I'm A Creationist

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
StephenStoned's picture
I'm A Creationist

And a literalist, and I love you all.

There, that should get the waters chummed right up. It's true though.

So I was perusing the site and saw Angieb's apologetics thread and I was pretty disappointed that she did not respond, as I sense all of you were as well. I'm here to fill those shoes for you. I read the complaints listed in that thread about apologists and I will do my very best not to tread on those boundaries: no lying and misrepresenting you, no believing that every one of you thinks the same thing, no huge walls of copy pasted scripture fired into the darkness, and no canned lines of questions based on logical fallacy and poor understanding of philosophy. I find those things every bit as distasteful as you do when listening to my fellow christians engage in interfaith (exofaith?) debates. I confess, I'm a bit of a presuppositionalist, in my internal monologue, but I also gather that discussing things from that footing is a bit useless in this setting, so I will try my best to step outside that and do my homework to present all of you with the honest best I can do.

A little about me:

- I was raised by christian parents, but not as a christian (they had a denominational dispute between them and had agreed not to push religion on me for that reason)
- I used to be a hard core nihilist atheist, team science and reason through and through.
- I went to Georgia Tech for Computer Science, not your typical Kentucky baptist
- I was raised by two US Marines, so I'm not from Georgia, or anywhere else, really (I've lived in dozens of places from GTMO to Hawaii, and I've travelled extensively around the globe)
- I converted to christianity in late 2011 after a series of near death incidents in Afghanistan (no, not the "I went to heaven and saw Jesus" type stuff, just "whoa I almost died back there" type stuff, and no I wasn't in the military)
- I consider myself non-denominational, and my primary place of worship is a home church with no name and about a dozen people, although I drift in and out of the local churches that will let me. Again, not your typical Kentucky baptist.

Here's the fun one, though:
- I have three confirmed atheist kills. No, I don't actually kill people, but I have convinced three very smart people who didn't believe in any god to believe in mine, and they all worship with me today.

Boy, I've really puffed out my chest, haven't I? I feel like you folks enjoy a bit of mental sporting, though, so this should be a fun conversation. I'm no seminary student, so there are no professors for me to run back to, but don't hold back, excepting the pejoratives and polemics. I love to exchange ideas with people who believe (or don't believe) anything strongly, and to understand why they believe (or don't) what they do (or don't). I have always enjoyed hearing the thoughts of the people who enjoy thinking. I think we can have a friendly conversation and really learn some stuff. I want to make this clear, as well: I respect everyone's viewpoint, and I don't think mine makes me a better person, it's just the one that appeals to me the most. This is the same attitude that underpinned my former atheism, and I am hopeful it is something we have in common.

So, to get us started, I'll address the number one thing I see while reading this site that's being demanded of those who are religious: evidence. This will probably be pretty basic to you all, as I'm sure many people take this approach, but I will submit as my evidence the prophecies contained in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. I read someone on this site who brought up that Jesus did not fulfill all of the messianic prophecy, but I didn't see the specifics mentioned. I'd be interested in going down that road if it comes up, but all responses are welcome.

Also, just so you all know what to expect out of me, I like to take my time to think about what I will respond with, so this thread may grow slowly. I also expect many of you to reply, so it may take me some time to address some points. And further, I have no doubt that some of you are going to throw me some real curve balls, and I'm not going to have the answers. That's the fun, though, because then I get to go learn some more. Either way, I promise to stick around and keep at it as long as you all are interested in having a discussion of my faith or your non-faith together.

Well wishes, and prayers :)

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

David Killens's picture
Hello StephenStoned, I hope

Hello StephenStoned, I hope your time here is positive and we all gain from a healthy exchange of opinions.

You stated that prophecies are your main selling point, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

Please be specific and explain why each "prophesy" should have any merit?

StephenStoned's picture
Sure thing. In verse 8 of

Sure thing. In verse 8 of psalm 22, David foretells a taunt that will be issued to Jesus on the day of his crucifixion. In verse 18, he predicts the division of Jesus' possessions. In verse 25 he predicts the nature of Jesus' testimony in front of the ruling jewish body. The fulfillment of these predictions are given in Luke 23:37, Luke 23:34, and in John 10 respectively. The biblical account of the writing of this psalm places it at around 1000 BCE, although the earliest commonly accepted copies we have of it are dated to around 200 BCE. Either one is an incredible time span for such specifics.

