Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If God Existed, I'd Still Be Atheist

BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 5:56:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

The evidence for the resurrection is pretty clear. If you choose not to believe it? That is on you. If God himself shows up and demonstrates to that it is true, and you deny it anyway? that is on you.

In our doctrine, we call this the unpardonable sin ... to know truth and deny it anyway.

Why would you want to deny truth? To know God and reject him is what Satan did.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:02:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 5:56:39 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

The evidence for the resurrection is pretty clear. If you choose not to believe it? That is on you. If God himself shows up and demonstrates to that it is true, and you deny it anyway? that is on you.

In our doctrine, we call this the unpardonable sin ... to know truth and deny it anyway.

Why would you want to deny truth? To know God and reject him is what Satan did.

Let's do a debate on the resolution:

"The Resurrection is the best explanation of the new testament scholarship"

Or something to that effect.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:02:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 5:56:39 PM, neutral wrote:


The evidence for the resurrection is pretty clear. If you choose not to believe it? That is on you. If God himself shows up and demonstrates to that it is true, and you deny it anyway? that is on you.

In our doctrine, we call this the unpardonable sin ... to know truth and deny it anyway.

Why would you want to deny truth? To know God and reject him is what Satan did.

We are going to have trouble communicating, so please bear with me. You throw around the words "God" and "Satan" as if everyone knew what they meant. No one knows what the words mean. They have some rough idea, but they aren't rigorous words like "rock" or "person". They are hazy words.

You are kind of speaking in some foreign language I don't understand, in your post. I don't know what you mean by "deny truth". I have NFC what you mean by "to know God and reject him". It's just as well you wrote in japanese instead, honestly. I'm not trying to belittle you or mock you or anything... I really don't know what these things mean please elaborate.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:19:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:02:13 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:56:39 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

The evidence for the resurrection is pretty clear. If you choose not to believe it? That is on you. If God himself shows up and demonstrates to that it is true, and you deny it anyway? that is on you.

In our doctrine, we call this the unpardonable sin ... to know truth and deny it anyway.

Why would you want to deny truth? To know God and reject him is what Satan did.

Let's do a debate on the resolution:

"The Resurrection is the best explanation of the new testament scholarship"

Or something to that effect.

Th eResurrection is well supported in New Testament Scholarship.

What it boils down to is very simple. A LOT of people, represented in the hundreds, and lots of scholarship have been done to verify the resurrection as, at least, and inductive probability.

Its still a fantastic claim, but its denial doe not rest on any fact.

If you want me to accept that, then you must go through and do what atheists will not do. YOU must do the research first. I will not accept the burden of walking an atheist through the proof ... again .. only to find that any old excuse must do.

You must:

A. Pull the scholarship and examine it for yourself. This place she burden of you.

B. Demonstrate with citations.

C. Explain why it is wrong.

D. Why the evidence can better be explained in another manner, and that active denial of resurrection is a better way forward?

Again, there is a LOT of stuff in the Bible that is far easier to verify. That which we can verify as accurate has been shown, time and again to be accurate. So what do we think of a bunch of honest men telling you they witnessed something incredible? Do we doubt their integrity? Or do we accept it as at least plausible?

On a personal note, I have seen this miracle twice. Never on a battlefield. My wife's grandfather died, not once - but twice. Once from a stroke and once from a heart attack. In both cases the doctor came out after pronouncing him dead (all efforts to revived him having failed) and broke the news to a devastated family. when the family went in to say their good byes, not once, but twice (two separate hospitals), and found their grandfather alive and well - no worse for having died. Twice. Do you think a doctor would put a family through that as a practical joke? And the doctors were dumbfounded. Apologetic. Shocked. Bewildered. Exactly what you would expect when seeing something like that.

I share this because it gets to the heart of the matter on resurrection. Do you think I am lying? Why would I? All the doubting in the world will not change what I saw, what others saw, and the truth of the claim will it?

In a sense, accepting the resurrection is a powerful acceptance of the New Testament. Its not what the scholarship of the Bible if about, its about what the message of the Bible is about.

There is a fundamental difference there.

The debate itself BTW, has already been done.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:23:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:19:55 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:02:13 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:56:39 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

The evidence for the resurrection is pretty clear. If you choose not to believe it? That is on you. If God himself shows up and demonstrates to that it is true, and you deny it anyway? that is on you.

In our doctrine, we call this the unpardonable sin ... to know truth and deny it anyway.

Why would you want to deny truth? To know God and reject him is what Satan did.

Let's do a debate on the resolution:

"The Resurrection is the best explanation of the new testament scholarship"

Or something to that effect.

Th eResurrection is well supported in New Testament Scholarship.

What it boils down to is very simple. A LOT of people, represented in the hundreds, and lots of scholarship have been done to verify the resurrection as, at least, and inductive probability.

