Anti and Leo, there are several elements in your posts that point to narcissist personality disorder and such people are incapable of sustaining a rational discourse. Is that why you guys have chosen to snipe from the sidelines instead?

Rhian,
You're saying we ought not to view the Pentateuch as history. So now I'm interested to see how much of the New Testament you would view as history. I would say that Luke, as the writer of Luke and Acts, was very concerned with historical accuracies. In this light, how can you account for the list of ancestors in Luke chapter 3, which aligns greatly with Genesis chapter 5 if they are not both entailing straight forward historical records? What do you think Luke is trying to say, other than appearing to interpret Genesis as straight forward history?

If the story of Adam being created from the dust of the earth is myth, then in what category do you place the resurrection of Jesus, which is the central teaching of the New Testament? You seem to lean towards the writing of Peter Selleck who definitely does not accept the resurrection as a physical reality, Jesus body miraculously coming back to life in Joseph's tomb. So is this also a myth? From my point of view, both Jesus' resurrection and Adam's creation from dust are miracles. And I don't see them as miracles of particularly different orders. Both are similar. Both involve making a man come alive from non living (i.e. dead) matter. If I'm going to believe one, I may as well believe the other. Or perhaps I should believe neither. Yet this is the central teaching of the New Testament. And it's not just I, but St Paul who links Adam with Christ in several passages of the NT, comparing Jesus to a second Adam.

So Luke appears to be writing about history in Luke chapter 3. Paul appears to be talking about a physical resurrection in Corinthians 15. So it seems to me, that if we go down the road of passing off too many biblical narratives as 'myth' and separate from real history, it will descend fairly quickly to the point that everything in the Bible is largely myth, bringing it no connection with man's affairs and real world history.

Banjo,
I would agree that the different gospel accounts of the women at Jesus' tomb do sound muddled. But such is the nature of testimony surrounding real life drama. Compare this to different witnesses of the same car accident, or various radio sports commentators who see the same action from different viewing perspectives. Different witnesses often will bring slightly different perspectives to the same actual event, without us needing to doubt that the event occurred or the integrity of the witness. In fact, when two different witness testimonies align a little too neatly and correctly, we will even start to suspect some collusion occurring between the two.

What is also very interesting in the case of the women at the site of Jesus' resurrection is that it records women as being the first to give testimony to such and amazing event. For in those days, the legal testimony of a woman would be treated clearly less seriously than that of a man. So if the gospels were fabricated stories rather than real world action, it is less likely that the gospel writers would place women at the scene to be the initial heralds of such an event.

But I would also agree with your later conclusion that believing the accounts requires much faith. You'd think one would need to be previously inclined to believe it, as a person rising from the dead is not a normal occurrence.

I've heard it said from atheists that one needs remarkable evidence before being able to accept a remarkable event. And this gets back to the reason for Don Batten writing this article in the first place. Don is pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists, who do not have anywhere near the sufficient evidence for their five miraculous events. The evidence is really pointing the other way.Yet they are all too quickly inclined to want to believe them, as it accommodates their beliefs and choices.

That’s Carl Sagan you’re thinking of there, Dan.

<<I've heard it said from atheists that one needs remarkable evidence before being able to accept a remarkable event.>>

And the actual quote is, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

<<And this gets back to the reason for Don Batten writing this article in the first place.>>

Given the word-allowance, I would quite happily do a line-by-line rebuttal of every word Batten said in his ridiculous article. Unfortunately, that’s not possible with our word count. Not even with the maximum word count of 2000 words for an article. I will just say now that not a single word batten said was true, and I’d be happy to debate him if he had the courage to make an appearance in the comments section. Not surprisingly, however, he won’t.

<<Don is pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists, who do not have anywhere near the sufficient evidence for their five miraculous events.>>

Atheism ranges anywhere from the complete absence in a belief in a god or gods (e.g. babies), to the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, atheists have no burden of proof. This is simply a case of the Switching of the Burden of Proof fallacy.