There is also the famous "pierced hands and feet" line in that psalm in verse 16. I favor it, but it invites quite a bit of controversy because of the single letter variant that renders "pierced" to mean something about a lion, as well as the various historical speculations about how ancient Roman crucifixion was actually performed. Were that line to be what I think it is, in total, it would be an accurate depiction of a crucifixion practice that predates the invention of the crucifix by half a millennium, but I haven't found that to be a compelling line of reasoning for anyone who doesn't already believe.

Isaiah 53 predicts many aspects of Jesus' life and ministry: his ordinary appearance (verse 2), his substitutionary death (verses 4, 6, 10, 11, 12), his general piercing (verse 5) which has a much clearer fulfillment in John 19 than the hands and feet thing, his silence before Pilate (verse 7), the injustice of his punishment and his rejection by the jews (verse 8), his burial arrangements (verse 9), and his resurrection (verse 10).

This prophecy in biblical timeline dates to around 700 BCE, but similarly the oldest quality manuscript we possess is around 200 BCE. It's an incredible shot to call, either way.

Now I don't mean this to be any kind of conclusive proof, but I do consider it evidence.

David Killens's picture


"In verse 8 of psalm 22, David foretells a taunt that will be issued to Jesus on the day of his crucifixion."

I'm sorry, I don't make a direct connection. All Psalm 22:8 describes is that some dude will be treated quite harshly by others. There is no mention of who this applied to, and where and when. This is a generic prophecy that one can apply to anyone, anytime.

I could make a prophecy "A stranger will enter Atheist Republic, and utter such strange sayings that he will be treated like a fool by most".

There, just hang around to see if my prophecy comes true. And when it does, my words carry as much weight as Psalm22.

Will you worship me when this comes to pass?


I did not deal with the second claim because the first claim has not cleared the hurdle. Once you have proven this assertion then we can move forward. Too often I have dealt with theists who throw a lot of shit against the wall hoping one bit will stick. This measure negates such a practice.

Or, if you agree that Psalm 22 is a failed argument, then we can move on to Isiah 53

LogicFTW's picture


You present yourself so far as someone that I would actually like to debate with, we shall see if that holds. I have hope for you!

So you state you were a hardcore nihilist atheist and then a few near death experiences + some supposed prophecies in a highly plagiarized, edited, translated, and ambiguous books, that is full of known contradictions and outright falsehoods, and voila you believe in a non denominational god. But also apparently believe in the god described in Psalm and Isaiah, so your kind of denominational, just slightly different and part of a small group.

Color me a tad suspicious of your statements so far. But while I cannot possibly imagine a few near death scares and a few prophecies even coming close to convincing me there is some sort of god out there, especially something similar to what is described in Psalms and Isaiah.

Anyways to your first piece of evidence.

I do not feel like I even have to read them to dismiss them out of hand.

1. Like I said above, these are highly plagiarized, edited, translated, and ambiguous books, that is full of known contradictions and outright falsehoods. All of the above done solely by humans!) With an utter lack of any sort of divine intelligence or any other sort of divinity. (In fact it reads a lot like anything else written over 1000 years ago and edited over and over for 1000's of years. Already the source is HIGHLY HIGHLY suspect.

2. That is your primary/first evidence? 2 passages out of dozens of books written about your god idea? Why does "god" not do something major like part the sea, or cause a global world wide flood like he supposedly has done in the past? Why write some vague sentences in a highly edited translated etc etc book written by humans as "divine" evidence for a god? What does "god" idea like to have exceptionally weak/vague evidence.. as what.. a game?

3. If I found some book written 1000+ years ago, where some vague parts of it, if interpreted in the correct way seems to be a bit prophetic, does that mean I could name a god responsible for that book, and say, see: "my god is real, I have proof!" would you abandon your god idea and join my god idea?