Its still a fantastic claim, but its denial doe not rest on any fact.

If you want me to accept that, then you must go through and do what atheists will not do. YOU must do the research first. I will not accept the burden of walking an atheist through the proof ... again .. only to find that any old excuse must do.

You must:

A. Pull the scholarship and examine it for yourself. This place she burden of you.

B. Demonstrate with citations.

C. Explain why it is wrong.

D. Why the evidence can better be explained in another manner, and that active denial of resurrection is a better way forward?

Again, there is a LOT of stuff in the Bible that is far easier to verify. That which we can verify as accurate has been shown, time and again to be accurate. So what do we think of a bunch of honest men telling you they witnessed something incredible? Do we doubt their integrity? Or do we accept it as at least plausible?

On a personal note, I have seen this miracle twice. Never on a battlefield. My wife's grandfather died, not once - but twice. Once from a stroke and once from a heart attack. In both cases the doctor came out after pronouncing him dead (all efforts to revived him having failed) and broke the news to a devastated family. when the family went in to say their good byes, not once, but twice (two separate hospitals), and found their grandfather alive and well - no worse for having died. Twice. Do you think a doctor would put a family through that as a practical joke? And the doctors were dumbfounded. Apologetic. Shocked. Bewildered. Exactly what you would expect when seeing something like that.

I share this because it gets to the heart of the matter on resurrection. Do you think I am lying? Why would I? All the doubting in the world will not change what I saw, what others saw, and the truth of the claim will it?

In a sense, accepting the resurrection is a powerful acceptance of the New Testament. Its not what the scholarship of the Bible if about, its about what the message of the Bible is about.

There is a fundamental difference there.

The debate itself BTW, has already been done.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

So is that a yes or a no?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:23:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:02:49 PM, BradK wrote:


We are going to have trouble communicating, so please bear with me. You throw around the words "God" and "Satan" as if everyone knew what they meant. No one knows what the words mean. They have some rough idea, but they aren't rigorous words like "rock" or "person". They are hazy words.

I think if you are meandering into this section and asking about the resurrection, you have no difficulty comprehending God and Satan in this context. The entire resurrection involves both parties does it not?


You are kind of speaking in some foreign language I don't understand, in your post. I don't know what you mean by "deny truth". I have NFC what you mean by "to know God and reject him". It's just as well you wrote in japanese instead, honestly. I'm not trying to belittle you or mock you or anything... I really don't know what these things mean please elaborate.

If you KNOW God existed and you still denied it? They you would be denying truth.

You would still not believe in God ... even if you you knew God was real.

Its a bit like saying, "I choose not to believe in math, even though I know its real and valuable ... I just hate numbers or some such."

Its not logical.

You might still disagree with God ... but you would not, indeed could not, be an atheist if you knew God was real - by definition.

You would be a diagnostic? Someone who knows God is real but disagrees with him?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:26:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:23:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:19:55 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:02:13 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:56:39 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

The evidence for the resurrection is pretty clear. If you choose not to believe it? That is on you. If God himself shows up and demonstrates to that it is true, and you deny it anyway? that is on you.

In our doctrine, we call this the unpardonable sin ... to know truth and deny it anyway.

Why would you want to deny truth? To know God and reject him is what Satan did.

Let's do a debate on the resolution:

"The Resurrection is the best explanation of the new testament scholarship"

Or something to that effect.

Th eResurrection is well supported in New Testament Scholarship.

What it boils down to is very simple. A LOT of people, represented in the hundreds, and lots of scholarship have been done to verify the resurrection as, at least, and inductive probability.

Its still a fantastic claim, but its denial doe not rest on any fact.

If you want me to accept that, then you must go through and do what atheists will not do. YOU must do the research first. I will not accept the burden of walking an atheist through the proof ... again .. only to find that any old excuse must do.

You must:

A. Pull the scholarship and examine it for yourself. This place she burden of you.

B. Demonstrate with citations.

C. Explain why it is wrong.

D. Why the evidence can better be explained in another manner, and that active denial of resurrection is a better way forward?

Again, there is a LOT of stuff in the Bible that is far easier to verify. That which we can verify as accurate has been shown, time and again to be accurate. So what do we think of a bunch of honest men telling you they witnessed something incredible? Do we doubt their integrity? Or do we accept it as at least plausible?

On a personal note, I have seen this miracle twice. Never on a battlefield. My wife's grandfather died, not once - but twice. Once from a stroke and once from a heart attack. In both cases the doctor came out after pronouncing him dead (all efforts to revived him having failed) and broke the news to a devastated family. when the family went in to say their good byes, not once, but twice (two separate hospitals), and found their grandfather alive and well - no worse for having died. Twice. Do you think a doctor would put a family through that as a practical joke? And the doctors were dumbfounded. Apologetic. Shocked. Bewildered. Exactly what you would expect when seeing something like that.

