned Saber Rattlers .!?

Note: If one would dare to complain then you will surely have your tongue n Cheek removed or possibly whipped out, or chopped off, in so many primitive ways. Amazing how ancient they still are??!! Forge about that Cartoon Caricature of Mohammad & turban escalation recently

THIS Is WHY & How, Islam gets sustained or preserved. In Brooklyn, N.Y., the Cops will ticket them. and possibly close them down. Ya? Ya!

Now We should know why they are so wired in their faiths and show Hard Headed tendencies under those Shmottas (Yiddish for religious Garb or rags)..!

Oh, ANNONYMOUS, I like your Arabic Letters: in Shallah. Praise Eclati the true SOURCE ONE.

The all knowing and all powerful ECLAT.

Oh f orgot: The E.C.L.A.T.A.R.I.A.N. Faith, Belief, “Cosmic Feelers Religion” et al , IS BORN IN, New York, U.S.A. (1969 – 1989). And ALL Pre-Apocalyptic Faiths will go POOF-TIME!

Ya Ya Praise the Eclati. G-d Bless New York. Home sweet Home!

TRIVIA: Did you know that a Ducks Quacking does NOT MAKE an ECHO?!

Ba'al: A "Majority of scholars" say that Josephus reference to Jesus is a later interpolation? First of all, there is no way you can know that, because no one has collated the majority of scholars on any biblical subject. I looked it up in all of my works on Josephus (both critical and explanatory) and out of ten works, only one discussed the two passages as an acretion.

Second, just because there are some scholars who claim this doesn't make it true. I was just saying that Josephus talks about Jesus as a real person.

But he is not the only one. Pilate's account of Jesus' trial to Caesar is undeniable proof. So is the Jewish document, "Toledoth Jesu" acknowledges both that Jesus was a real man and that his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead.

You have no way of proving that the historical documents we know of as the Gospels are inaccurate. In fact, if it wasn't for the matter that the Gospels call for someone to place their faith in Jesus, there are very few scholars who would doubt their authenticity. So doesn't that also bring into question the motives of scholars who question the Gospels?

The bible is not, by any stretch of the immagination, an authentic document-any rational,reasonable and objective researcher can arrive at that conclusion,unless they want to believe what they inherited from their parents and be dogmatic about it.The bible was written decades after the death of Jesus. Paul-the grand imposter,who corrupted the original teachings of Jesus, never in fact met or knew Jesus.So why waste time over this 2000 year-old myth of ressurection-which flies in face of any human logic and lacks any historical evidence. If xtians are after saving their souls, then they should live up to and comply with their Ethical System of Values,which is a great one-that is the real savior.

Mr. Stevens,

Although I do not always agree with all the points in your articles they are always interesting, and informative to me.

Your analogy concerning Jack and Jill is right on when applied to a spiritual/religious experience. But I find that same analogy is present even in the mundane experiences of everyday life.

Take one experience and two people. You often get two different beliefs from the same experience.
My point is that if people experience even the simple things in life differently, then just think how people would experience something like a bona fide miracle. If such a thing really exist.

And concerning God and Logic. I personally don't know if the two go together in my book. Logic to me dictates there is no God. That is where I have so much conflict with a belief system in regards to God. I like to think that I have a fair education. But like someone said "I spent alot of money to get this so called education, and now I am spending alot of time in unlearning alot of it." And no I don't think that you have to have a education to be smart, spiritual/religious, successful or whatever.

But in my heart as well as my intellect is where I believe in God. God to me today is the Great Unexplainable Mystery. I can understand somewhat better today why some people chose to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Some of them take that event on Faith. Just like I take my shaky belief in God on Faith. I can find no concrete proof of Gods existence. Yet I know today that there are many things I still don't know, and never will. But I still have this tendency to demand proof. I think that is just being a human.

So "I can find no logical proof to believe in God." But yet I do. There is no "rational proof" that exists that I can use to sway you or anyone else to believe in God. People can quote the Bible to me until the cows come home. But we are right back to square one. The bible means nothing to me in relation to my faith. And there you have that word again. Faith. Faith in something bigger, and better than me. But as I said before, many days I start out by asking myself, "Will I take a leap of faith today?" That is one reason why I find this web site so interesting. There are so many various forms of Faith on display here. And no-one can prove the other one wrong or right. But the Resurrection has always fascinated me. Keep up the great articles.

everettf:
"Besides, does anybody know if this god is male or female?"

