(Part 2) Top products from r/DebateAnAtheist

[Continued from above.]

• An appeal to testimonial evidence. The Bible is claimed to be evidence of the God Yahweh (and a bunch of other stuff) based upon the claimed testimony of the narratives.
  
  But what can be said of the source of this testimony? The level of significance (level of reliability and confidence) of personal testimony, of which all of the narratives of the Bible are based upon, is very low; and arguably no better than an appeal to emotion. Witness testimony is highly-subjective, mind-dependent, qualia-experience; is highly influenced by conformation and other cognitive biases; and is questionable (low credibility) towards support a mind-independent truth value that has a reasonable level of significance.
  
  A recent demonstration of the reliability of personal gnosis/testimony to support a truth can be seen in the testimonial statements related to the Police Officer shooting of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, USA. [one] [two] [three] [four] Spoiler - witness testimony is unreliable, is subject to all kinds of confirmation and cognitive biases, and generally non-credible to establish even a medium level of significance of a claimed truth value.
  
  Even without knowing any of the history of the redaction and editing or the Bible, or cherry picking of specific books and verses to include within the Bible, or challenging who actual wrote (and when) the various Bible books/verses, the credibility of the Bible as evidence, in and of itself, is so low that those that do not have the conformation bias based belief of Yahweh do not even consider the Bible as evidence, but consider the Bible only as a set of claims.
  
  
• Evidence from the Argument from Popularity (of the Bible, or of Christianity)
  
  Now some may claim that because XXX Religion has more than a billion followers, where almost all adherents base their belief on Theistic Religious Faith/appeal to emotion, that this accumulation of evidence supports a level of significance higher than presented in the list above. And while this argument from popularity is considered strong argument from those that have a vested confirmation bias, each data point, each persons highly subjective appeal to emotion based evidence, does not support an additive or cumulative process to provide an overall increased level of significance. Rather, the entire data set has a very low level of significance against credible support to the claimed truth value or to provide credible support Theistic Religious Faith.
  
  With Theistic Religious Faith, as discussed above, accepted as actual evidence, the question becomes: What level of significance, or level of reliability and confidence, is required for the evidence presented to be accepted as credible against the issue under discussion? Personally, I use a threshold that all claims of evidence related to Gods/supernatural deities have a level of significance that is better than an appeal to emotion for me to begin to consider the evidence to be credible - even though the consequences of the actualization of God(s), or proof that God does exist, is extraordinary.
  
  So OP, against your Theistic Religious Faith considering the existence of the God Yahweh, or of any God, and the Theistic Religions associate with these God(s), ask yourself the following: Can you, or any claimants/adherents, to some God, make a presentation of the burden of proof, via credible evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality (i.e., both logically and factually true), to a level of significance (or level of reliability and confidence) above some acceptable threshold [Let's use a level of significance above that of an appeal to emotion as a threshold for consideration - even though the consequences of actual proof of the actualization of God(s), and associated claims, is extraordinary], of the positive claim that YHWH, or any God, actually exists? and that the associated Theistic Religion has a credible and supportable truth value against which to justify Theistic Religious Faith?
  
  ----
  
  > If there is to be honest debate between our respective views, I think the important concepts of each side deserve to be understood in the context in which they are offered.
  
  I concur. With this goal in mind - your opening statement:
  
  > The atheists on this sub are very particular on the meanings which are put into the word "atheist." The historical meaning of the word atheist, as I understand it, is known here as a "strong atheist." And the historical meaning of the word "agnostic" is synonymous with the term "soft atheist." Notwithstanding the problems I see with this terminology, ....
  
  Is even more pejorative.
  
  For a discussion of the "historical meaning" of atheist/atheism, I refer you to [THIS POST] which highlights the source and context of so very many of these "historical meanings" to which you refer.
  
  > And the historical meaning of the word "agnostic" ...
  
  If you are referring to:
  
  Agnosticism: the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.
  
  represents a non-answer to, or an attempt to side-step, giving a straight answer to the central question of interest:
  
  
• Is there any credible reason or justification to hold a belief/acceptance position concerning the existence (or non-existence) of God(s)?
  
  And is not atheism.
  