4. Do you think Psalm and Isaiah are all 100% factually correct? Or only what.. 90% of it? How do you know which parts are fiction and which parts are nonfiction? There is no guide in the books, there is no: okay this part is story time meant to instruct, but this part here is supposed to be taken as fact. Do you really want to stand behind these books as 100% factually correct? Think carefully before you answer...*hint* any possible answer here besides "no those books are full of shit" is the wrong answer, but I will be happy to go down that path with you and explain just why that is.



I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.

StephenStoned's picture


Thank you for your hope in me, I'm returning the favor! I find that a lot of the time what's happening when I start off a conversation like this, and find that everything I say sounds quite ridiculous to the other side, is that we have a very divergent set of initial assumptions. Much of the conversation is usually spent probing those out, so please bear with me. I assure you, I am reasonable, as far I know how to be, but I also assure you that I'm being as honest as I can be. You may not believe what I believe, but you should believe that I believe it, if you follow that, and honesty is a big part of the deal. I know lots of "us" don't practice what we preach. Call me out on it if you see me slipping, I'm very comfortable with that, but it will grease the wheels of the discussion a bit if we don't start out doubting each others motives. That's just an olive branch, though, based on your hopefulness. If it isn't persuasive, that's okay too, I think I'll be able to prove my earnestness in this discussion out in time. You all may think I'm an idiot by the end of it, but I'll be an honest idiot!

To your points, though, I do not wish to represent that initial post as what many in christian circles refer to as my "testimony", that information is merely background, for the benefit of those who wish to discuss things with me, to ward off certain stereotypes that are unhelpful to real understanding. I just wanted to assure anyone who read it that I'm not some country bumpkin who ain't never learnt nothin', nor am I a trained-from-birth ask-no-questions zombie christian on a mission to spray the gospel. The near misses I had were integral in my conversion, but my interest prophecy only came much later. I submitted the prophecy in the category of "evidence", to show that I am at least vaguely aware of the demands the users of this site will like to make on someone who has religious belief -- nobody here is a fan of magical thinking. My own conversion took place through a lot of internal wrestling with philosophy (I've got reading under my belt from Plato to Wittgenstein, and I find that I'm a bit of a natural born fan of good old fashioned American pragmatism), and if you'd like to explore that, I'm certainly willing to.

I also see that I'm probably going to have to spend a lot of time defining my terms, or figuring out what the appropriate terms are to use with this group. I'll start with "denominational". In my parlance, this is referencing named organizational divisions within christianity. I do indeed hold to a set of doctrines that differs from many other christians (to do otherwise is quite impossible these days), and therefor obviously other religions, but where "denominational" christians will typically avoid worshipping with christians who go to churches with the wrong names on the sign, or with slightly different doctrines or even liturgies, I have a much more basic approach to determining who I consider to be my "brother in Christ" as we say, and who I will worship with and how. This leads to me being comfortable in many doctrinal and liturgical settings that make more rigid christians squirm, but I find it also leads to a much more consistent practice. After all, the chaos in the christian world is a well-earned point of ridicule that many outside it use frequently, in my experience. All that, in short, I am calling "non-denominational". If there's a more appropriate term for that to use with this group, I will gladly adapt my language.

To point number 1:
I have done quite a bit of reading on the topic of textual transmission, because the reliability of the source material is indeed of paramount importance. As you note, the relevant texts include some 40 authors across roughly 1500 years, and in particular even the text itself records events where it needed to be recovered, such as during the reign of Josiah when it was rediscovered after some time of disuse, and with the Babylonian exile, when much of the original language material did not survive, but was eventually reproduced in a Greek translation. Interestingly, many modern scholars doing textual criticism of the New Testament note that it appears that the NT authors quote almost exclusively from that Greek translation (called the Septuagint), and that there are places where the text of the Septuagint disagrees slightly with the Masoretic texts (the oldest complete Hebrew tradition we have). Also interestingly, we have found some instances (such as in Hebrews 4) where the disagreement was settled in favor of the Septuagint by fragmentary evidence from older Hebrew traditions, such as the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. Much of this is very modern development, as the science of textual criticism hasn't yet reached its heyday, with things like CBGM producing further improvements in the fidelity of the text year by year. You may be surprised to learn that the modern day Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have been transmitted to the present time with an incredible degree of accuracy through this critical lens. We have information on hundreds of thousands of textual variants that have been produced in copies of the New Testament alone through the years, but interestingly we have found that these have not compounded each other, because the mode of transmission since the time of the NT writers has been highly decentralized, excepting the Latin Vulgate text (blame Catholicism is a fun game, too). People have always been making lots of copies and comparing them to each other, in short, and this has resulted in a very high fidelity in the major translations of the day, at least back to around 200 BCE. Of those variants that we have detected within major transmission paths, it turns out that not a single one has a meaningful impact on any doctrine to any given reader. A Roman Catholic reading both variants will interpret either one the same way, as will a Southern Baptist, an Eastern Orthodox, or even probably an atheist. Yes, this isn't the standard of absolute perfection in transmission, since it's hard to say what may have happened before 200 BCE, but it's quite a bit better than most people realize. Disclaimer: I'm by no means an expert in this field, although I am acquainted with the operating concepts. This one goes very, very far into the weeds if we do end up pursuing it, and I may not be able to give adequate explanations. This is, however, what I understand at a very general level.