Brutus:
"God is a hermaphrodite."

Actually, the Christian god is neither. "Males" and "females" are defined by the size of the gametes they produce--there is no other characteristic that universally distinguishes the two. Since a monotheistic god lives alone, sexual reproduction using gametes is doubtful.

JSS:
You really think a book endorsing Christ and Christianity is really gonna throw in a line or two that says the guy never existed? Or that he and his band of "merry" men were just a bunch of conmen? Yea right........when has that ever happened?

I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster mor emyself.........but hey, that's just me.

If a bomb goes off it leaves evidence in a thousand different ways. If Christ's resurrection was really false, then this idea that a Catholic purge of historical documents has covered that up requires massive amounts of faith to believe.

Consider these historical documents. I will list the data for each in this order:
Work; When Written; Earliest copies; time span between writing and current copies; no. of copies

Herodotus; written 488-428 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 1300 years between; 8 copies

Thucydides; written 460-400 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 1300 years between; 8 copies

Tacitus; written 100 AD; earliest copy 1100 AD; 1000 years between; 20 copies

Caesar's Gallic War; written 58-50 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 950 years between; 9-10 copies

Livy's Roman History; written 59 BC-17 AD; earliest copy 900 AD; time between 900 years; 20 copies

New Testament; written 40-100 AD; earliest copy 130 AD (full manuscript 350 AD); time between 30-300 years; 26,300 copies

...all I am saying is that the evidence for the authenticity of the documents related to the New Testament is overwhelming compared to other documents that NO ONE disputes.

There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts; over ten thousand Latin manuscripts and 9300 other manuscripts, as well as over thirty-six thousand citings in the writings of the early church fathers. As one of the greatest textual critics every, F.J.A. Hort, said, "In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the test of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings."

F.F. Bruce summarizes the evidence by quoting Sir Frederic Kenyon, a leading scholar in this area: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foudnation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the autheniticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
No Other Religion is founded on fulfilled prophecies given hundreds of years before the life of the religious leader. Christ fulfilled over 300 prophecies (spoken by different voices over 500 years) including 29 major prophecies fulfilled in a single day. If Christ was such a clever con-man then how did he fulfill the prophecy about his birth place. Was he able to con his mother into moving to Bethlehem while he was still in the womb? What about prophecies about Herod's attempt to kill all children 2 years and under thereby requiring a move to Egypt to escape. Did Jesus as a barely speaking 2 year old convince his parents to choose Egypt?
It is absurd to think that Jesus was just a con-man. It is equally absurd to think that we have over 26,000 copies of the New Testament dated to within 300 years of being written and NOT ONE that says Jesus never existed or that he was a liar or that his followers were con-men.

There is already sufficient evidence that Jesus was not anything like what the Christian churches claim. He was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who thought God would intervene to save israel from the Romans and at the same time him from death. God did nothing -- as he usually does nothing.

This real Jesus saves no one from hell or sin; cannot rise from the dead; will not return. Finding or not finding his bones make no difference.

Those who are weak enough to need the Blue Fairy will continue to believe.

There are On Faith panelists whose Christian beliefs accord with some sort of rational view of the cosmos. Interesting people, I look forward to their comments every week.

There are others who will accept essentially anything because "the Bible says so". Hence our good professor here relies on the empty tomb story as proof. What happened to the body? Indeed, it is a good story. (So good it was told many times before the gospels).

But relying entirely on those texts is like asking what happened to Sherlock Holmes after he seemed to disappear into the Reichenbach falls.

Everettf:

God is a hermaphrodite.

As an atheist, I would need evidence that a god, any god exists. That evidence cannot use the bible, faith, scripture or hearsay. Can any theist provide the evidence? If a god were to be found true, I would still not worship it.

Besides, does anybody know if this god is male or female?

"What bothers me is that Christians support the abdication of reason in what is an extremely important portion of life. It infuriates me to read people say 'I couldn't find meaning in life so I turned to Jesus.' This is the complete abdication of reason."

Steven, that type of behavior is definitely not limited to religion, so I'm reluctant to single out religious people for that behavior. What bothers me is when any religious doctrine attempts to define people in a certain way, like the Original Sin concept I mentioned above.