  However, given the range of definitions that have been used with "atheism" I will concede to the point that it behooves one to ask (if not provided) what an atheist means by their atheism. Indeed:
  
  "The precise definition of atheism is both a vexed and vexatious issue." "Even from it's earliest beginnings in Greek and English, however, atheism/atheotés admitted of a variety of competing, and confusing, definitions - often bearing no strict relationship to it's strict etymology." "Even today, [], there is is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term [atheist/atheism] should be used." Source: Bullivant, Stephen, and Michael Ruse, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford University Press, 2013.
  
  If you are interested in the long history of the term atheist/atheism, see:
  
  
• Discourse Analysis and the Definition of Atheism
  
  Which provides the conclusion statements of:
  
  "For our own intentions herein, ‘Atheism’ might be equally seen as an empty signifier, so that rather than busying ourselves with definitions, and thus contributing to a discourse mired in ambiguity, our attentions can be turned toward how individuals who identify as ‘Atheists’ go about filling that signifier with what they perceive the word to mean for their own usage."
  
  "In this way, when we study Atheists and their Atheism we are no longer required to define what we mean when we talk about what they mean, removing ourselves as theoretical intermediaries and allowing them to speak for themselves."
  
  > I guess I mean, whatever minority of Christians have done their homework. Too many in my camp have corrupted the term [Faith] and it is time to reclaim the meaning.
  
  Indeed, your criticism of the "very particular" definition of atheism as used in this, and other, forums, is evidence that others have corrupted the therm 'atheist' - and it is time to claim and define the term in a manner that most accurately represents how the term is used by actual atheists.
  
  ----
  
  > The Roman Centurion had a life long experience of working daily with with those who had authority, and it was this experience which allowed him to place his trust in Jesus's authority to heal his servant without even coming to his residence. After hearing the Centurion's explanation of how he had come to be able to place such trust in Jesus, Jesus proclaimed this Roman "occupier" to have the greatest faith in all of Israel.
  
  I would argue that the sources of authority you have attempted to equivocate, are based upon two widely different and non-equivalent sources.
  
  The Centurion based his trust/faith in the authority of the Government based upon social construct, training, and direct experience in working with this authority.
  
  However, in regard to his Faith/Trust in Jesus to heal his servant, this Faith/Trust is, from the information presented, based upon the belief that has resulted from the self-affirmation of an appeal to emotion.
  
  This story is a good example of the disingenuous usage of Faith vs. faith as being essentially equal, regardless of contextual usage, and where evidential/argumentative support for Faith vs. faith is much different and not equivalent in the ability to support a credible truth-value.

Consciousness is an emergent property of the operation of the human brain, and we can see this by looking at the ways in which injuries to the brain cause changes in behavior. The most famous example is Phineas Gage, whose personality changed so dramatically after an injury to his brain that friends said he was "no longer Gage". But there are many other examples. I'd strongly recommend reading The Tell-Tale Brain by V.S. Ramachandran, which explores several brain-based maladies and the ways in which they radically change people's behavior; one example is Capgras syndrome, which causes a person to adamantly claim that someone dear to them (e.g. their own mother) is actually an impostor.

To bring this back to the reason why you're posting this here instead of a [neuro]science or psychology subreddit, if we have an eternal, spiritual soul separate from our body, its nature would presumably be durable--not subject to sudden and drastic change. But the case of Phineas Gage strongly contradicts that, and the research that has been done by neuroscientists in the ways our brain works shows that emotions like love are intimately tied to physical brain states in ways that can be a) measured and b) affected dramatically by injuries or perturbed by temporary stimulation or paralysis. In other words, not only do experience and science not support the existence of a soul, they contradict it.

Whatever you believe, I'd strongly recommend reading at least one neuroscience book, since it's a fascinating topic and it's clear you're interested in these questions. Any of Ramachandran's books would be good, and you might also want to try Steven Pinker's excellent How the Mind Works for a broad overview.

I know people are bombarding you with sources, but if you ever get a chance I recommend reading the book The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner.

People often think of evolution as this drawn out process over millions and millions of years, but the truth is that evolution can occur quickly... in a matter of 1 year even!

