Conversation with An Atheist

[NayborBear]

And the unanswered question is; how do you know this? Seems you’re connecting this conclusion to Pangaea.

Methinks the lad is referring to a "slice of eternity" prior to this current "slice of eternity" where "Pangea" DID exist!
Far as I can see?
He's still trying to sort the difference/s in these "slices of eternity."
Which is a "perpetually confusing and terminal" problem that has and shall continue to perplex "sciences of empiricism."
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
and 5 bucks'll get ya a cup of coffee!

 

[CrowCross]

Interesting. I checked about 5 different commentaries on the verse and 4 out of the 5 agreed that the division was a political/ethnic one and not a physical division of the land. I have always though it was referring to a cataclysmic physical division of the land.

It could have also been speaking about the Tower of Babel dividing of the people.

 

[Mancunian]

The salt from the flood waters...which wasn't as high as oceans of today...would have easily been leached out of the soil by rain water

The ark supposedly came to rest on Mt Ararat? The flood waters covered the highest mountains on earth, I'm assuming though that the flood waters would have been a diluted saltwater... Rain is freshwater and so are underground springs.
A pretty toxic mix for fish, but that's another topic....
The earth would have been in ruins after a global flood.
Noah's family would definitely have been starved to death when back on 'dry land' if any of this was remotely true.

 

[NayborBear]

Noah's family would definitely have been starved to death when back on 'dry land' if any of this was remotely true.

That's assuming Noah and family consumed all the food, and all the feed and fodder for the critters, and the critters quit doing that which critters do in preserving their species.
Whilst awaiting for the fields to repopulate.
Look what God did through His Prophet Elijah and that poor woman and her son.
And you are under the premise that this SAME God would NOT take care of not only Noah and families needs as well as the critters?

Under empiricism? It would be easy to draw the same conclusion you have.
And?

 

[Mancunian]

That's assuming Noah and family consumed all the food, and all the feed and fodder for the critters, and the critters quit doing that which critters do in preserving their species.
Whilst awaiting for the fields to repopulate.
Look what God did through His Prophet Elijah and that poor woman and her son.
And you are under the premise that this SAME God would NOT take care of not only Noah and families needs as well as the critters?

Under empiricism? It would be easy to draw the same conclusion you have.
And?

Yes we all know what the God who created the universe, our solar system, the laws of physics and mathematics did to the children of bethel too according to the Bible.

Are we accepting that a God that is so powerful and all knowing, sent some bears to maul children because they mocked Elijah?

Are we not taking that literally? Which bits are we taking literally?

 

[Mancunian]

It's all very confusing.
Little wonder that I don't believe.

 

[Mancunian]

And before you say it Elijah ascended and Elisha was the replacement prophet that was mocked for his baldness.

I wonder why the creator of Saturn Uranus and Jupiter would get involved?

 

[Mancunian]

The main reason that I don't believe in the Christian God is that the gospels don't agree with eachother.
This is the most important part of the holy Bible. This part must be coherent and all of the gospels must agree.
The crucifixion and resurrection of jesus must be the most important event ever witnessed by mankind, the son of God, here to pay for our sins.
Why don't the accounts of Matthew Mark Luke and John match perfectly regardless of the time between the accounts?
If you want to, we can make a separate thread for the contradictory gospels.

 

[Mancunian]

I've read it over and over and over and over.
Matthew Mark Luke and John.
I've read them over and over and over and over.

 

[Mancunian]

That's assuming Noah and family consumed all the food, and all the feed and fodder for the critters, and the critters quit doing that which critters do in preserving their species.
Whilst awaiting for the fields to repopulate.
Look what God did through His Prophet Elijah and that poor woman and her son.
And you are under the premise that this SAME God would NOT take care of not only Noah and families needs as well as the critters?

Under empiricism? It would be easy to draw the same conclusion you have.
And?

Do you really believe that God eliminated every living thing on this planet apart from Noah, his family and two of every 'Kind'.
I always wonder about marsupials? I wonder about eucalyptus. I wonder about bamboo. I wonder about the giant anteater. I wonder about where Noah got his Emperor penguins from. I wonder where Noah got his poison dart frogs from. Noah doesn't have time on his side. Noah the 800+ year old boat builder doesn't have reality on his side.

 

[Wrangler]

Why don't the accounts of Matthew Mark Luke and John match perfectly regardless of the time between the accounts?