As for plagiarism and contradiction within the text, I'd be interested to know which examples you're pointing to. I have also spent quite a bit of time grappling with what I perceived to be contradictions, and have so far found satisfactory resolutions to all of them that I have encountered. I am aware of at least two stories from the Old Testament that have seen major claims of plagiarism from extrabiblical sources, but I am not sure whether this is what you're referring to with that term. I am happy to discuss it, though.

To point number 2:
Indeed, this is my first evidence, although what we mean by "primary" may cause me to say it is not my primary evidence. And it's important, to me at least, that we distinguish "evidence" from "proof", and both of those from "argumentation". For example, I mentioned that my conversion revolved mostly around philosophy, but I would never present that as evidence, nor should anyone accept it as such. It certainly constitutes argumentation, but evidence has to have certain characteristics, such as something like measurability. In terms of whether these prophecies are measurable in certain ways, we can reliably establish a minimum age for them, and we can reliably establish the historicity of certain events to which they refer (if interpreted to infer to those). Whether those interpretations are valid will determine the quality of the evidence, and so this group may ultimately hold this evidence to be of very low quality, but that's okay with me. My intention with these two prophecies is to get over the "no evidence whatsoever" hurdle, to show you all that I'm participating in the process objectively and in good faith (ha), so I'll live with "extremely weak evidence" for now if that's what I can get. It certainly isn't the only thing I would consider evidence, and I certainly understand that science has produced tremendous amounts of evidence that refutes mine. One of the things that you may find unusual about me is that I understand very well that my position does not win on this kind of evidence -- and I admit it! Still, evidence is a currency of argumentation that I sense this community values highly, so I will respect it and do my best. In my opinion, we're not fully exploring an issue when either side refuses to engage on anything. That's pretty important when striving for objectivity, in my opinion.

Also in this point, and related, is the common contest between charismatic christian traditions and the secular world over whether or not miracles do continue to happen. The charismatic position is often a very difficult one to overcome for those of us who like to remain rational in our beliefs (or non-beliefs), because experience is incredibly hard to argue with, and people can indeed have very real experiences that leave absolutely no evidence. Whether that's because they are truly magic miracles, tricks of the memory, or outright stark raving mad hallucinations is very difficult to say, but ultimately this argument boils back down to "there's no evidence," or rather "that can't be confirmed with the scientific method." I'm with you, there. I am not aware of any magic miracles that are ongoing or even what we'd consider recent, and personally I don't think a rational understanding of the text of the bible even supports those who say that phenomenally miraculous supernatural things are still occurring (and there are very many people who say so, oddly, just look at the Catholics again). But operating within the assumption that these unprovable-undisprovable things aren't, in fact, happening, you rightly note that we are left with the question of "why?" If God used to do those things all the time, why did He stop?