I share this because it gets to the heart of the matter on resurrection. Do you think I am lying? Why would I? All the doubting in the world will not change what I saw, what others saw, and the truth of the claim will it?

In a sense, accepting the resurrection is a powerful acceptance of the New Testament. Its not what the scholarship of the Bible if about, its about what the message of the Bible is about.

There is a fundamental difference there.

The debate itself BTW, has already been done.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

So is that a yes or a no?

Lets see the scholarship. You have a lot of work to do.

And you just skipped out on a pertinent point. Critically. So I find myself wondering why I should accept your vey deliberately scoped challenge when you avoid answering a VERY pertinent question about honest claims vs evidence.

Answer that, honestly, and I will believe that you wish to engage honestly.

In all honesty Envy, you are not stupid. Like many of your peers, though it pains me to say this, you are not vicious either. The topic however, for you, is emotional where I am involved, correct?

Ergo, the question.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:26:47 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:23:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:19:55 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:02:13 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:56:39 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

The evidence for the resurrection is pretty clear. If you choose not to believe it? That is on you. If God himself shows up and demonstrates to that it is true, and you deny it anyway? that is on you.

In our doctrine, we call this the unpardonable sin ... to know truth and deny it anyway.

Why would you want to deny truth? To know God and reject him is what Satan did.

Let's do a debate on the resolution:

"The Resurrection is the best explanation of the new testament scholarship"

Or something to that effect.

Th eResurrection is well supported in New Testament Scholarship.

What it boils down to is very simple. A LOT of people, represented in the hundreds, and lots of scholarship have been done to verify the resurrection as, at least, and inductive probability.

Its still a fantastic claim, but its denial doe not rest on any fact.

If you want me to accept that, then you must go through and do what atheists will not do. YOU must do the research first. I will not accept the burden of walking an atheist through the proof ... again .. only to find that any old excuse must do.

You must:

A. Pull the scholarship and examine it for yourself. This place she burden of you.

B. Demonstrate with citations.

C. Explain why it is wrong.

D. Why the evidence can better be explained in another manner, and that active denial of resurrection is a better way forward?

Again, there is a LOT of stuff in the Bible that is far easier to verify. That which we can verify as accurate has been shown, time and again to be accurate. So what do we think of a bunch of honest men telling you they witnessed something incredible? Do we doubt their integrity? Or do we accept it as at least plausible?

On a personal note, I have seen this miracle twice. Never on a battlefield. My wife's grandfather died, not once - but twice. Once from a stroke and once from a heart attack. In both cases the doctor came out after pronouncing him dead (all efforts to revived him having failed) and broke the news to a devastated family. when the family went in to say their good byes, not once, but twice (two separate hospitals), and found their grandfather alive and well - no worse for having died. Twice. Do you think a doctor would put a family through that as a practical joke? And the doctors were dumbfounded. Apologetic. Shocked. Bewildered. Exactly what you would expect when seeing something like that.

I share this because it gets to the heart of the matter on resurrection. Do you think I am lying? Why would I? All the doubting in the world will not change what I saw, what others saw, and the truth of the claim will it?

In a sense, accepting the resurrection is a powerful acceptance of the New Testament. Its not what the scholarship of the Bible if about, its about what the message of the Bible is about.

There is a fundamental difference there.

The debate itself BTW, has already been done.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

So is that a yes or a no?

Lets see the scholarship. You have a lot of work to do.

And you just skipped out on a pertinent point. Critically. So I find myself wondering why I should accept your vey deliberately scoped challenge when you avoid answering a VERY pertinent question about honest claims vs evidence.

Answer that, honestly, and I will believe that you wish to engage honestly.

In all honesty Envy, you are not stupid. Like many of your peers, though it pains me to say this, you are not vicious either. The topic however, for you, is emotional where I am involved, correct?

Ergo, the question.

Is that a yes or no?

The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:38:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:23:58 PM, neutral wrote:
If you KNOW God existed and you still denied it? They you would be denying truth.

Ultimately what I'm saying, is that the big thing up in the sky that was reaching down and moving cars around, or actually responding when I asked questions to it, would not be god. It would be something that is real.

"God" is something that isn't real. People think there's some spooky force, and they are superstitious, and they think spirit healers or spoon benders are legitimate. But it's all just in their mind. God is just a thing that seems real to the mind.

I look up in the sky. I see nothing. Show me the god, and I'll see that he's real. I don't "believe" in things.