This is evidenced in this book which tracks two researchers, Rosemary and Peter Grant, who measure every single finch on an island in the Galapagos every year for 20+ years now.

I had the fortune of listening to the Grants give a lecture at my college, I definitely recommend checking out this book if you want to learn more about evolution in action!

Sorry, I'm being way too wordy here, and I'll try to keep future responses shorted. I divided the answers into "Biblical accuracy" and "Morality" for the sake of clarity. Thanks for the considered responses and the patience to read it.

>My Reasons to Believe in Christianity: As I mentioned before, this is not the time for me to respond to your comments regarding my reasons to believe (although I would really love to another time) lets stay focused.

I should have earlier said something which is a standard caveat in theistic debates:

I care whether my beliefs are true. I accept that not everything I believe is true, and want to change accordingly. I do not wish to compromise knowledge of truth with that which is convenient, easy, or even may lead to otherwise positive outcomes. If any argument rests on favoring such factors over truth, it's not one I can accept.

In addition while I'm willing to not question further your reasons for believing that means any point you make which rests on assuming your belief, is essentially an empty noise, because I'm still ignorant as to why I should consider it true. I can understand your position, but without that knowledge I can't agree with it.

>If that were true that the core beliefs changed sure I would agree, I'll have to ask you for a source as well on this these claims

Sure, here's the wiki on Yahweh which, of course you shouldn't just assume true, but contains the relevant links for each statement, as well as books by Karen Armstrong, Mark Smith and others. Studying the history of the Hebrews show people who integrated stories from different cultures they assimilated with, ideas of gods changed over time, bits of which were then taken by later groups to be the only unchanging truth, even when we know that isn't the case.

That's the reason the God of the Old Testament is obsessed only with one tribe, fails in his goals repeatedly and has limited powers, why the earlier versions of the texts don't mention a Christian Satan or hell, and talks about not worshipping the lesser gods. Because while it was rewritten to conform to later beliefs, it was born from a polytheistic tradition.

>Again if you can prove significant changes to the texts of the Bible only then you would have a case here, if you cannot, identifying how it spread does not seem to have any relevance.

The story of casting the first stone isn't found in any earlier copies of the Bible, nor is handling snakes, as I said. Much of Mark's story of Jesus' death, and most of Paul's letters, were written by later scribes. The delineation of the trinity only shows up in one passage, and was discovered during the time of Erasmus, an admitted forger who said scripture and documentation should be based on providing 'medicine' for the people rather than truth, and who was called out as a fraud by fellow Christian historians of the time. It probably wasn't Erasmus himself who came up with it, but rather the faction of theologians pushing the trinity. Earlier scholars such as Origen mention nothing about it, even when discussing the concept. And then of course there's the King James Bible, a book written with flawed methods based on inaccurate sources with a political agenda in mind.

Also NaphtaliC is bang on. It's simply absurd to call any book translated between two languages 99.5% accurate that's longer than two pages. For several languages across many centuries? It's impossible and easily proven untrue by anyone whose read the earlier versions. If I pick up two copies of the Bible in the store today by different publishers, they aren't 99.5% accurate with each other, let alone ones from thousands of years ago in different languages.

>however the point remains that they are extremely accurate given the time span of its existence and given the comparison to the accuracy/# of copies of other ancient texts we have.

Right, hopefully you can step back for a moment before we get into details, and think about this as if the Bible weren't a book you believed in, and were trying to analyze objectively.

We have no originals, or copies of them. What originals did exist came only after decades of oral transmissions. Which means we could have 5 billion copies of first editions, and they would be reliable only as to their content, not as to reality.

This whole thing about 'given the time span' and 'in comparison' is completely irrelevant to the question. In a court you can't say "Well it's less hearsay than that hearsay" to make it reliable.

It is used because historians do often have to work with unreliable materials, and that's fine. But when we question the Bible more than other ancient works, it's not because there's a double-standard, it's because historians admit those other works are also not reliable, we just work with the best we have.

In addition the textual accuracy compared to other books ignores two key points:

1. We can prove many parts of it aren't true. There are factual claims as to events and geographic details which are wrong, because they weren't written by people who were there. Textual accuracy is an indirect way of trying to prove what factual accuracy directly disproves.
   