There's quite a bit of wrangling over this in the christian world today, with the global Pentecostal movement pitted in a three way battle with the Catholics and the majority of orthodox Reformed groups as to whether, why, how much, when, where, and other details about miraculous goings-on, but what is called the "cessationist" view held almost entirely by the Reformed side does contain what I consider to be a self-consistent explanation for their absence. It goes roughly like this: God gave supernatural miracles to His prophets and apostles to authenticate their revelation as being divinely inspired. At the completion of the New Testament, God had finished giving His completed revelation "once for all", as it says in Jude 3, and so has since ceased doing flashy miracles in the sight of men so that nobody else can make any provable claim to having divine revelation. I think we all agree, nobody walking around these days claiming to speak directly for God has any legs to stand on, so there's at least that. Anyways, I like this explanation a lot, and I have found it to be very consistent with what is said about and around the flashy miracles described all over the bible. It isn't likely to be satisfying to anyone who doesn't already believe, however, and I recognize that, because it more or less miraculously sidesteps the real issue: people who don't believe this stuff pretty much base their beliefs entirely on evidence and repeatability, and this doesn't even attempt to provide that. Still, I put it forth to offer something of a little "justification of God", if I may be so bold. Sometimes this argument "why doesn't God act" or "why does God act in this way or that way" is a moral argument, or an argument against what is perceived to be unreasonable behavior. This gives God "an out" for those, if you will. (As an aside, see? I can play outside the presuppositional pool.)

To point number 3:
It's an interesting thought experiment you're proposing, and beneath it is a central question of faith as well that leads people in all sorts of directions, even atheism: why should we believe (or not) what we do (or don't)? Here I will take a page from Wittgenstein, in his notes "On Certainty", where he says, "At the end of reasons comes persuasion." That guy had an IQ of 195, too. To directly answer your question, given what I understand about the bible, your book would have to be very very persuasive for me to join your religion, but I won't say there's no conceivable scenario where that could be made to be the case. I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think you'll find one, though. Fundamentally, there's actually a pretty fine line between where I'm at and where many atheists are at, which is a pretty spectacular thing, and you're sort of plucking at it right now, but it boils down to whether we allow ourselves to form important beliefs on the basis of something other than absolute proof and, if we do, what that something is. A common cry among the religious climate deniers, for instance, notes that anthropogenic global warming is accepted as a major behavior-motivating scientific fact on par with theories that are simply on a higher plane of repeatability and evidence. As an example, you believe it's bad to jump off of a building because gravity will cause you to fall and get hurt, and you're in your right mind to believe that, because you can test whether gravity exists at any time, and indeed you test it all the time. The evidence for it is undeniable, it's all around us, and we spend a great deal of energy as a society on mitigating the risks the phenomenon of gravity poses: things falling off of things and/or onto other things. Now there's plenty of evidence for global warming, and even good evidence that it is anthropogenic in nature, but when you get down to what the nature of that evidence is, it's still entirely statistical correlation. Indeed, it has to be, because there's nothing repeatably testable about it, we can't go get another Earth, pump up the greenhouse gas, and watch it warm. We can see other warm planets and measure things about their atmospheres and compare them to ours, do experiments in actual greenhouses, whatever we like, but the theory on a global scale falls short of that repeatability threshold, even still. We understand the concept of the mechanism, we have good data for modeling, but there's just nothing we can do to actually test it. But, even given that disparity, we reduce our carbon footprint and regulate emissions of everything and even sort our garbage; it's a very large effort to stave off the heat. And we don't do it because we're hedging our bets, you can look around and plainly tell that people believe their inefficient engines and microwave ovens and other things are warming the planet. People get off in the weeds at this point about whether or not it's actually going on, but that's not material to this discussion, you can just assume at this point that I believe exactly what you do about global warming and man's role in it, I'm cool (or warm) with that, the interesting part I'm pointing out is how we form the belief. Similar things can be said about things like dating the age of the universe or the planet, or evolution (CREATIONISM WARNING). We have really powerfully explanatory science being done in these fields, but there's nothing we can do to cause and observe another big bang, or the formation of our planet, or the evolution of an eyeball from creatures that originate in an amino acid solution, even if only because we're not likely to live long enough to see the results. All of us ultimately do believe something that we can't absolutely prove, even adherents of solipsism and nihilism (I should know). Now, with regards to the age of the planet and the origin of species, you can't assume that I believe exactly what you do, but that's not because I deny what's going on in science -- it's because I've found a different basis for forming beliefs, and the beliefs that I have formed force me to accept that the miniscule probability that the evidence of science is pointing in the wrong direction on these issues is in fact the case. That's the big gulf between where I was and where I am. I used to consider it obvious that the preponderance of the evidence prevails in determining what's true, and that everything else is false, no exceptions. Evidence:Belief::No Evidence:No Belief. Today, that is not such a rigid construct for me. We can explore that, if you'd like, but I'm not sure what the word limit is here, so I'll leave that for another post if you're interested. It's where I start to really get into philosophy.