<<The evidence is really pointing the other way.>>

How so? I’d love Batten to come here and justify this (God knows his article didn’t), but alas, somehow I don’t think he will.

A take down of Batten’s article.

<<Atheists often promote themselves as intelligent, logical, scientific, rational, etc.>>

Some of them do. Not all. Some aren’t sure of what they believe and, consequently (albeit erroneously) refer to themselves as “agnostics”.

<<They even had a proposal to call themselves 'brights'!>>

They? That was only Dawkins. And most other atheists howled his suggestion down as ‘arrogant’.

<<The aggressive 'new atheists' … like to portray those of us who believe in a supernatural Creator as irrational, unscientific, unintelligent, ignorant, or even 'needing help' (Dawkins).>>

I suppose, yes. I tend to agree to and would quite happily defend that if a theist had a problem with it.

<<Reality runs against these perceptions. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientific mind of all time, was a Christian believer, as were other founders of modern science.>>

He also lived in very primitive and ignorant times, in which virtually everyone was at least a deist, since they had no way of yet explaining the origins or diversity of life, and us humans have an unquenchable thirst for answers. Even if they’re wrong.

<<Surveys have consistently shown that people with a strong adherence to the Bible's authority are the least likely to be superstitious…>>

Err, no. Religious belief is, by definition, a superstition. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/superstition)

<<…in contrast to the average de facto atheist.>>

What is a de facto atheist, given that atheism is, in its broadest sense, simply the absence of any god-belief?

<<Indeed, one atheist expressed his chagrin that "some of the most intelligent and well-informed people" he knew were Christians.>>

Well, he can rest assured that the more intelligent an individual is, the less likely it is that they will be religious:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727

Surprise, surprise.
<<There is much more to say.>>

More? Nothing you’ve said has yet held, Batten. But do tell…

<<Atheists believe that everything came about by purely material processes-the universe, life, mind, and morality.>>

Do they? All of them? But just a moment ago you mentioned that many of them held in superstitious beliefs. I guess now you’re just conflating materialism with atheism.

Continued…

…Continued

<<However, do they have a rational, logical basis for this belief?>>

Given what you’ve said so far, we’re probably not going to get much of an answer from you. But let’s see what you’ve got…
<<They actually believe in miracles without any reasonable cause for the miracles.>>

*Gasp* How so?

<<That is, they believe in magic, or the occurrence of things without a sufficient cause.>>

Do they? Who are these atheists? All the atheists I know are merely state that they don’t know. Certainly beats makin’ stuff up, don’t ya think, Batten?

<<Stuff does not happen without something to cause it to happen.>>

This is the Special Pleading fallacy, because now you’re going to claim that God can.

<<Even young children understand this law of causation.>>

Do you know what “special pleading” is?

<<Magic, where things 'just happen', is the stuff of fairytales-there is no such thing.>>

Okay, so you got one thing right. It’s a pity you cannot apply this to your own beliefs.

<<Materialists (atheists) [let’s conflate the two, shall we?] once tried to believe that the universe was eternal, to erase the question of where it came from.>>

Nope. All they’ve ever said is that, if God can be eternal, then why can’t the universe be eternal? Energy, after all cannot be destroyed. Or are you going to evoke the Special Pleading fallacy again?

<<The famous British atheist Bertrand Russell, for example, took this position. However, this is not tenable.>>

It’s not? Do tell.

<<The progress of scientific knowledge about thermodynamics, for example, means that virtually everyone has been forced to acknowledge that the universe had a beginning, somewhere, sometime-the big bang idea acknowledges this…>>

In its current form, yes. But when the universe was a singularity, the laws of physics would have broken down. Either way, inventing a god does not solve this.

<<The big bang attempts to explain the beginning of the universe. However, what did it begin from and what caused it to begin?>>

No-one knows. The question may not even make sense. Either way, inventing a god doesn’t solve this problem.

Continued…