   
2. The nature of the writings impact reliability. Paul was a self-confessed lunatic and murderer who had visions and claimed to bring people back from the dead himself. The gospels of John and Matthew were a few among many competing political/religious factions of Christianity trying to define the growing religion. For any other religion, you'd agree it's obvious such sources can't be treated as reliable without independent confirmation. Yet for all the contemporary historians examining Judea in that time, there is no record of Jesus. Something which is plausible if he was a very minor figure, but not with the accounts of mass miracles and turnouts and political turmoil that the gospels claim of him.
   
   Every argument you've made for the Bible's accuracy better fits the Quran and the Book of Mormon. They were better recorded sooner in time from known sources. But they also aren't true.
   
   >Homer's Illiad is commonly cited as the next runner up in terms of this criteria and frankly does not hold up quite as well as the Bible did.
   
   Thanks for proving my point. Homer's Illiad isn't true. It's a story of gods, possibly inspired by real events, that was written after oral transmission. So even if we had a first edition signed by the author, 100% word accurate with our copies today, no one would pretend this made it accurate history, unless they were a Greek worshipper looking for justifications for belief, rather than a historian.
   
   >http://carm.org/is-the-bible-reliable
   
   Yeah, I knew Carm would be cited because they're the main source for this stuff. Carm is unapologetic about putting the Bible first, and facts seconds as needed to get people to believe the Bible. Their numbers have been examined, and it's all based on arbitrary standards as needed to manufacture impressive statistics. That there were thousands of references to Christianity in the mid-1st century proves Christianity existed, it's not at all the same as proving the stories from the time were accurate, or that those stories match the accounts we have now, except where we have surviving fragments from that time, of which we have very few.
   

You said in another comment below that others were treating you as a troll or an idiot. I don't think that's necessarily the case: many of us are just trying to present the facts, and may be a little bit frustrated due to how YECs typically react. For example, my earlier comment about how creation science does not count as science, and how Geocentrism is incorrect, I did not set out to treat you like an idiot (and if I did, I'm sorry). I did treat you as ignorant, which isn't as bad as it sounds. I'm ignorant to a lot of things. Everyone is. But I love to learn, because I love to expand my knowledge.

Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can't. We encounter wilful ignorance a lot, and it gets very frustrating, so that colours what we say.

If you're genuine about your desire to learn more, I'll drop some suggestions for further inquiry. Some of the language may be abrasive, but please keep an open, skeptical mind:

• AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, a 17-video series just shy of 3 hours in total.
  
• potholer54's Our Origins Made Easy, 14 videos, about two hours. Includes the history of the universe, origin of life, the age of our world, natural selection, human evolution, and more.
  
• AndromedasWake's Creationist Astronomy Propaganda Debunked, just over an hour.
  
• Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing
  
  I'll give you fair warning on this next one: it may have a profound effect on you. At the very least, it will help you understand our philosophical position better as atheists.
  
  
• Evid3nc3's Why I Am No Longer A Christian, 22 videos, 3 hours and 45 minutes. Describes his journey from an evangelical Christian to atheist.
  
  For reading:
  
  
• Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution is True
  
• Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True
  
  Hopefully that gets you started.

You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?

It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:

Colin Howson – Objecting to God

George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God

Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods

Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God

Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science

J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism

J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt

Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism

Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God

Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God

Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism

Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion

Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil



[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)

Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted

Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus

Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?

Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels

John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary

John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Karen Armstrong – A History of God

Mark Smith – The Early History of God

Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?

Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?

Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age

Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus

> What would it take to change your mind, ie; convince you that a god exists ?

Independently verifiable evidence.

> Even if the bible and the gospels were completely internally consistent, completely historically accurate, written by eye witness accounts who were part of the story and heavily documented from multiple sources. Would you believe it and all its miracles and claims to be true ?

If it could be independently verified, then yes.

> Any book recommendations on wether a historical Jesus existed ?

I think Richard Carrier is a good place to start. Fitzgerald is good, too.

I highly recommend reading about the research going on into evolution of finches in the Galapagos. They've been the subject of study since the 70's and it's fascinating stuff.