Let’s ask AI:
This is a classic question in biblical scholarship known as the "synoptic problem" (for Matthew, Mark, and Luke) plus the unique material in John. The accounts don't match perfectly for several interconnected reasons that go beyond just the passage of time:

Literary Dependencies and Sources​

Scholars generally agree the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) share literary relationships. Most commonly accepted is the "Two-Source Theory":

• Mark was likely written first (c. 65-70 CE)
• Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, plus another lost source called "Q" (for Quelle, German for "source")
• Each also had unique materials (M for Matthew, L for Luke)

John stands separately—written later (c. 90-100 CE) with significantly different structure, chronology, and theological emphasis. It independently records many events absent from the Synoptics.

Different Purposes and Audiences​

Each evangelist wrote for distinct communities with specific theological aims:

Gospel	Primary Audience	Key Emphasis
Matthew	Jewish Christians	Jesus as fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy
Mark	Roman/Gentile readers	Action-oriented, suffering servant
Luke	Gentiles/Theophilus	Universal salvation, marginalized groups
John	Hellenistic/developing church	High Christology, "I am" statements

These goals shaped how material was selected, arranged, and sometimes modified.

Oral Tradition Variability​

Before written accounts stabilized (c. 30-65 CE), stories circulated orally for decades. Oral cultures naturally produced:

• Variation in exact wording
• Different orderings of events
• Compressed or expanded narratives
• Regional transmission differences

This explains parallel accounts with slight discrepancies even when describing the same event.

Anachronistic Chronologies​

Notable chronological issues include:

• Last Supper timing: Synoptics suggest Passover meal; John has Jesus crucified before Passover
• Temple cleansing: Placed near end in Synoptics; early in John's ministry
• Resurrection appearances: Different locations, sequences, and witnesses across all four

Modern scholars typically view these as theological framing rather than attempts at modern-style historiography.

Ancient Genre Expectations​

Gospels weren't written as modern biographies or journalistic reports. Ancient biographical conventions allowed:

• Thematic arrangement over strict chronology
• Harmonizing traditions for theological coherence
• Selective inclusion/exclusion based on purpose

Scholarly Consensus​

Most contemporary scholars (across confessional and secular traditions) recognize that:

1. Perfect historical concordance wasn't the ancient authors' goal
2. Discrepancies reflect authentic diversity in early Christian communities
3. Harmonization attempts often create more problems than they solve
4. Differences can coexist with core historical agreement (Jesus existed, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, disciples believed in resurrection)

 

[Mancunian]

Dear dear sir . the words she brings Are the most sensible of all .
That is why i also reminded her , DO NOT debate with any of them .
LET THE SCRIPTURES do the talking . because if one believes NOT the SCRIPTURES
they wont believe me who speaks the truth about JESUS either .
I would like to ask you a question .
Now before i do , no ma tter how you answer i will not be offended my friend .
Its for my own personal reasons i ask it .
But if you had to make a choice and you were asked to make that choice .
And the question was , OF all the peoples you have spoken to on this thread
WHO do you think its perhaps the most extremist of all
WHO would you say that one was . now remember if you say me i promise i will not be offended
or if you say maybe epi , or wrangler or some other .
But in you heart who do you see as the most zealous religoius extremist , IF you had to answer that question .

I think that Marveloustime hasn't got anything constructive to say. If he or she did have anything constructive to say, he or she would use their own words and not rely on posting Facebook ready slogans.

 

[Mancunian]

Let’s ask AI:
This is a classic question in biblical scholarship known as the "synoptic problem" (for Matthew, Mark, and Luke) plus the unique material in John. The accounts don't match perfectly for several interconnected reasons that go beyond just the passage of time:

Literary Dependencies and Sources​

Scholars generally agree the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) share literary relationships. Most commonly accepted is the "Two-Source Theory":

• Mark was likely written first (c. 65-70 CE)
• Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, plus another lost source called "Q" (for Quelle, German for "source")
• Each also had unique materials (M for Matthew, L for Luke)

John stands separately—written later (c. 90-100 CE) with significantly different structure, chronology, and theological emphasis. It independently records many events absent from the Synoptics.

Different Purposes and Audiences​

Each evangelist wrote for distinct communities with specific theological aims:

Gospel	Primary Audience	Key Emphasis
Matthew	Jewish Christians	Jesus as fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy
Mark	Roman/Gentile readers	Action-oriented, suffering servant
Luke	Gentiles/Theophilus	Universal salvation, marginalized groups
John	Hellenistic/developing church	High Christology, "I am" statements

These goals shaped how material was selected, arranged, and sometimes modified.

Oral Tradition Variability​

Before written accounts stabilized (c. 30-65 CE), stories circulated orally for decades. Oral cultures naturally produced:

• Variation in exact wording
• Different orderings of events
• Compressed or expanded narratives
• Regional transmission differences

This explains parallel accounts with slight discrepancies even when describing the same event.

