en-us http://www.intensedebate.com/users/120213 Comments by James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2008/04/my-testimonial/#IDComment172806542 "Every atheist I've ever known has been bitter, cynical and had some horrible life experiences that bring them to this point." None of those apply to me so now you know one who isn't/hasn't. Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:44:42 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/04/my-testimonial/#IDComment172806542 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/10/does-the-biblical-story-of-adam-eve-make-sense/#IDComment167743053 Clarity is not a substitute for facts and evidence - something that I am afraid the LDS church significantly lacks. Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:13:16 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/10/does-the-biblical-story-of-adam-eve-make-sense/#IDComment167743053 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/mark-16-codex-sinaiticus-vs-nrsv/#IDComment160197343 The abbreviated ending of Mark does describe a resurrection. Jesus' body is, after all, gone from the tomb. But the woman run away in fear and don't tell anyone - and that's the end. None of these early editions of Mark would have ended there if they knew about the "appended" ending. But then suddenly we read that they did an about face and told everyone! If they were afraid of an empty tomb, wouldn't they be more fearful of a actual appearance? I can't imagine what about any of that strikes you as authentic. Certainly, it is plausible that the post-resurrection appearances in Matthew, Luke, and John probably drove later writers to add the AE to bring Mark somewhat in line with the others. But there is no basis to claim the others to be eye-witness accounts any more than Mark. Tue, 7 Jun 2011 02:56:52 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/mark-16-codex-sinaiticus-vs-nrsv/#IDComment160197343 http://www.anatheist.net/articles/christianity/eyewitness-to-jesus-the-gospel-authors/#IDComment157623239 Just because a story might be invented doesn't mean that it was invented to try and fool people into thinking that it was historical. What you fail to understand or appreciate is the role that myth played in ancient cultures. We live in an age of scientific objectivity and wish to read the gospel tracts as either true to reality or not. But that is not necessarily how an ancient person would have approached such a text. The use of myth or narrative invention would not have had any nefarious motive behind it. The storytelling serves as a vehicle for uncovering some greater truth. The details of the story are important only so far as they convey the right symbolism or assist in unlocking this deeper truth. Luke and Matthew, who almost certainly read and used a copy of Mark, in my opinion treated the text of Mark in this fashion. That is to say, they read it not as a strictly historical document but as a symbolic story because they freely changed the details when they wanted to make a point different from Mark or emphasize something in a different way. The revelation of the empty tomb is a perfect example of this. The details are different in all four gospels and have different implications for the overall message. At the very least - even the most casual reader of the gospels can understand that they are neither written as nor presented to the reader as eyewitness accounts. They are all with almost almost no exception written in narrative form from the perspective of an omniscient third person narrator. The only exception is the preamble to Luke, where he explicitly tells us that he himself is not writing as an eyewitness but basing his version on writers who came before him. Mon, 30 May 2011 20:33:08 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/articles/christianity/eyewitness-to-jesus-the-gospel-authors/#IDComment157623239 http://www.anatheist.net/articles/christianity/eyewitness-to-jesus-the-gospel-authors/#IDComment156144848 You apparently didn't read far enough, as I explain the first part of this in the article: "The reality is that the gospel authors never signed their names and their names do not appear anywhere within the body of the text. The titles, “The Gospel According to Mark”, “Matthew”, “Luke”, or “John” are headings that were added sometime late in the second century." Wed, 25 May 2011 23:06:10 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/articles/christianity/eyewitness-to-jesus-the-gospel-authors/#IDComment156144848 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/06/father-williams-on-abraham-lincoln-and-jesus/#IDComment154800659 Thanks. Looks like the evidence is as scanty as I remembered it to be. Sun, 22 May 2011 03:13:07 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/06/father-williams-on-abraham-lincoln-and-jesus/#IDComment154800659 http://www.anatheist.net/articles/atheism/the-presumption-of-atheism/#IDComment153177431 At best you might say that Flew took a deist position before he died. Was he in sound mind at that advanced age? I don't know. But what I had read of his 'conversion' gave me the impression that he had succumbed to some very sloppy thinking. But I digress. What is the fallacy? Tue, 17 May 2011 22:58:27 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/articles/atheism/the-presumption-of-atheism/#IDComment153177431 http://www.anatheist.net/2010/08/near-death-out-of-body-experiences-explained/#IDComment148437387 I would have a different point of view, but my opinion would remain the same. Facts are still facts. Tue, 3 May 2011 12:39:23 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2010/08/near-death-out-of-body-experiences-explained/#IDComment148437387 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/did-jesus-ever-say-he-was-god/#IDComment146523720 This is not about what we want to be true or what might feel good if it were true but what is probably true. And none of what you said is probably true. Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:37:01 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/did-jesus-ever-say-he-was-god/#IDComment146523720 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/11/what-do-people-do-in-heaven/#IDComment144857158 Sounds dreadfully dull to me. What could possibly keep me happy for an eternity? Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:05:14 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/11/what-do-people-do-in-heaven/#IDComment144857158 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/11/science-vs-the-bible/#IDComment144182047 Perhaps you should try to better understand what the article is *actually* arguing. The article attempts to counter claims that science confirms the veracity of the Bible and that the existence of miracles proves the existence of the Christian god. Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:10:42 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/11/science-vs-the-bible/#IDComment144182047 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/05/minister-turned-atheist-joe-holman/#IDComment144021262 Joe's point is sound. If the theist fails to meet the burden of proof for the positive claim that there is a god, then nobody is obligated to believe him. The burden only shifts if a person is certain that there is no god. Even so, the inability to offer such a proof does not, of course, strengthen the theist's position. Everyone is back to square one. Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:04:55 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/05/minister-turned-atheist-joe-holman/#IDComment144021262 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/05/minister-turned-atheist-joe-holman/#IDComment143942319 One should choose not to believe in a god if the evidence does not warrant such a belief. That is not the same as having a burden of proof. Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:52:27 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/05/minister-turned-atheist-joe-holman/#IDComment143942319 http://www.anatheist.net/2010/11/beliefs-have-consequences/#IDComment140039833 George, There is a very subtle but nonetheless extremely important distinction between "only the material world exists" and "the material world is the only thing we know exists." The theist presumes knowledge that he cannot have. The atheist who takes the latter route does no such thing. Tue, 5 Apr 2011 01:16:05 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2010/11/beliefs-have-consequences/#IDComment140039833 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/#IDComment138712302 First of all, since you defined sin as a "rebellion against God" then of course, technically speaking, God cannot rebel against Himself. But that has nothing to do with His nature. If God cannot forgive, then God is not God. (And I don't know what you could possibly mean by an infinite punishment in this context - Jesus' punishment was in fact quite short lived) Nevertheless, I don't think that you actually got my point. I claimed that passing off ones personal responsibility by torturing and killing another person (ie, a scapegoat), is morally hideous. Do you agree or disagree? Instead of parroting more sentences that could be plucked out of a sermon, answer my question with regards to the hypothetical example that I presented. What would you decide? Would you allow the innocent man to be murdered so that you could go free and avoid your justly deserved punishment? That is essentially the same scenario that Christianity presents to me - although it is even worse. The person has already been murdered and I had no say in the matter. Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:02:04 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/#IDComment138712302 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/#IDComment138402376 God can do anything or He wouldn't be God. So, He could forgive someone if He desired to do so. (And honestly - what is the point of a punishment if you get to take it back right afterwards? Jesus may have died, but then it is claimed that he came back to life. Some punishment!) Imagine the following scenario. You have been tried and convicted of murder, for which you really are guilty. It is time for the judge to sentence you. The judge, being merciful, gives you two options. First, you can accept your punishment and spend the rest of your life rotting in a tiny cell in jail. Second, the judge will bring an innocent man off of the street and torture and murder him - thereby taking your punishment for you. You get to decide. What do you decide? The moral person would accept whatever punishment he or she deserves and would not choose to allow an innocent bystander to suffer in order to be released of any personal responsibility. So - if it is either me or Christ then I choose it to be me. Now, who has the moral high ground here? Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:01:41 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/#IDComment138402376 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/#IDComment137983466 I didn't say that sinning is noble. I said that it is nobler to accept the consequences of ones actions rather than passing off your responsibility onto a scapegoat. What does the torture and death of an innocent man 2,000 years ago (of which I had nothing to do with nor did I ask for) have to do with my personal responsibility? Absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it is morally repugnant. If God wants to forgive, then forgive. But sidestepping personal blame through the murder of someone else is downright disgusting. Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:24:44 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/#IDComment137983466 http://www.anatheist.net/articles/christianity/eyewitness-to-jesus-the-gospel-authors/#IDComment137236683 This article is about the gospels, not the Epistles. Nonetheless, Paul's Epistles are stinkingly thin when it comes to "historical" references like those contained in the gospels - as if he wasn't aware of them. Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:13:33 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/articles/christianity/eyewitness-to-jesus-the-gospel-authors/#IDComment137236683 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/04/my-testimonial/#IDComment130384597 How much time do you think I actually invest in "tearing down" religion? Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:29:06 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/04/my-testimonial/#IDComment130384597 http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/02/let-me-tell-you-about-my-atheism.html#IDComment127579779 This just goes to show that to say that one is an atheist is not actually saying very much about that person. Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:57:15 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/02/let-me-tell-you-about-my-atheism.html#IDComment127579779