So I'm denying the god of the bible in the same spirit that I deny spirit healers or spoon benders. Does that make sense?
E_Pluribus_Unum
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:38:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

This makes your definition of atheism flawed. Rejecting ideas of nonsensical nature in no way requires one to have no belief in some form of God as a prerequisite. Atheism is the assertion that there is no God or god. (You can phrase this differently if you like, such as the lack of the belief in God or god, or the denial of the belief in God or god, but such grammatical nuances are mere distractions to an actual discussion with any sort of meaning.). Atheism is only dealing with God and is without looking at supernatural beliefs in general or rejecting nonsensical ideas. An atheist could believe in supernatural things, and you seem to be equating rationalism with atheism without any sort of justification as to why. Rationalism is distinct from atheism both ways; an atheist doesn't necessarily need to be a rationalist, and a rationalist doesn't necessarily need to be an atheist.

I wanted to point this out before I perhaps try to discuss the rest of the original post because I found this an essential premise to your argument. After all, if God does exist then believing he doesn't is to be out of touch with reality, and, depending on the extremity of this rejection of reality, a symptom of mental illness.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:50:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:40:10 PM, E_Pluribus_Unum wrote:
Although come to think of it, you seem to be equating atheism with empiricism more than anything.

Well you can call things whatever you want as long as you get the main idea. Context is what gives words meaning.... anyways...

My WHOLE point of this is basically, that if god were real he wouldn't be "god". He'd be "face-in-the-sky-man" or something, but not "god". "God" is the same kind of creature as a unicorn. It exists in fantasy. If something new came up on the radar, we wouldn't call it god, we'd call it something else.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:51:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

We already have a word for that: rationality. Something which you evidently lack.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:54:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:50:23 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:40:10 PM, E_Pluribus_Unum wrote:
Although come to think of it, you seem to be equating atheism with empiricism more than anything.

Well you can call things whatever you want as long as you get the main idea. Context is what gives words meaning.... anyways...

My WHOLE point of this is basically, that if god were real he wouldn't be "god". He'd be "face-in-the-sky-man" or something, but not "god". "God" is the same kind of creature as a unicorn. It exists in fantasy. If something new came up on the radar, we wouldn't call it god, we'd call it something else.

For the record, what you are saying makes a lot of sense.
E_Pluribus_Unum
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:07:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:50:23 PM, BradK wrote:
My WHOLE point of this is basically, that if god were real he wouldn't be "god". He'd be "face-in-the-sky-man" or something, but not "god". "God" is the same kind of creature as a unicorn. It exists in fantasy. If something new came up on the radar, we wouldn't call it god, we'd call it something else.

That seems to simply be a matter of broadening your, or humanity's in general, qualifications to be considered a God. You actually illustrated the point I now want to make. Is every conceivable thing that can be described or named as "God" necessarily as real as a unicorn?
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:29:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.

I don't think it's a debate worth having. Debating is not the way to figure out if there was a resurrection. Looking for evidence is. And how much evidence is there for it?...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

You wouldn't be an atheist. Nor would I, in those circumstances. If you knew something existed, you wouldn't disbelieve in its existence. That's all atheism is; disbelief in existence of god. Sure, you may not follow or worship that god, but you'd be a damned idiot to believe it didn't exist..
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:38:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:34:21 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

You wouldn't be an atheist. Nor would I, in those circumstances. If you knew something existed, you wouldn't disbelieve in its existence. That's all atheism is; disbelief in existence of god. Sure, you may not follow or worship that god, but you'd be a damned idiot to believe it didn't exist..

I wrote this earlier:
My WHOLE point of this is basically, that if god were real he wouldn't be "god". He'd be "face-in-the-sky-man" or something, but not "god". "God" is the same kind of creature as a unicorn. It exists in fantasy. If something new came up on the radar, we wouldn't call it god, we'd call it something else.

Does that clarify it? God is imaginary. If there were a real thing, it actually wouldn't be called god. Ignore the title of this post unless you get the point I'm trying to make.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:45:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:29:15 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.

I don't think it's a debate worth having. Debating is not the way to figure out if there was a resurrection. Looking for evidence is. And how much evidence is there for it?...

Debates are fun, and force both people to conduct themselves, actually address arguments put to them, and requires some research. All of which are good.

The evidence is a far cry from the evidence I would expect from a true extraordinary claim. Alexander he great is a good example if the type of evidence I would expect from someone who is half as important as Jesus is supposed to be.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:52:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:38:23 PM, BradK wrote:
I wrote this earlier:
My WHOLE point of this is basically, that if god were real he wouldn't be "god". He'd be "face-in-the-sky-man" or something, but not "god". "God" is the same kind of creature as a unicorn. It exists in fantasy. If something new came up on the radar, we wouldn't call it god, we'd call it something else.

You're using the same reasoning as the ID-crowd here. You're defining things into boxes that suit your argument. "God is imaginary therefore god doesn't exist" is as much a fallacy as "life is designed so it is designed".
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:58:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:52:34 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/12/2014 8:38:23 PM, BradK wrote:
I wrote this earlier:
My WHOLE point of this is basically, that if god were real he wouldn't be "god". He'd be "face-in-the-sky-man" or something, but not "god". "God" is the same kind of creature as a unicorn. It exists in fantasy. If something new came up on the radar, we wouldn't call it god, we'd call it something else.