Anachronistic Chronologies​

Notable chronological issues include:

• Last Supper timing: Synoptics suggest Passover meal; John has Jesus crucified before Passover
• Temple cleansing: Placed near end in Synoptics; early in John's ministry
• Resurrection appearances: Different locations, sequences, and witnesses across all four

Modern scholars typically view these as theological framing rather than attempts at modern-style historiography.

Ancient Genre Expectations​

Gospels weren't written as modern biographies or journalistic reports. Ancient biographical conventions allowed:

• Thematic arrangement over strict chronology
• Harmonizing traditions for theological coherence
• Selective inclusion/exclusion based on purpose

Scholarly Consensus​

Most contemporary scholars (across confessional and secular traditions) recognize that:

1. Perfect historical concordance wasn't the ancient authors' goal
2. Discrepancies reflect authentic diversity in early Christian communities
3. Harmonization attempts often create more problems than they solve
4. Differences can coexist with core historical agreement (Jesus existed, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, disciples believed in resurrection)

Remember.
This is the single most important piece of information that mankind needs to know about. Everything rests on this.It's a matter of life and death.

Actually.
It's contradictory. The resurrection of jesus wasn't documented until at least 30 years later... John was nearly a century later.

 

[Mancunian]

The new testament is a sequel, we need to look at the OT as the word of God. The commandments that were handed to Moses (cough cough) are the moral standard.

 

[NayborBear]

The new testament is a sequel, we need to look at the OT as the word of God. The commandments that were handed to Moses (cough cough) are the moral standard.

Actually? Ya needs look at the O.T. not only as the Word of God? But also as the Fulfillment of the "LOVING KINDNESS," or more like "ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY" to get things right BETWEEN one, and God!
And THAT? In a nutshell? IS THE GOSPEL TRUTH!
I'll give ya one more item to consider:
If it weren't for Judaism?
There would BE no "Christianity!"
Because THAT would mean that Judaism SUCCEEDED in KEEPING things "on the square" WITH 'Yaw-'Uh-'VAY!
Yet? And one could think that God "stacked the deck" AGAINST Adam, Eve, Enoch, Abraham, and Israel.
But He didn't!
Why do you think God was so grieved He made "man" flesh? And THEN? Give "man" A CHOICE?
Could it be because "man" is so GULLIBLE?
Could it be because "man" so UNDERESTIMATED satans seductive influences(aka beguilings)?

The answer is YES!
But not to fret about this too much there pilgrim, as the Loving Kindness of our creator, which endures forever, has GIVEN yet ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY in yet another "slice of eternity" aka the millennium.
Where/When satan is "taken out of the picture" during that "slice of eternity!"
Only to be "inserted" BACK! During yet ANOTHER "slice of eternity!"
To some? That might cause God to APPEAR as some "mischievous manipulator!"
Wouldn't it?
Yet? He does these things for His GOOD Pleasure!
One could LOOK at it as God just keeping Himself Amused eh?
Because eternity IS a very very VERY long L-O-N-G time!

Here! Give this a read! Provides some insight as to the "Who's Who and the Did What to Mankind?"

The Book of Enoch, by R.H. Charles, [1917], at sacred-texts.com

CHAPTER VI.

1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.
2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.'
4. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations* not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.'
5. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.
6. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.
7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl.
8. These are their chiefs of tens.

CHAPTER VII.
1. And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants.
2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells:
3. Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them,
4. the giants turned against them and devoured mankind.
5. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood.
6. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

CHAPTER VIII.
1. And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals 〈of the earth〉 and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures.
2. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl, (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Ezêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, 〈Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun〉, and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .

*Meaning: A spoken curse, an angry or hostile remark directed at someone, or an appeal to a supernatural power to inflict harm.

Note:
This was WELL BEFORE Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. And WELL BEFORE Noah's flood too!

 

[NayborBear]

Yes we all know what the God who created the universe, our solar system, the laws of physics and mathematics did to the children of bethel too according to the Bible.

Are we accepting that a God that is so powerful and all knowing, sent some bears to maul children because they mocked Elijah?

Are we not taking that literally? Which bits are we taking literally?

Yep!
And this SAME GOD ALSO gave a people "Asteroids" and mice to a people that stole the "Ark of the Covenant!"
To the point where these people were MORE then willing to give the Ark back!
Who sez God ain't got a sense of humor?

 

[Wrangler]

The main reason that I don't believe in the Christian God is that the gospels don't agree with eachother.

I’m glad we got to your main reason for not believing.