I should add one more thing. What I have against people who do believe in the Christian god is not their belief. I believe it is absolutely necessary to have differing beliefs - it yields a healthy debate. What bothers me is that Christians support the abdication of reason in what is an extremely important portion of life. It infuriates me to read people say "I couldn't find meaning in life so I turned to Jesus." This is the complete abdication of reason.

There is no rational basis for belief in the Christian god. One must abandon reason in order to believe it. One cannot, on the basis of a rational method of inquiry, conclude that the Christian god exists. The method one uses to arrive at that conclusion cannot deduce truth in any other domain, so why should it be used in this one?

This has been butchered many times, so let's try to be clear.

Quoting Prof. Stevens-Arroyo: "If you assert that all future cases will produce the same result, you are "believing" in an unproven fact."

I am an atheist, but I would not assert this. I assert that the overwhelming majority of evidence supports the contention that there is no god, certainly not of the type proposed by Christianity. Therefore I believe there is no god. If evidence arose tomorrow that a god exists, then there is support for the contention that THAT god exists, and it would have to be considered. Most of us believe in evolution in the same way - we may find out the mechanisms of evolution are different some day in the future, but for now it is the best model we have.

Quoting Prof. Stevens-Arroyo: "The atheist makes a case (that the agnostic does not) by asserting that he/she KNOWS there is no God: the basis, however, is not having experienced something attributable to a deity. This is false logic, because you can't prove a universal by a negative."

No, the basis is the evidence against the specific propositions of deities proposed. No one can prove "there is no god" unless the term "god" is defined. Christianity does this - the god Chrisitianity proposes has certain implications for how the world should look. The world does not look like that, so I do not believe in that god. I would make identical statements about Hindu gods, Norse gods, etc. However, I am always open to new evidence that suggests such god(s) do exist.

Mike P

A majority of scholars reject what is in Josephus as a later interpolation. I am agnostic on that point. Tacitus is later, and all he proves is that there were people in his time who believed in Jesus. His historicity is not germane to the main thrust of my argument, however, which is that the Gospels are far from contemporary eye-witness accounts and tell us nothing about his life or death.

Russell D.,

Thanks for your posts.

Luv you too.

Mike P: It's not a semantical game in any way. I'm an atheist and I don't claim to *know* that no gods/goddesses exist. I simply lack a belief that they do.

You also stated "Many, many non-Christian historians write about Jesus consistent with each other and the biblical accounts. Notably, Josephus."

The Josephus reference is widely considered to be a later inclusion to his work due to the difference in it's tone and language. Care to mention other contemporary historian who even references Jesus?

"There are more historical documents contemporaneous to his life that speak of him than any other figure in history."

Name one.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo,

I've often described myself as a pantheist, meaning that my reverence and awe is for nature and the universe than for a conscious supernatural being. While I don't automatically discount the possibility of deity, I am very skeptical of claims about such a being interacting with the natural world. That's because such claims amount to defining people, such as the Augustinian teaching that all humans carry Adam and Eve's guilt. Do you know of religions that presuppose deities that either play no role in the natural world at all, or play roles only within the limits of the natural world's physical laws?

Professor Stevens-Arroyo, why are you an atheist when it comes to gods other that the Christian one?
Is that 'perfectly reasonable?'

"atheist" simply means "not a theist". A theist is a person who believes that one or more gods exist; an atheist is a person who is not a theist. It's probably better to ask atheists what they mean by the term, instead of asking non-atheists.

Ba'al, the theory that Jesus never lived (ie. not a historical figure) has been refuted so well by this clear proof: Many, many non-Christian historians write about Jesus consistent with each other and the biblical accounts. Notably, Josephus.

There are more historical documents contemporaneous to his life that speak of him than any other figure in history. The one reasonably indisputable part of this discussion is the fact that Jesus lived.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo writes that "His [Jesus'] body has not been found for one of two reasons: either 1) Jesus did rise from the dead; or 2) his body was stolen from the tomb.

Obviously and laughably wrong!

From the distance of two millenia, I can point to a third general class of reasons. Jesus was not a historical figure; and/or the empty tomb story is a fiction similar to that told about many other heroes of the Hellenistic world (Attis, Adonis, etc.); and that nothing in the Gospels represents a contemporary eye-witness account of anything.