For a short read, check out this National Geographic article. There's also the Pulitzer prize winning book on the subject, The Beak of the Finch.

tl;dr - Significant evolutionary change can happen in the span of just a few months, rather then millennia. (E.g. researchers have seen the average size of finch beaks change by 15% in just 1-2 years).

I've come to enjoy this youtube channel specifically for the way he engages with people in a largely non-confrontational role.

I believe the techniques are well described in a book by Peter Boghossian called A Manuel For Creating Atheists. The guy in the youtube channel might even be the author, I don't know.

Anyway, I think it's a good basis for discussion. It's not about "You Are WRONG!". It's about taking a closed door and nudging it ajar so the person goes home and thinks about the topic more.

This is a decent overview of human evolution, though a physical anthropology course is going to cover human evolution in much more depth and with a greater focus on the evidence and methods.

For evolution in general I don't think there is a better resource for the layman than The Greatest Show on Earth.

1. Morality must be based on something. The real life effects that moral decisions have on beings that are conscious enough to understand those effects is as close to an objective standard as we can get. For more, read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.
   
   Kudos to Sam Harris, but as it turns out, my interest level in debating the merits of utilitarianism is much lower than I suspected it might be. All I can say is that Harris fully recognizes that it is a problem that the only people who are absolutely certain of their morals are those who are the most zealous about their religious convictions. And, of course, due to the mutually exclusive nature of religion, not all religious convictions can be right so most moral absolutists must be wrong. A good counter-question might be, "what makes you think that your version of absolute morality might be right?" I suspect that would be labeled as "dancing around the question" so I'll simply make that a rhetorical and move on.
   
   
2. Laura Mersini suggests that there is in fact good reason to think that other universes do exist. Her hypothesis makes novel predictions that have since been observed and, unlike any other hypothesis (if memory serves), her theory explains the blue shift we see in our universe as the interaction of an external universe. Do some research into Mersini's idea of the universe as a wave function on the landscape multiverse.
   
   I think I've answered your questions directly, though not in a great deal of depth. Sadly, I'm a long way away from being a philosopher and I'm even farther from being a theoretical physicist so the best I can do is to point you towards those who have answers (even if just preliminary or as yet unproven answers) to your questions.
   
   I'm interested to see your thoughts particularly about Dr. Mersini's hypothesis.

>The only thing I like about the Bible, New Testament, is that it tells the story of Jesus, and how he came to be and live, how he was, his story

There's actually good reason to think most of that account is fictional, and just a mix of legend and myth.

A good introduction, the book Nailed:
http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911

A talk by Richard Carrier and Skepticon II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4LvKvIWJw

Sagan is really a good choice. Also, Miller's Finding Darwin's God is good. Miller is actually a practicing Catholic, but firmly accepts all of evolutionary theory without compromise.

IIRC, this book has the best run down of the birth contradictions that I've ever read.The book is short, easily readable, and gets to the point.

Do my research for me? I've already done my research, you should do yours.

Here's a good starting point.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Revolutionary-John-Dominic-Crossan/dp/006180035X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EFZ7FB757V42YEK86HSA

Or if you're short on cash:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/historical-jesus/id384233911?mt=2

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

Depends on which microbiology professor I talk to. I'm not satisfied to automatically trust the majority. I want to learn about this myself.

Who Wrote the New Testament and The New Testament a Historical Introduction are both good places to start. The latter is by Bart Ehrman, who Bikewer mentioned.

Just one? Please?

My point (which I think you've made for me, in avoiding answering this seemingly simple and direct question) is that you're attempting to construct a thing for your video, but you've never actually read what the evolutionary biologists have to say.

Heck - there are even excellent books on evolution written by Christians!

Why do you insist on doing this video without properly understanding the position you disagree with?

> There's nothing strange about that, humans are not just information processing machines.

I would like to refer you to the book How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker, because it turns out that humans are information processing machines. Our brains don't work by magic, they follow the same laws of physics as everything else.

Read Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. And for a primer on the topic you can also watch his TED talk.

EDIT: This TED talk on oxytocin in regard to morality is also interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

for those wondering what we're talking about.

