How an atheist made a wealthy living off of religion. The meaningless life, in a philosophy of meaningless living, defined.
POLL: Is there a God ??
- Thread starter megablue
- Start date
Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar, historian and educator. As such, I think the lifelong study of perhaps the most influential person in all of history, certainly western civilization, is a worthwhile life. His pursuit of knowledge in the field has taken him on a journey from a teenage, born-again, Evangelical biblical fundamentalist to a liberal Christian for over fifteen (15) years, before succumbing to doubt and unanswered questions to become an agnostic atheist in his late 40's. He is 69 now.
I would certainly think it possible that his continued work, study, research and reflection do not preclude his reconversion back to Christianity. Regardless of his faith stance, I find his presentations and debates most interesting to watch and listen to.
Last edited:
I pray (right now) he does remember his faith, but his affluence has been since he became an agnostic/atheist focused on a beliefs he denies.
Light in the universe was present before stellar formation.
I don't think the people here making "scientific" objections to God really have any understanding of it, like the guy who pontificated to me the rigors of the scientific method, as if I objected to it, as if that has anything to do with what was being discussed. There's nothing in Science which tells you you cannot believe in Him.
Too invested to, too incentivized to.
It is my own personal opinion, that such a person never had faith to begin with. He was just brainwashed, knew he didn't/couldn't believe and then he set out to prove to himself... so he did. As the Twainism? goes, there's no one easier to fool than yourself.
I've read/listened to him, find nothing particularly interesting or insightful. One is making a severe mistake by deferring their decision to some guy's life's work.
It’s remarkable how often you default to a posture of intellectual superiority, all while sidestepping nuance and avoiding actual discussion.
Well, that's just like your opinion, man.
I'm completely open to substantive, productive discussion.
Bart is a smart man. So are the scholars who disagree. Tim Keller speaks to the issue of Jesus as God here. Good teaching and if you have not read or listened to Keller, I highly recommend.
Agreed — it is my opinion, but it's based on observing the tone and substance of most of your posts in this thread.
Light in the universe was present before stellar formation.
I guess Hubble has generated some theories that counter some of the widely held beliefs about the universe. Scientists are constantly confounded when the evidence does not appear to support the theory
interpretation always has a subjective element — but that doesn’t automatically make it baseless. It's drawn from repeated patterns in your tone and approach
It's worse than that even: they scramble to fit the "science" into the existing paradigm so as to avoid the implications.
When Einstein first realized that his equations governing gravity hinted at a beginning to the universe, he simply inserted a number, his cosmological constant, which he called his greatest blunder, to make the numbers work for a static, eternal univrese.
This number was correct, ironically, but it governs the endless expansion and acceleration of the Universe. So Science has a problem, which points directly to God, that it cannot solve: the universe has both a beginning and end. This demands an explanation, which they a priori denounce. Give them one "miracle" and the rest can be/is
And an explanation is nothing... that you know how something works, says nothing about why.
I would qualify your interpolation as baseless, nonetheless.
It's errant,a self-applied and self-sustained prohibitor to genuine discussion. Maybe there are other reasons for your opinion.
Dismissing criticism as a 'self-sustained prohibitor' is a way to sidestep responsibility for the tone and pattern of your own contributions. It’s a one-sided diagnosis
That only makes sense if your attestation wasn't baseless.
So again, just like before, you are assuming the argument. In other words, you are blaming me for the lack of substantive conversatoin. The fault is yours.
OK—I'll own the laughing emojis. But let's not pretend that emojis outweigh the repeated presumption of intellectual superiority and dismissiveness in your tone. If you want genuine discussion, it takes more than just saying you're open to it—you have to actually meet people where they are, not just where you think they should be.
I won't change my bluntness, the matter of fact tone I tend to use, no. Not here, not anywhere else for that matter. And again, that assumes the argument; I'm not pretending antyhing, right or wrong.