But let's say that one could actually find and identify these bones (a really silly assumption, but let's go with it). Christians could find a great deal of doctrine, actually the nicest part of it, would still remain, and people could reject all the nasty stuff added later by people like Paul.

One last thing: I admit that my atheism could be an error. But the odds are very much in my favor.

Mike K., you say "An atheist lacks a belief in any gods or goddesses, there is no inherent knowledge claim involved".

This is a semantical game and you know it. Lack of belief in something is still experiential knowledge. I can "know" the Cubs will not win the World Series again based upon the fact that they have not.

If they win, it will prove me wrong. To not believe in a god or goddess is knowledge. It is not an empty space in the head. To know is to store something chemically in the head and to refer to its location in the thought processes time and time again.

To wit: An atheist knows there is no god. Every time the word "god" is mentioned, their chemical brain refers to a placemarker that always says "There is no god".

To claim otherwise is to play a game with words. We all understand what an atheist is saying.

Dangit, Norrie, you're a guy, aren't you? Man my memory sucks! Sorry bout that

Still gots the love though.

MR. Arroyo:

I like the fact that you were gracious enought o make your presence known in this thread by responding to Norrie. She is an interesting read.
I would like to acknowledge that I share her beliefs in the same sense that I regard myself as an atheist, yet have the Buddhist mentallity when it comes to certain aspects of life.

Maybe I am in between both worlds, because while I claim no religion, I do realize that relgion is an important factor in most peoples' lives. I have been around Buddhism for a better part of my life, and I have been around Christianity. There are similarities and there are definitely big differences. I tend to believe that all obstacles can be overcome through inner strength. I like the idea of cause and effect. I have had experiences with both members of the groups, and from what I have seen so far, only one of the groups tends to judge me on how I choose to do things. Care to guess which group that is?

I don't pretend to know there is no God, yet I also don't swear there is. I can't prove either one, and frankly, anyone who says otherwise is full of it. That's just me. Sue me.

Would the bones of Christ cause me to change my view? I don't know......especially cause as you have pointed out and numerous others, it is an invalid question, because we have nothing to gauge it on, do we?

And Norrie:
Nothin but love.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo,

Thank you for your post. I have two comments in reply:

First, I don't consider myself to be an atheist. I've never denied the possibility that some Being that could reasonably be called God is behind everything. I consider myself to be an agnostic with Buddhist sympathies.

I don't call myself a Buddhist because I've never attended a Buddhist gathering and never received teachings from a Budhdist teacher. I'm also agnostic as to Buddhism's cosmology (multiple eternal universes, the Bardo, reincarnation, the six planes of existence, karma, and so on).

I am definitely an ethusiastic believer in Buddhist ethics. I particularly like the fact that Buddhists consider animals and humans to have the same essential inner Buddha nature, and try to treat animals in the same way they would a human being.

Second, as I've noted in other threads, I appreciate that "Norrie" has a feminine tone for many readers, but I'm a guy, not a gal. "Norrie" is a nickname for a rather sharp-sounding WASP last name used as a first name, as Wasps were used to do in the past and maybe still do. It means "man from the North".

Thank you again for your post. I'm sure I'd enjoy conversing with you face-to-face. Do you visit Vermont? Perhaps you, Donna Freitas (whom I also haven't met), and I could get together. I'm sure it would be fun and probably enlightening.

You have my best wishes. May you have a blessed Easter.

"...exist and more than a theist..."

should have been "...exist any more than a theist..."

Anthony, you stated "The atheist makes a case (that the agnostic does not) by asserting that he/she KNOWS there is no God:"

That is not a true statement. An atheist lacks a belief in any gods or goddesses, there is no inherent knowledge claim involved. An agnostic is one who doesn't claim knowledge of the existance (or lack thereof) of any gods or goddesses.

An atheist doesn't claim to *know* that no gods or goddesses exist and more than a theist claims to *know* that one or more does.

To Ken:

You are also on the list for a amiable face-to-face encounter. I say that atheism is a "faith" based on the rules of logic. Just to say you haven't found a reason to believe doesn't mean that the reason doesn't exist. If you assert that all future cases will produce the same result, you are "believing" in an unproven fact. Your prognosis that nothing will be found can be based on the laws of probability, but it is not certain and requires a "leap of faith" to go from the particular to the universal.