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/1439505284

> Given what we know about the early church (many were martyred)

This is actually not true.

No.

The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

>Even today, however, there is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years:

>‘Atheism […] is the belief that there is no God or gods’(Baggini 2003:3)

>‘At its core, atheism […] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’ (Eller 2010: 1)

>‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’ (Martin 2007: 1)

>‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’ (Cliteur 2009: 1)

>‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean — a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’ (McGrath 2004: 175)

...

>Throughout this volume, by contrast, and unless otherwise stated, ‘atheism’ is defined as an absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods. As with most mainstream definitions of the term, it is simply the fruit of two basic decisions: the meaning and scope of a-, and the meaning and scope of -theism.

Sir, you clearly do not understand the science of evolution. I am no expert, therefore do not deem myself a qualified teacher. Perhaps this will help.

I'm not sure what we need to do about the "stupid people" and that serving as proof of deities.

>1) How do we explain that we all seem to know what is right and wrong? Why do we believe that being a human entitles someone to rights?

Evolved Morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/#EvoBioDebMor

 

>2) Why do we all look for and want meaning if this is a meaningless world?

Again, evolution.

We are hardwired to find meaning where there may be one because at some point it was advantageous to our survival.

 

>3) How can we know what is true? If our brains have evolved to ensure our survival and not necessarily tell us what is true... how can we be sure of anything?

The thing is that "being right" is part of the survival process. Or at least it became a part of the survival process at some stage. And since we know that we as humans are prone to making errors we have taken steps to doublecheck our beliefs to make sure that they are true (or at least that they map to reality).

 

>4) How do you as an atheist defend the fine-tuning argument? The chances of a world existing with life, even existing at all, is incredibly low. Did we really just get extremely lucky?

I personally dont defend the fine-tuning argument, I reject it for multiple reasons.

First of all, its proponents assume that the constants we see today could be different, but there is no real proof of that.

Second, even if they were indeed different that does not mean that life would be impossible. Life in the form as we know it may be impossible, but other forms could still arise.
http://web.uni-plovdiv.bg/marta/life_in_the_multiverse.pdf ignore the multiverse part, focus on the fact that even completely removing the weak nuclear force would still allow for the universe to form

 

>5) What do you think is the best argument against Christianity? Can you recommend any good literature that argues for atheism? I am not sure if Dawkins and Sam Harris books are any good or not. Looking for more honest/less biased writers.

Tough question.

For general overview of theistic arguments and why they all fail in one form or another I would recommend John Shook - The God Debates

For a bit more specific arguments against Christianity I would probably go for Loftus (although he can be a dick sometimes imo) Why I became an Atheist and The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Loftus is a former preacher and apologiest so he has really good insight into Christianity. Think Matt Dillahunty, but this one writes books. And has a huge ego :P

Why don't they call it the evolution fact? It's a flawed theory and Gravity itself is a theory that's why it's called so. There are still many mysterious surrounding Gravity.

This is what theory means:

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

aka "Darwin's theory of evolution"

Digging further, supposition means:

A belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.

---

I recommend reading Dr Behe's work. He proves unanimously and scientifically that evolution is totally wrong :

https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313

https://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296222

>1) The testimonies of the New Testament are accurate to the original autographs and are trustworthy.

This is just factually unsupportable. We have no autographs and no way of knowing what they said (or even what counts as an "autograph," since all the Gospels shows signs of editing and redaction) nor would accurate copying make the autographs "trustworthy" anyway.

The Gospels were composed by unknown authors 40-70 years after the crucifixion by non-witnesses living outside of Palestine and who had no access to witnesses. Moreover, there are plenty of things in the Gospels we can prove did not happen historically.

>The martyrdom of the Apostles (as recorded by the early church fathers) is sufficient testimony to establish the crucifixion and resurrection as historic events.4

The martyrdom traditions of the apostles are 2nd and 3rd Century legends based on no discernible historical evidence. In point of fact, we don't know how or why any of the apostles died, nor is there any reason to believe they were persecuted or martyred. Here's a good book on the subject:

The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom, by Candida Moss.