To point number 4:
I think that every letter of the 66 books of the commonly accepted reformed canon of scripture are 100% factually correct in their original languages. This includes Isaiah and Psalms. So that you won't think this answer is a cop-out to hide behind translation and interpretation, I believe that the historical events described in the books did factually occur as described even in modern translations into English, and that the translation from the original languages into English has not impacted the doctrinal content of the work in any way. Disclaimer: much of the Old Testament is written in various forms of Hebrew song and poetry, and the authors of those sections have definitely taken license in places of various poetic techniques, such as metaphors and allegories. Much of the Old and New Testaments are also written in the vernacular forms of their contemporary languages, and as such also contain idioms that translate very poorly because they have no near-equivalent phraseology in modern English (fun example: Exodus 23:19). Lots of these result in people claiming contradictions, but I don't think those have a fair basis, and I believe that reasonably supported edifying explanations exist for all of them that are consistent with the rest of scripture. This is not, however, the "that doesn't mean what it says" defense. I will not hide behind metaphor and allegory when you want to talk about the flood, or the seven days of creation, or Moses parting the sea, or the walls of Jericho, or Jonah and the whale, or the guys who lived for hundreds of years, or any other description of an event relayed in a historical fashion, or even something asserted in a poetic section of the work in a factual manner. Those things happened just like it says they did. I think that's pretty fair. Let's do this!

David Killens's picture


Dude, I'm not being paid to read a wall of text. It gets in the way of my midget porn time.

Please, just one point at a time instead of throwing a lot of shit against the wall hoping something sticks. I understand that you have a lot you desire to unload and explain, but you must have patience if you wish to convert this gang of heathens.

Sheldon's picture
That's not how religious

That's not how religious apologetics work David, you know that. They think if they pile enough unevidenced anecdotal claims together it somehow morphs into evidence.

Prophesies would need to be nailed 100% with a weight of objective evidence that put the claim beyond any reasonable doubt for instance. Yet they seem to think the fact it's in the bible is sufficient. The really sad thing is that even then, I fail to see how the claim that a prophesy evidences anything is anything more than an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

You can't validate a claim by pointing out no one has an alternative claim. This is the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Claims are evidenced with sufficient objective evidence.

So the initial claim would have to be verified, then the secondary claim this came true exactly as described, then they would need to demonstrate objective evidence that this was caused by a deity, the evidence would of course have to have explanatory powers that could be tested.

When have you ever known a religious apologist come close to any of that for what they label prophesy?

Cognostic's picture
@StephenStoned: A wall of

@StephenStoned: A wall of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. (Point 2 could have simply been skipped.)
Why not organize your thoughts and then come back and try again? Anything you are attempting to say is so deeply buried in bullshit that it is just not worth reading.

LogicFTW's picture


I will respond, but as it is a long post I need more time then I currently have. With any luck I will edit this post with a full response later today.

Nyarlathotep's picture
A quick glance at Psalm 22,

A quick glance at Psalm 22, and it isn't immediately obvious me to what the prophecy even is...

But in any case, fiction matching fiction isn't going to impress many people here.

Sheldon's picture
Nyarlathotep "fiction

Nyarlathotep "fiction matching fiction isn't going to impress many people here."

Brilliant, I always marvel at such brevity, especially when it encapsulates everything that is wrong with a claim in a single sentence.

Randomhero1982's picture
It's amazing how many theists

It's amazing how many theists pop on here and were previously nihilistic, ex atheists.

xenoview's picture

Atheism and nihilist are two separate things. Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. Nihilist believe life is meaningless and reject all religion and moral principles. I'm an Atheist, I believe life is full of meaning and I believe morals are subjective.

The bible is the claim, not the evidence. What objective evidence do you have that jesus is real?