The atheist makes a case (that the agnostic does not) by asserting that he/she KNOWS there is no God: the basis, however, is not having experienced something attributable to a deity. This is false logic, because you can't prove a universal by a negative.

PS - for those in doubt, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, et al. were part of a philosophic movement that doubted the reason for rituals to the gods as if these rituals controlled nature, sex life, etc. They were also skeptical of the anthropomorphism in Homer and the like. Thus, for instance, Aristotle posits "an unmoved first mover" that many people claim is proof that God exists. So if Aristotle is an atheist because he doubts Zeus, then why does he say there is a force greater than that god? Isn't that the definition of Deism? I find it hard to call any of the Greek philosophies "atheism." But if it helps you sleep at night, you can use your own terminology. Just don't try to take away everybody else's freedom of speech.

Excellent answer to a silly question Mr. Arroyo.

According to the biblical accounts, the disciples did not believe Jesus rose from the dead until they saw proof with their own eyes. It would be interesting to know Peter and John’s thoughts as they raced to investigate the early morning claim of an empty tomb.

Aside - I always thought my mother’s family over-obsessed with keeping the house too warm, wearing red clothing, and playing rock music backwards. Maybe I ought to do some more research, just to rule out any possible family connections to the devil.

"And I too would be interested if Mr. Stevens-Arroyo has met an atheist he likes. If he hasn't, maybe the problem stems from his obvious animosity towards atheists."

Anthony obviously bears less animosity toward atheists than most online columnists who purport Christianity. I feel his emotion, for the most part, is a hopeful sympathy, which is the same emotion I feel toward most Christians. Anthony, thank you for the refreshingly insightful dialogue.

There are, however, a few atheistic insights I might bring to your attention:

As an atheist, I take some minor offense (annoyance is a better word) to being called a man of faith. Atheism is the natural state of the world, as I see it. If one removes every childhood preconception and reviews all evidences available, one finds all kinds of wonderful things. What is not found is direct positive evidence of an all powerful being existing outside space and time. The insertion of this theorized being, without evidence, is faith. In fact, I believe the bible even calls faith the evidence of things not seen, or rephrased, things without viable proof.

Atheism should be the logical starting point for observation, as it allows for nothing having been presupposed. It is therefore not a ‘faith’.

As for my future conversion to Christianity, I have to admit that were I given irrefutable physical proof of God (any god, in fact), that would be evidence enough for me to convert. In lifestyle comparison, however, I have found myself far less tortured than some of the Christians I have met, and there has only been one atheist I have encountered who made me wish I had no association with him whatsoever. (He was very angry. If finding Christ would somehow heal him inside, I would hope he finds Him posthaste.)

That being said, overall the article was nice to read for a change. Thank you Mr. Stevens-Arroyo.

Atheism is a "rather modern invention" in the same way that Epicurus is a "rather modern writer"...

Dear Ms. Hoyt:

I don't know about Jesus' time (I suspect there were very few atheists in the ancient world: atheism is a rather modern invention). As clarified in the following two sentences, I was referring to doctors and the like at places like Lourdes and the time frame is contemporary.

I still haven't had the pleasure of a face-to-face encounter with an atheist who had charm like you, but there are a few writing blogs whom I would like to meet someday. By the way, as a Christian, one can rely on the paradox that you don't have to "like" a person to love them. N'est pas?

Gracias for your thoughtful and respectful comments. It's a rare treat.

ANTHONY M. S-A

There is no "faith of atheism". Faith is a belief and atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural beings. "Faith of atheism" is an oxymoron.

I have to wonder why people use such terms and attempt to classify atheism as some kind of religious equivalent. It's not.

Two words: false dichotomy.

And I too would be interested if Mr. Stevens-Arroyo has met an atheist he likes. If he hasn't, maybe the problem stems from his obvious animosity towards atheists.

"Presumably, if one of our blogging atheists of today encountered the same type of physically irrefutable proof of the resurrection [as the disciples had], he/she would make the only rational choice available and profess that Jesus is God. In fact, there are written accounts of hundreds of such conversions of atheists who came to believe in God."

Hundreds of atheists have encountered the risen Jesus?

By the way, Professor Stevens-Arroyo, have you yet encountered the first atheist you found likeable?