People being willing to die for a belief means nothing anyway. Joseph Smith was lynched for his beliefs. So what?

>The nature and personality of God as exemplified in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament are the most compatible with what seems to be the most reasonable expectations I can have for the nature and personality of God.

This is no argument at all, it's just nattering to himself.

>God isn't the greatest conceivable being

That's the classic definition. I suppose you can dispute it. But you can do that with anything: "Unicorns don't have any horns."

>Things don't exist in possible worlds, unless said possible worlds exist.

It's a concept from modal logic. If you have to dispute modal logic to get out of the argument, then I suppose that's a complement to the argument.

>Omnipotence and free-will are necessarily mutually exclusive.

If this carries weight in atheism, I haven't seen much support for it. The best current books in atheism don't seem to list it. The main atheistic argument these days is Rowe's evidential problem of evil, which is not a logical absurdity argument.

The "argument from martyrs" is more sophisticated than it first seems, and that really is its downfall.

The argument only holds if all of the following are true:

1. The narratives of the gospels (and Acts) are accurate. This is, of course, what they are trying to prove, so this is circular reasoning.
   
2. The extra-biblical stories of the disciples' martyrdom from the early church are accurate. There is good reason to think they are not, see "The Myth of Christian Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom" by (Christian Scholar) Candida Moss.
   
3. The martyr was an eyewitness to the resurrection. After all, modern believers (of many faiths) have been martyred, and that doesn't prove their beliefs.
   
4. The martyr was killed for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. If they were killed for stirring up political trouble, that doesn't prove anything.
   
5. The martyr was given a chance to recant, and refused. if they were killed without the chance to back down, then that also doesn't prove anything.
   
6. Finally, that the old adage "Nobody would die for a lie" is actually true. But it is obviously not. People could be confused, or deranged, or come to believe their own lies, or too proud to back down, or maybe they admired an honorable death more than a cowardly life.
   
   So if any of these are false (and I think that 1 is arguably false, and that 6 is clearly false), the argument fails.
   
   Also, no specific deaths in the New Testament satisfy each of 3, 4, and 5. Steven wasn't a witness to the resurrection. James was mentioned as killed (in a single passing verse) with no additional detail. Paul was imprisoned several times, but his death was not recorded in the Gospels. Stories of the deaths of other disciples from early church tradition are not considered reliable.

1. The Gospels are contradictory and inconsistent.
   
   Matthew 27:52-53 is my favorite example. That's not a minor difference. In fact it's a huge oversight that Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter all never mention. Would this not have been a useful event in trying to convince people of the divinity of Jesus? Did they not mention it because it simply did not happen? If that's the case, why should one believe any of what the authors of these books attributed to these men?
   
   I'm not disputing the idea that eyewitness testimony is unreliable and sometimes contradictory. I'm disputing the idea that saints rising from the dead, wandering around, and appearing to many is an event of minor consideration that could be easily missed or deemed unimportant enough to mention by all but one person.
   
   > Cornelius Tacitus one of the most prominent first century Roman historians stated
   
   
2. Cornelius Tacitus wasn't even born until 56 AD. To try and utilize him as some sort of credible firsthand eyewitness is absolutely spurious. He was reporting what other people were saying, and it shouldn't be allowed to escape the critical eye that he never mentions anything about the resurrection, just the death of this "Christus." Even if a historical Jesus existed (which I'm not thoroughly convinced of), his existence does not mean that every other thing said about him in the bible is de facto true.
   
   
3. I can't believe people are still trying to use Josephus. The Testimonium portion your friend quoted is a forgery by later Christian scribes. David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed, talks about this in a response to a review of his book:
   
   > The following paragraph starts by saying “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” Another sad calamity? But what sad calamity? Josephus has just presented a commercial for Jesus, not a sad calamity! This reference skips over the Testimonium entirely and points to the previous section. That passage, where Pilate sets his soldiers loose to massacre a large crowd of Jews in Jerusalem, certainly fits the bill as a sad calamity, but no versions of the Testimonium do, “reconstructed” or not.
   
   > Many commentators, including Doherty, G. A. Wells and Peter Kirby, have noted that without the Testimonium passage, the continuity between the passages flanking it flows seamlessly into each other. This fact alone is a tremendous indication that the passage is 100% entirely fraudulent.
   