Nyarlathotep's picture
StephenStoned - As you note,

StephenStoned - As you note, the relevant texts include some 40 authors across roughly 1500 years....

Could you satisfy my curiosity and tell me which two parts differ by about 1500 years in age?

Cognostic's picture
@StephenStoned - As you note,

@StephenStoned - As you note, 40 Authors.... What are their names and where did they live?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Guess we are not going to get

Guess we are not going to get answers. Anyway I was under the impression that the oldest and newest parts of the bible were more like 800 years apart, not 1500.

Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: If you count

@Nyarlathotep: If you count the fact that they are still interpreting and rewriting bibles today the dang things have at least 1800 years apart. When did someone come up with the one and only true bible and its actual interpretation? Did I miss something?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Good point. Although I was

Good point. Although I was just curious what two books of the bible could possibly be 1500 years apart. I'm pretty sure that is wrong, and I was curious how the OP would defend that mistake; given their statement that they had spent a long time studying this.

watchman's picture
So... Isaiah and Psalm 22 ?

So... Isaiah and Psalm 22 ?

I've seen this stuff before .... as I suspect many here also have ....

Of course the Theist usualy ignores the fact that Isaiah was written in two parts (possibly three)
but all centuries apart ... and of course by up to three diferent authors.

There are clues within the text themselves .... Isaiah for instance in its first part portrays the
Assyrians as the "bad guys"... thus an Israel text... while the second part switches the enemy
to the Babylonians... hence a Judah text.

Fairly obviously the earliest part was written down pre- Babylonian exile while the second part is
clearly a post exilic addition.(IE after 586 BC.)


As to Psalm 22 ...... well its pretty much the same story.... Not actually written as one whole

"It is understood to have originally consisted of the contents of verses 1-22/23, with
verses 23/24-32 comprising a later addition. Further analysis also recognizes verses 4–6 as
part of the later addition, and finds a third layer of editorial development in verses 28-32."

Again there is a pre Babylonian exile element updated centuries later by post exilic authors.

There is no prophecy here... and certainly non concerning the Jesus character..... indeed how
could it be a reference to the Christ tale..... after all is not Christ suppossed to be Father ,Son
and Holy Wotsit ?

If this is indeed the position then how could Christ have been abbandond by himself..... short of
some sort of psychotic personality disorder ...... although ,thinking about it ...that could answer
a lot of questions.


Cognostic's picture
@StephenStoned: "I'm a bit

@StephenStoned: "I'm a bit presuppositionalist."
Honestly, what the fuck do we have to talk about. You accept your god bullshit as a properly basic belief. Everything comes from your god. God is the a priori. You got any evidence for any of that? If not, have a fun day. There is no discussion here. You want to believe in God because you want to believe in god. Great! Have a good life. Bye.

chimp3's picture


I am an atheist because I don't believe the believers. I have no idea why I should care what the Bible says. As far as your "atheist kills", I am not looking to be convinced.

algebe's picture
@StephenStoned: I will submit

@StephenStoned: I will submit as my evidence the prophecies contained in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

Which do you think is more likely: that the authors of prophecies in the Old Testament foresaw the life and death of Jesus, or that the New Testament authors of the Jesus fable knew about the Old Testament prophecies and adjusted their stories to fit them? Just wondering.

boomer47's picture
Oh for goodness sake, another

Oh for goodness sake, another one.--Impervious to reason or fact , incapable of critical thinking, and having a staggering level of cognitive dissonance (look it up) .

Cart before horse as usual; This an atheist forum.,most people here do not believe in gods,.First thing you actually need to do is to prove the existence of god. Be aware that the bible is not accepted as proof of anything.

That you try to proselytise on an atheist forum suggests a stunning level of ignorance and arrogance.

Be warned, there are people on this forum who will make you cry.

In the meantime, kindly prove the existence of your god. Be aware that god cannot be argued into or out of existence and you may not use your bible,

Please don't quote the bible at us. Most members were originally believers, especially Christian and many probably know the bible far better than you. .

That's all I have to say to you. I avoid trying to reason with believers. Literalists especially . These are people who lack the wit to grasp that the Torah is the mythology of Judaism,. That the book of Exodus especially is myth and allegory not history.