You're using the same reasoning as the ID-crowd here. You're defining things into boxes that suit your argument. "God is imaginary therefore god doesn't exist" is as much a fallacy as "life is designed so it is designed".

I don't think I'm using a tautology.

If someday, someone unearthed the extraordinary evidence needed to support one of the extraordinary claims of any of the world's mainstream religions, then sure you could call the being that they found "god". I'm just being rational here. Anything we do find, isn't going to be god. Just like we aren't going to find witches, gremlins, etc. You'd have to be gullible to be Christian/Muslim/Hindu/ etc. because it's all just ancient superstitious claims. If someone jumped off a bridge would you follow? If someone knocked on the door and told you there was an invisible man in the sky that sends you to hell if you say he's not there, would you follow? If you are gullible, yes. If you are rational, no.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 12:35:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM, Envisage wrote:

Is that a yes or no?

The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.

The answer is no.

You are doing the ams thing ... again. You are just trying to 'win' not actually be right.

You go ahead and make the case why denying the resurrection makes more sense than it does to affirm it? Knowing full well that the Biblical sources have been verified as accurate, we must assume that the eye witnesses recorded were, at the very least, accurately recorded. Honest men believe what they saw.

Tell us all publicly why we should deny them?
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 12:42:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 12:35:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM, Envisage wrote:

Is that a yes or no?

The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.

The answer is no.

You are doing the ams thing ... again. You are just trying to 'win' not actually be right.

You go ahead and make the case why denying the resurrection makes more sense than it does to affirm it? Knowing full well that the Biblical sources have been verified as accurate, we must assume that the eye witnesses recorded were, at the very least, accurately recorded. Honest men believe what they saw.

Tell us all publicly why we should deny them?

There are no eyewitness reports. How many times do you have to be told this?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 3:27:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 12:35:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM, Envisage wrote:

Is that a yes or no?

The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.

The answer is no.

Took you long enough to give a straight answer.

You are doing the ams thing ... again. You are just trying to 'win' not actually be right.

This is a debating website, I'm here to debate first and talk to theists second. It's not a playground. If we debated I would be both right and win because I am right. And you would also publically have your alleged historian and critical skills up for examination in a manner which you can't blow off by going thermonuclear with your emotions as usual.

You go ahead and make the case why denying the resurrection makes more sense than it does to affirm it?

I deny all extraordinary claims until provided convincing evidence to change from the default position of not believing. It's called being both rational and skeptical.

Knowing full well that the Biblical sources have been verified as accurate,

They have? The synoptic gospels are filled with contradictions of contradictions, they are verified as hearsay and not eyewitness testimony, they are not dis-motivated, and heck they were written miles from where the events took place by highly educated Greek scholars which almost certainly had nothing to do with the original events.

Also don't forget we have no originals, with the first complete texts over 300 years after the events they depict, and they were written in a time when superstition, and false prophets/false miracles (such as earthquakes... Or it raining conveniently) were rife.

And that's not even the beginning of your problems!!

we must assume that the eye witnesses recorded were, at the very least, accurately recorded. Honest men believe what they saw.

And honest men believe what they hear and write, it doesn't mean what they heard was in any way factual. Oral traditions are akin to chinese whispers, and we both know what happens with that.

Tell us all publicly why we should deny them?

Even if all the tests were verifiably accuracy depictions of alleged eyewitness testimony, it still would give no reasonable grounds to believe miraculous/divine claims. Since those exanatoons are literally the lowest ones you would pick to best explain the evidence. It seems much more likely the stories were made up and propagated (which I don't think is what happened anyway) than a divinity claim.

Assuming Jesus' divinity/miracles to b true adds precisely zero explanatory power to the evidence, and actually runs into many contradictions (such as the synoptic gospels disagreeing on whether or not Jesus was ever divine or just a prophet).

Hope you are happy, try actually replying to all of this post rather than ignoring it like you usually do.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 3:51:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 3:27:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/13/2014 12:35:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM, Envisage wrote:

Is that a yes or no?

The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.

The answer is no.

Took you long enough to give a straight answer.

You are doing the ams thing ... again. You are just trying to 'win' not actually be right.

This is a debating website, I'm here to debate first and talk to theists second. It's not a playground. If we debated I would be both right and win because I am right. And you would also publically have your alleged historian and critical skills up for examination in a manner which you can't blow off by going thermonuclear with your emotions as usual.

You go ahead and make the case why denying the resurrection makes more sense than it does to affirm it?

I deny all extraordinary claims until provided convincing evidence to change from the default position of not believing. It's called being both rational and skeptical.