   Watch this video of Fitzgerald speaking at Skepticon. It gives a pretty good background to the historical evidence from a non-Christian perspective. Richard Carrier is another great historian to look into on this topic.
   
   > The Church itself shouldn't exist if Jesus never resurrected. Early Christians wouldn't have died under Nero and other tyrants if they had not had proof that Jesus was resurrected in the first place.
   
   Someone saying this to my face would immediately pay a price in ill-concealed laughter. As if tyrants have never persecuted people simply because they were a threat.
   
   > Is it irrational to believe that there is something beyond the physical world? Something beyond just what the five senses can evaluate?
   
   There are plenty of things we measure that cannot be evaluated by our five biological senses (though we actually have more than five). Magnetism, light outside the visible range, small amounts of ionized radiation, the existence of various elementary particles are some that I can think of off the top of my head. But we have done this through science and we don't call it magic or "the spiritual world."
   
   Let's put it this way: Science is the process of applying skepticism and logic to evidence to explain those observations about the world we inhabit. There is nothing about this definition which would preclude the existence of ghosts, for example, if we could definitively observe that ghosts exist. Science as a skeptical position doesn't start with theories, it starts with data. Without data, all theories are just speculation with no grounding in observable reality. So, to the person claiming that ghosts exist, the scientist says "give me data."
   Now, the position to which people who believe in spiritual realms often retreat is "the spiritual world is beyond the scope of the physical. Evidence is impossible to obtain."
   
   Well, that's just dandy, isn't it? If it's impossible to observe the spiritual world because it is completely separate from the physical world, then how the hell do you know anything about it at all? If we cannot see ghosts because they do not interact with light, cannot touch ghosts because they do not interact with matter, etc. then we're effectively talking about an entity that by definition can have no interaction with our reality and you can have no knowledge about. If they do interact with light or matter, then we can have observable evidence for testing their existence.
   
   To suggest that there's some parallel dimension that can't be investigated whatsoever with any physical method is to say that it can have no effect upon our world.

I got kind of lazy with the links, but anyways here is my collection of Christianity related books, links etc.

Listening:

• Thomas Sheehan - Historical Jesus (Stanford available through iTunes U)
  
• Bart D. Ehrman - Historical Jesus (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
  
• Christine Hayes - Intro to OT (Yale university)
  
• (Note I'm not sure this is a legal download...) Bart D. Ehrman - From Jesus to Constantine (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
  
• The Bible Geek with Robert M. Price
  
• NT Pod with Mark Goodacre (Duke Uni)
  
• From Israelite to Jew with Michael Satlow (Brown University)
  
• <http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm>
  
  
  Books:
  
  
• Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity
  
• When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Studies in Cultural History)
  
• Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse
  
• The life of Jesus critically examined - Old Classic
  
• David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition
  
• The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
  
• From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ
  
• Re-Imagine the World
  
• The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate
  
• Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus
  
• The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
  
• Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-history-investigation-problems/dp/0687279267>
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689>
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Fictions-Randel-Helms/dp/0879755725>
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOSPEL-Rose-Charles-TALBERT/dp/086554185X>
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Origins-Testament-Images/dp/0300084579>
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Acts-Unraveling-Its-Story/dp/159815012X>
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689#reader_0802843689>
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/Great-Angel-Study-Israels-Second/dp/0664253954>
  
• <http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Writ-Oral-Lit-Folklore/dp/0847691985>
  
• Bart D. Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus
  
• Bart D. Ehrman - Jesus, Interrupted
  
• Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible
  
• Earl Doherty - The Jesus Puzzle - A Novel About the Greatest Question of Our Time
  
• John Dominic Crossan - The Last Week - A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus's Final Week in Jerusalem
  
• Richard Carrier - Not the Impossible Faith
  
• The Oxford Bible Commentary
  
  
  Links
  
  
• Bible Map
  
• Bible.cc
  
• Red Egg
  
• Gospel Parallels
  
• Greek Biblical and Modern Pronunciation
  
• Nag Hammadi Library
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_Hypothesis
  
• http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html