Kataclismic's picture


Wait, after that fantastic introduction the best you got is passages from the BuyBull? I despair. That book isn't evidence, it's written by folks who killed women for being witches.

StephenStoned's picture
My apologies, everyone. I

My apologies, everyone. I clearly misread the room. I thought the sentiment that was being expressed in the Angieb thread was that you all wanted someone to discuss stuff with you. I guess that was some inside humor. I don't have any desire to prove anybody wrong, I just thought it would be fun to talk with some people who have different views and come to understand each other better. It seems like a lot of you expressed, in my reading of the site, like you felt misrepresented by those who share my beliefs, so I made an honest attempt to reach out, hear your questions, and exchange views. It seems like this site sort of bills itself that way, but clearly I'm missing something. No trouble, as a married man, I'm wrong all the time. Sorry to have riled everyone up. I genuinely hope you all have a good day.

David Killens's picture
So you stormed in here making

So you stormed in here making bold assertions, and when you ran up against .. not a wall of denial, but instead a wall of skeptical questions, now you have prepared an exit strategy and prepared to leave?

Or was it that my prophesy, as stated below, came true?

"I could make a prophecy "A stranger will enter Atheist Republic, and utter such strange sayings that he will be treated like a fool by most".

There, just hang around to see if my prophecy comes true. And when it does, my words carry as much weight as Psalm22.

Will you worship me when this comes to pass?"

boomer47's picture
An observation:

An observation:

Christians are generally treated with far more acceptance and kindness on atheist forums than an atheist on a Christian forum. I tried it a couple of times .Lasted an hour on one site before I was banned. I gently questioned a couple of things, and invited forum members to THINK about the questions I had raised .

I showed no patience with the last person. I saw no evidence of a person wanting a reasoned exchange ..What I saw was an arrogant fundamentalist preaching at us.

I did not and do not believe its claim of wanting a sincere exchange of views.

Generally speaking, My experience is that fundamentalist christians are literally incapable of critical thinking or reasoned argument. They invariably start quoting scripture if asked a question about their beliefs. They show no sign of any thoughts of their own ,

With the odd exception, I've found that fundamentals of any faith tend to be under educated, anti intellectual and anti science --and almost invariably disingenuous in the way they present themselves to an atheist forum.

Pease don't misunderstand . I couldn't care less about the personal superstitions of others. Until they get in my face. Then I can be quite terse with people who try to preach me. Most especially , I have no time for literalists especially. I consider them egregiously ignorant. I truly can't be bothered with them.

Yep,I'm a cranky, intolerant old far.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Stephen

@ Stephen

Well, a discussion is always welcome. But, like nearly every evangelist who enters here you are not prepared for anyone who actually questions your assertions.

No, we are not going to accept your word and fall about in the ecstasy of submission to your version of the jesus/god figure. That this disappoints you is something you will have to deal with.

I do note you have a pre prepared exit strategy, and, like most preachers who fail here, it involves the intransigence of the atheists that just don't believe you. Hmmmm...maybe look up the definition of atheism before you return.

Oh, and remember the bible texts are the claims, not the evidence. Then we will have a much more harmonious discussion.

chimp3's picture

I am just an individual. If you sensed any collective persecution of you, please don't. You claim 'atheist kills" so you must be familiar with one on one arguments. Why the limpid response to disbelief?

Cognostic's picture
There is a difference between

There is a difference between discussing something and blowing wind. How can anyone read you correctly when you can not get to the point of anything? In 10 words or less, what is it you believe? If you are a presuppositionalist, what in the fuck do we have to talk about? Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. (PROVE IT) It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation (PROVE IT)and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. (NO ONE CARES. THIS IS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN AND OUR SENSES ARE ALL WE GOT. UNLESS YOU KNOW SOME OTHER WAY OF MAKING SENSE OUT OF THE WORLD) It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, (AND SOME PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE DEMONSTRABLE, THEY WORK, THEY GIVE US RESULTS AND UNDERSTANDING, WHILE OTHERS ARE JUST INANE ASSERTIONS) and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian. (I LIKE THIS PART - SO GO THE FUCK AWAY!)

YOU ARE WRONG! You make an erroneous assumption and you get one back. End of discussion.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.