Knowing full well that the Biblical sources have been verified as accurate,

They have? The synoptic gospels are filled with contradictions of contradictions, they are verified as hearsay and not eyewitness testimony, they are not dis-motivated, and heck they were written miles from where the events took place by highly educated Greek scholars which almost certainly had nothing to do with the original events.

Also don't forget we have no originals, with the first complete texts over 300 years after the events they depict, and they were written in a time when superstition, and false prophets/false miracles (such as earthquakes... Or it raining conveniently) were rife.

And that's not even the beginning of your problems!!

we must assume that the eye witnesses recorded were, at the very least, accurately recorded. Honest men believe what they saw.

And honest men believe what they hear and write, it doesn't mean what they heard was in any way factual. Oral traditions are akin to chinese whispers, and we both know what happens with that.

Tell us all publicly why we should deny them?

Even if all the tests were verifiably accuracy depictions of alleged eyewitness testimony, it still would give no reasonable grounds to believe miraculous/divine claims. Since those exanatoons are literally the lowest ones you would pick to best explain the evidence. It seems much more likely the stories were made up and propagated (which I don't think is what happened anyway) than a divinity claim.

Assuming Jesus' divinity/miracles to b true adds precisely zero explanatory power to the evidence, and actually runs into many contradictions (such as the synoptic gospels disagreeing on whether or not Jesus was ever divine or just a prophet).

Hope you are happy, try actually replying to all of this post rather than ignoring it like you usually do.

Stop talking about how honest and right you are and just make your case then.

Its a simple enough question: why is it better to deny the resurrection of Christ than to affirm it?

Why put qualifiers about 'scholarship' for a claim that is, at best going to be inductive, and ignore the portions of scholarship than CAN be verified.

You keep saying you can do something, lecturing people about what a debate is (seriously?), and claiming you are ignored? Just make you case then.

Seem simpler than these constant personal remarks, which, in direct rebuttal to lecture, is not helpful to a debate ... or scholarship ... or being forced to go outside your comfort zone and check things.

Please, explain why we should call proven men of integrity liars because they witness something we did not?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 4:13:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 3:51:39 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/13/2014 3:27:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/13/2014 12:35:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM, Envisage wrote:

Is that a yes or no?

The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.

The answer is no.

Took you long enough to give a straight answer.

You are doing the ams thing ... again. You are just trying to 'win' not actually be right.

This is a debating website, I'm here to debate first and talk to theists second. It's not a playground. If we debated I would be both right and win because I am right. And you would also publically have your alleged historian and critical skills up for examination in a manner which you can't blow off by going thermonuclear with your emotions as usual.

You go ahead and make the case why denying the resurrection makes more sense than it does to affirm it?

I deny all extraordinary claims until provided convincing evidence to change from the default position of not believing. It's called being both rational and skeptical.

Knowing full well that the Biblical sources have been verified as accurate,

They have? The synoptic gospels are filled with contradictions of contradictions, they are verified as hearsay and not eyewitness testimony, they are not dis-motivated, and heck they were written miles from where the events took place by highly educated Greek scholars which almost certainly had nothing to do with the original events.

Also don't forget we have no originals, with the first complete texts over 300 years after the events they depict, and they were written in a time when superstition, and false prophets/false miracles (such as earthquakes... Or it raining conveniently) were rife.

And that's not even the beginning of your problems!!

we must assume that the eye witnesses recorded were, at the very least, accurately recorded. Honest men believe what they saw.

And honest men believe what they hear and write, it doesn't mean what they heard was in any way factual. Oral traditions are akin to chinese whispers, and we both know what happens with that.

Tell us all publicly why we should deny them?

Even if all the tests were verifiably accuracy depictions of alleged eyewitness testimony, it still would give no reasonable grounds to believe miraculous/divine claims. Since those exanatoons are literally the lowest ones you would pick to best explain the evidence. It seems much more likely the stories were made up and propagated (which I don't think is what happened anyway) than a divinity claim.

Assuming Jesus' divinity/miracles to b true adds precisely zero explanatory power to the evidence, and actually runs into many contradictions (such as the synoptic gospels disagreeing on whether or not Jesus was ever divine or just a prophet).

Hope you are happy, try actually replying to all of this post rather than ignoring it like you usually do.

Stop talking about how honest and right you are and just make your case then.

I just did. Everything I wrote above contributes to the case.

Its a simple enough question: why is it better to deny the resurrection of Christ than to affirm it?

I already told you, miraculous claims are pretty much bottom of the barrel explanations for said events. If there is a plausible natural explanation, then it is invariably much more favourable to accept the natural explanation.

The worst part for you is the natural explanation isn't all that hard to believe/grasp. And it I deeds adds substantial explanatory power to the evidence that assuming divine intervention simply doesn't provide. So in other words, the naturalistic explanation is actually a much better explanation than the supernatural one anyway.

