Low Standards

I recently found an Atheist Experience video on YouTube that pitted Matt D. against a very intelligent, young, Christian apologist on the subject of "who authored the Book of Matthew?"
Matt argued that it is quite known among Christian theologians that a debate exists regarding this same topic, and based on the evidence that is available the authorship of Matthew is unknown. In fact, crack open any NIV bible and see for yourself. I was able to find this same position in my New American Bible (Catholic Press) in the explanatory text that precedes each book: "The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable...The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience..." This is as clear and concise as one could hope for. We don't know who wrote it.
The Christian kid argued that even though much of The Gospel according to Matthew was taken from The Gospel according to Mark; Marks experiences were backed by the experiences of Peter (Mark being described as Peters "interpreter"). Peter (who was very close to Jesus) was a solid and reliable witness to the events of Christs life, so therefore The Gospel according to Matthew; or the "textual evidence" as it is referred to by the Christian kid in the video; is sufficient to believe that Matthew is the author of "Matthew" and that the accounts within "Matthew" really happened. In other words: "I heard from a guy, who knows a guy" is enough proof to be certain about the authorship of a centuries old fairytale and enough proof to believe that someone walked on water AND that that same someone later became a zombie.
As you can imagine, this ridiculous line of reasoning was not received very well by Matt and the exchange between Matt and the Christian kid was very entertaining.

I'm often amazed at the lengths religious people will go to to justify their beliefs. The fact that many theists ascribe their EXISTENCE to the god/gods described in their holy books (an idea that is so inane that it is insulting to the whole of human knowledge) attests to how strongly and deeply held such beliefs are, so its really not that hard to understand why they will go to such lengths. Lets look at the "textual evidence" idea for example. Yes, information that is taken from text can be very useful and can prove to be accurate and true as well. Someone wanting to know about biological evolution can draw information from hundreds of books; books containing information that was compiled through decades of research utilizing the scientific method; information that has survived the intense scrutiny of scientific peer review. And, that person wanting to know about evolution can be comfortable believing that what they have discovered is true. The standards of evidence are high enough that no faith or suspension of reality is required to believe. The standards of evidence quickly spiral down the shitter, though, when it comes to matters of theistic faith. Theists will readily accept the "textual evidence" of a Bronze-Age fairytale as justification for believing in talking snakes, zombies, men walking on water, and the existence of a maniacal/genocidal/misogynistic/homo-phobic/malevolent god.
Reality is a wonderful thing to be a part of. I wish more people were open to it.