I believe it was in The Case for Christ where the investigative reporter interviewed police detectives about witnesses whose testimony don’t match on every detail. They said this happens all the time. And the only time the stories match is when the witnesses collude to tell a lie. Again from AI:

===============================

Eyewitnesses often agree on the main event but differ on details because human perception and memory are not video recordings. Each person notices, interprets, stores, and later reconstructs an event from a different position and under different conditions. Eyewitness differences are normal—and do not automatically mean that someone is lying.

What happens during an event​

People do not take in every available detail. Attention is limited, so a witness may focus on the most threatening or salient part of a scene—such as a weapon, a loud sound, or a person’s face—while missing clothing, sequence, distance, timing, or what was happening at the edges of their vision. Poor lighting, a brief viewing time, movement, and distance make that harder.
Stress and fear can narrow attention further. If someone sees a sudden crash, robbery, or fight, they may remember the central action vividly but be much less reliable about peripheral details, such as the color of a car, exact words used, or who entered first.

Why memories diverge afterward​

Memory is reconstructive: recalling an event means rebuilding it from stored fragments, expectations, and later information rather than playing back a perfect recording. As a result, two sincere witnesses can give different accounts of the same incident.
Details can shift because of:

• Different viewpoints: One witness may have seen a person’s face, while another saw only their back or vehicle.
• Different attention: One focuses on the victim; another on the person shouting; another on the route someone took.
• Time passing: Fine details tend to fade, and people may unintentionally fill gaps with what seems likely.
• Later information: News reports, social-media posts, police questions, or conversations with other witnesses can introduce details that feel like personal memories.
• Question wording: Leading wording can influence recall—for example, asking about “the broken glass” may make a witness more likely to think there was broken glass even if there was not.
• Repeated retelling: Recounting a story can increase confidence without necessarily improving accuracy; it can also blend in assumptions or information learned later.

Confidence is not the same as accuracy​

A witness may be very confident and still mistaken about a particular detail. Confidence can be affected by repetition, feedback from others, and how an identification procedure is run, not just by how clearly the event was originally seen.
This is why investigators should collect accounts separately and promptly, use neutral open-ended questions, avoid revealing information to witnesses, and compare accounts for their overall pattern—not expect identical wording or perfectly matching minor details.

 

[Wrangler]

The commandments that were handed to Moses (cough cough) are the moral standard.

Which of the 10 Commandments do you morally object to?

 

[Wrangler]

Remember.
This is the single most important piece of information that mankind needs to know about. Everything rests on this.It's a matter of life and death.

Yup, you got that right. The resurrection of Jesus the Anointed is the most important event in human history.

Actually.
It's contradictory. The resurrection of jesus wasn't documented until at least 30 years later... John was nearly a century later.

Regarding small detail differences, see AI post above. The Gospels don’t contradict on the main point That All the Gospels proclaim Jesus is God’s Anointed.

• Matthew 1:1 (VOICE) This is the family history, the genealogy, of Jesus the Anointed, the coming King.
• Mark 1:1 (VOICE). This is the beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Anointed One, the Liberating King, the Son of God.
• Luke 1:4 I want you to know that you can fully rely on the things you have been taught about Jesus, God’s Anointed One.
• John 20:31 (VOICE). These accounts are recorded so that you, too, might believe that Jesus is the Anointed, the Liberating King, the Son of God, because believing grants you the life He came to share.

The new testament is a sequel, we need to look at the OT as the word of God.

That’s incorrect. The OT* was the promise. The NT is the fulfillment of that promise.

* To be fair, the OT is 4x as much text as the NT that includes: history, poetry, wisdom literature in addition to prophetic writings.

 

[shepherdsword]

The main reason that I don't believe in the Christian God is that the gospels don't agree with eachother.
This is the most important part of the holy Bible. This part must be coherent and all of the gospels must agree.
The crucifixion and resurrection of jesus must be the most important event ever witnessed by mankind, the son of God, here to pay for our sins.
Why don't the accounts of Matthew Mark Luke and John match perfectly regardless of the time between the accounts?
If you want to, we can make a separate thread for the contradictory gospels.

The gospels must be viewed for what they are. Separate views of the same account. They are like the RYB color layers in a photograph. The colors are different but compliment each other ,when together, they paint a complete picture of Christ.

1)Matthew emphasizes Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah and coming King

2)Mark is generally more compressed and emphasizes Jesus' actions as the suffering Messiah

3)Luke presents an orderly narrative and gives considerable attention to Gentiles, the poor, women, and outsiders.

4)John emphasizes the divinity of Christ

The apparent contradictions are merely the story told from different perspectives. Imagine how suspect it would be if their accounts matched perfectly. One could then accuse them of collaboration and collusion to promote a lie. The fact that they differ in perspective is more in evidence to their truth than their falsehood.