Why put qualifiers about 'scholarship' for a claim that is, at best going to be inductive, and ignore the portions of scholarship than CAN be verified.

Please demonstrate what parts can be verified (which are relevant to your positive case), and how they were verified. The how is very important as it subjects the method to critical analysis.

You keep saying you can do something, lecturing people about what a debate is (seriously?), and claiming you are ignored? Just make you case then.

I did.

Seem simpler than these constant personal remarks, which, in direct rebuttal to lecture, is not helpful to a debate ... or scholarship ... or being forced to go outside your comfort zone and check things.

Please, explain why we should call proven men of integrity liars because they witness something we did not?

I never said they were all liars, although it it is undoubtably that several of them know they were constructing some falsehoods. The gospel of Luke for example appears to be genuinely written as an attempted comprehensive account of the events... Only that his sources (the gospel of mark, the q gospel and presumably some oral traditions) were susceptible.

For me it seems reasonable a person called Jesus did exist, and indeed there may be some truth of his actions that did make it through the oral traditions. But as stories pass from one personi to another, and as it becomes a hive mentality with everyone talking about the events they heard from this person, that person and the other. It seems inevitable that the stories would naturally become increasingly convoluted and fantastical.

Which at some point was written down by the (very few) literate scholars of the time. Remember, very few people would read and write at this time. That and the cost of writing a gospel was insane, acquiring the materials to do so would have cost many thousands of dollars in today's money.

Remember the gospels were written over 50 years after the events they depict, which is an eternity for the oral traditions to convolute and distort with the Chinese whispers.

Ever heard of 'memes'? Haven't you seen how quickly one good idea would spread through a population, which becomes adapted changed? Yes.
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 4:57:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 5:52:02 PM, BradK wrote:
This is a different kind of way to think about this "does god exist?" kind of stuff.

Even if I looked up in the sky, and saw god hanging out in the stars, doing whatever it is that he does, I'd still be an atheist. I'd look up and see "oh there he is", and he'd be real. He'd have a celestially large body obviously, in order to be seen in space. Maybe he'd be made of a cloud of space dust. He'd probably have really good hearing (ignore that sound doesn't travel through space and has a finite speed for the moment), so I could shout something like"HEY GOD CAN YOU HELP ME GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC JAM", and he'd respond "yeah sure" and he'd pick up a few cars and put them where people were driving to, like a huge benevolent King Kong.

But even if he were up in the stars, a few million km or a few light years away, I'd still be atheist. Because atheism to me, is to not believe in superstitious nonsense. I wouldn't pray or ask for my "soul" to be saved. I'd yell out to god "HEY DO PEOPLE HAVE SOULS" and he'd probably respond "NO, YOUR BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE..." and he'd explain it. Or I could yell at him asking "DID SOME GUY NAMED JESUS GET RESURRECTED 2000 years ago?", and he'd probably say "NO, THAT"S JUST A MYTH. JESUS WAS A GOOD MORAL LEADER FOR HIS TIME HOWEVER.".

I wouldn't pray to non existent gods though. I wouldn't "ask god" things, like people do today. If I had a question for the man up in the sky, I'd just yell out and ask him. But I wouldn't believe in god, well because there's no evidence... at all.

Being atheist, to me, means to reject nonsense ideas. To be practical. We all have little lies we tell ourselves. To be an atheist means not to act as if they were true.

Your outlook is unusual, but I understand what you are saying, even if no one else does :).

2000 years ago, scientific knowledge was almost non-existent, and people (naturally) attributed most things they did not understand to being the work of God.

Since then, scientific knowledge has exploded, and many, many natural phenomena that were previously attributed to God's are now understood, and known to be a result of predictable laws of Nature, with no requirement for a God. For example, lightning and thunder are are now known to be due to an electrical discharge, which in turn is caused by charge build up from moving clouds.

However, and this what you are saying, whenever we discover the scientific explanation for an event, it ceases to be mysterious and under the general umbrella of 'God'. In fact, some people now refer to 'the God of the Gaps', meaning that nowadays God has very few places to 'hide', being only in the every decreasing 'gaps' still left in our scientific knowledge.

Once something becomes understood in terms of science, then it ceases to be thought of in terms of 'God', just as you say. God is left hiding in the gaps of our knowledge, where his existence cannot be studied or disproved.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 5:15:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 4:13:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/13/2014 3:51:39 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/13/2014 3:27:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/13/2014 12:35:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:28:18 PM, Envisage wrote:

Is that a yes or no?

The BoP is on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim, and for me to show you have not fulfilled it. It's not rocket science.

The answer is no.

Took you long enough to give a straight answer.

You are doing the ams thing ... again. You are just trying to 'win' not actually be right.