My tone is neither dismissive, nor haughty. That's simply and solely your subjective interpretation. It's the internet; you know nothing about whom you're talking to, in all actuality, nothing but pixels and your own projections. My opinion of my tone is decidedly otherwise, sincerity. If you want substantive discourse from me that you feel you didn't get, then you have to prove yourself. This tit-for-tat you're engaging in is not that. I won't engage just because someone wants to, and I care nothing about your admitted mockery by the way, which you own, but I won't own your projection of me, no. That's not "side-stepping."
Let's not pretend my objective evidence is on par with your subjective interpretation.
You demand others prove themselves while hiding behind condescension and aloof detachment. That’s not sincerity—it’s ego dressed as philosophy. You don’t engage because you can’t do so without defaulting to smug dismissal. Calling criticism ‘projection’ is just your way of dodging accountability. If this is what you call substantive, it explains a lot.
Again, that's your opinion.
And when I was referring to substantive discourse, I was referring to the thread topic, not this juvenile tit-for-tat you've manufactured, which obviously lacks substance.
That I'm done with, btw.
The guy who liked your post has similar opinion of me. That's fine. One time I told him something which I thought was completely benign and he flipped out in anger, so I generally don't engage him. This isn't any different.
I'm completely aware of how/why you make the assumptions you do. But you know what they say about when you assume.
The guy who liked your post has similar opinion of me. That's fine. One time I told him something which I thought was completely benign and he flipped out in anger, so I generally don't engage him. This isn't any different.
I'm completely aware of how/why you make the assumptions you do. But you know what they say about when you assume.
Understood. You’re done, yet still narrating. I’ll let you finish in peace—seems important to you.
It's not... and doing you the courtesy I did got the exact response I would've predicted.
Examine what it is that compels you. That's all I have for you.
Fitting, then, that your response mirrors the rest of your posts — curt, dismissive, and closed off to other perspectives. Yes I know its my opinion.
Rather than address your perceptions of others’ personalities, why not engage him in actual discussion about the thread topic?
If he would have read the thread, he would have seen that the discussion was about religious faith versus scientific faith—that was the context in which the scientific method came up. No one was questioning its validity; we were discussing how people place faith in different frameworks. But instead of engaging with that, he zeroed in on denouncing the guy who mentioned the scientific method. That’s not discussion—it’s dismissal.
I engaged forthrightly previously; I was never saying one method was valid vs invalid, or that religious faith was the same kind of faith as scientific faith, but that the actual epistemological substance and method of each is entirely different. The real question is: are you justified in concluding no God from the evidence presented to you?
Nor am I just dismissing you here… you’re just making an ad hominem; that’s my opinion. You are quick to afford yourself the luxury of having one, but will not extend the same courtesy. Talk of dismissal.
And no, I don’t care. I expect you to shoot the messenger. “Your” psych 101 armchair psychology is not something I really care to defend myself from… sorry
Nor am I just dismissing you here… you’re just making an ad hominem; that’s my opinion. You are quick to afford yourself the luxury of having one, but will not extend the same courtesy. Talk of dismissal.
And no, I don’t care. I expect you to shoot the messenger. “Your” psych 101 armchair psychology is not something I really care to defend myself from… sorry
Very good and timely, substantive good-faith discussion between an agnostic youtuber and Christian mathematician
Interestingly enough, Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus, citing two historically verifiable events: His baptism, and His crucifixion.
I don’t think there are many serious historians or learned people who don’t believe Jesus is a real person.
Yes. I agree. It appears there are far more historians, theologians, biblical scholars and archeologists who contend that Abraham, Moses and David are myths than
the relative few who feel Jesus was not a historical figure who existed on earth.
Thinking this morning about how atheists have a problem with the fact that God is usually invisible to us. When you truly think about who you are, the spirit of who you are is also invisible. When the body dies, no one thinks the body is the person. The person is actually distinct from the body. So much so that there have been discussions and pursuits to embody the person in a computer so that after the body dies, the person will still exist beyond the time of the body’s death. If who you truly is not your physical body, how is it so difficult to envision an entity that is only spirit?