This is a debating website, I'm here to debate first and talk to theists second. It's not a playground. If we debated I would be both right and win because I am right. And you would also publically have your alleged historian and critical skills up for examination in a manner which you can't blow off by going thermonuclear with your emotions as usual.

You go ahead and make the case why denying the resurrection makes more sense than it does to affirm it?

I deny all extraordinary claims until provided convincing evidence to change from the default position of not believing. It's called being both rational and skeptical.

Knowing full well that the Biblical sources have been verified as accurate,

They have? The synoptic gospels are filled with contradictions of contradictions, they are verified as hearsay and not eyewitness testimony, they are not dis-motivated, and heck they were written miles from where the events took place by highly educated Greek scholars which almost certainly had nothing to do with the original events.

Also don't forget we have no originals, with the first complete texts over 300 years after the events they depict, and they were written in a time when superstition, and false prophets/false miracles (such as earthquakes... Or it raining conveniently) were rife.

And that's not even the beginning of your problems!!

we must assume that the eye witnesses recorded were, at the very least, accurately recorded. Honest men believe what they saw.

And honest men believe what they hear and write, it doesn't mean what they heard was in any way factual. Oral traditions are akin to chinese whispers, and we both know what happens with that.

Tell us all publicly why we should deny them?

Even if all the tests were verifiably accuracy depictions of alleged eyewitness testimony, it still would give no reasonable grounds to believe miraculous/divine claims. Since those exanatoons are literally the lowest ones you would pick to best explain the evidence. It seems much more likely the stories were made up and propagated (which I don't think is what happened anyway) than a divinity claim.

Assuming Jesus' divinity/miracles to b true adds precisely zero explanatory power to the evidence, and actually runs into many contradictions (such as the synoptic gospels disagreeing on whether or not Jesus was ever divine or just a prophet).

Brevity

For me it seems reasonable a person called Jesus did exist, and indeed there may be some truth of his actions that did make it through the oral traditions. But as stories pass from one personi to another, and as it becomes a hive mentality with everyone talking about the events they heard from this person, that person and the other. It seems inevitable that the stories would naturally become increasingly convoluted and fantastical.

Which at some point was written down by the (very few) literate scholars of the time. Remember, very few people would read and write at this time. That and the cost of writing a gospel was insane, acquiring the materials to do so would have cost many thousands of dollars in today's money.

Remember the gospels were written over 50 years after the events they depict, which is an eternity for the oral traditions to convolute and distort with the Chinese whispers.

Ever heard of 'memes'? Haven't you seen how quickly one good idea would spread through a population, which becomes adapted changed? Yes.

You are factually wrong in many places, and, no, you are not addressing the topic at hand.

#1 - Period documents:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...

As you can see, many begin within 20, not 50, years of Jesus's Death. And contrary to popular atheist belief, archeology is discovering MORE period documents. The point of doubt is about dating is simply wrong.

#2 - There is no serious scholarly debate about the authenticity of the early Christian documents. What is recorded has been thoroughly examined and has withstood centuries of higher criticism.

http://www.bede.org.uk...

The claims thus are what the authors HONESTLY wrote about what they saw. Calling them alleged ... is an insult to intelligent people. They ARE eye witness statements, and the question then becomes why we would call honest men liars at all? Much less flush the historical process just so we could deny ... er, someone else's religion. Makes no sense.

#3 - You were specifically challenged to view Apologetic scholarship and have singularly failed to do so.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Instead of an objective examination, you turn to atheistic claims and educational sources (alleged eye witness, seriously?) That means your opinion is not the analysis and rejection of the Christian or Academic position, its the acceptance of the atheistic position - much of which, that specific to denying Jesus, has been revealed as farcical. Hence the challenge to actually examine the claim and its support.

#4 - you continue to dode the personal witness statement. I witnessed a dead man ... return to life. How do you, objectively weigh that statement? Its an internet claim, and as you know - and as I point out to one of your peers, its quite clear that you are a 6'1 bronzed, blonde with DDD boobs, correct? Its the internet after all.

So when someone shares with you an eye witness testimony, other than calling it alleged and disregarding it, how do you weight them critically? How do you separate an earnest story from an alleged internet buxom babe?

All that being said, I can understand doubt about so fantastic a claim, but given the work laid out, the best that can be said is, "I disagree, but I see how you can think that way." Unfortunately, there seems to be inference problem here, faith before fact if you will.

The problem?

A. I have concluded there is no God.

B. Therefore Jesus CANNOT be the Son of God.

C. And God could not have resurrected his Son because there is no God to do so.

Conclusion - it MUST be fake.

Is it? At this point, I think I can get you, however grudgingly, to admit that I, or at least other Christians, are not flaming idiots. That we posses intellects that are discerning and capable, and yet, we believe?

When conclusions rest within the probability of induction and human reasoning, it makes little sense to define yourself through the denial of other intelligent positions rather than simply making the case for your own position.