Your question is a thoughtful and interesting one. For me, I don’t believe in a soul, ghosts or spirits. But, many (if not most) people do, of course.
Here is an older piece that seems to be somewhat related to your question:
Also, belief in ghosts has been around for ages. I think they are also somewhat related to your question:
Googling “Is God a Spirit” provides many links, as I’m sure you already know. It seems the vast majority are affirmative and based on scripture.
Last edited:
When you are adopting the "scientific" materialist position (Scientism), you are necessarily saying that your soul (or consciousness) is the random result of an unquantifiable series of colliding atoms. You are essentially nothing, nothing indistinguishable from anything else in the universe.
When someone looks into the eyes of their child for the first time, however, and sees God through that, they are recognizing the patent absurdity of this position. There is something there that cannot be expressed through the reasoning that is the scientific method, that cannot be defined experimentally. He/She knows their child is of immeasurable value, not just a possession or something to interact which one might place their own subjective highest value or affection, but something unique and immaterial, of immeasurable value. The Scientific Method, or a reductionist view that this experience is all merely the result of natural processes and nothing more, is woefully inadequate to describe what he/she feels.
When someone looks into the eyes of their child for the first time, however, and sees God through that, they are recognizing the patent absurdity of this position. There is something there that cannot be expressed through the reasoning that is the scientific method, that cannot be defined experimentally. He/She knows their child is of immeasurable value, not just a possession or something to interact which one might place their own subjective highest value or affection, but something unique and immaterial, of immeasurable value. The Scientific Method, or a reductionist view that this experience is all merely the result of natural processes and nothing more, is woefully inadequate to describe what he/she feels.
Last edited:
I love to watch youtubes, primarily about music, but also explore many other topics, including God’s existence and religious belief. Accordingly, algorithms populate my YouTube feed with related videos of all types.
Yesterday, I was introduced to Darante’ LaMar through this recent video. I found it thought-provoking and wondered what arguments Christian apologists would have regarding most of his points. In follow-up, I’ve learned that he has many videos regarding God and religion.
OFF TOPIC: Since I mentioned watching music youtubes, if you like music and are not familiar with Rick Beato. He has MANY interesting videos, including fabulous and notable guests, that you might enjoy.
Yesterday, I was introduced to Darante’ LaMar through this recent video. I found it thought-provoking and wondered what arguments Christian apologists would have regarding most of his points. In follow-up, I’ve learned that he has many videos regarding God and religion.
OFF TOPIC: Since I mentioned watching music youtubes, if you like music and are not familiar with Rick Beato. He has MANY interesting videos, including fabulous and notable guests, that you might enjoy.
Last edited:
My favorite LZ song has always been
“Ramble On”
In your above post’s mention of looking into your child eyes … it IMMEDIATELY reminded me of a verse in a song by Monte Montgomery … a favorite artist and phenomenal guitarist who I’ve seen a number of times:
Last edited:
I find it fascinating that for some, whenever something happens that cannot be adequately explained, the god of the bible is slid in there as the answer.
I was front and center at the birth of 3 children. It was an incredible experience all 3 times, and caused an nearly overwhelming rush of emotions, and all the feel-good hormones. At no point did your god wedge himself into the experience. All the magic happened between me, my wife, and our newborns.
I am interested though to get opinions on if your god is present during the birth of animals. I ask because where I live there happens to be LOTS of wildlife. At this very moment there's a fawn behind my shed. There are at least 2 baby bunnies hopping around my property. And unknown numbers of bird's nests, many of which have or had young hatchlings in them. Did any of those animal parents experience your god when they saw their own young'uns for the first time? Or did natural instinct kick in and cause the parents to lovingly care for and provide for the babies?
This is that same lens you apply to everything, which I already said was not the one I am using: namely, that Science cannot adequately explain my "evolved" feeling like God does, so that is in and of itself evidence for one or the other, as if they are competing explanations.
No, they are not addressing the same issue. We are, yet again, not talking about the same thing.