If you wanted to convert an atheist who wanted to believe....

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well the validity of the reporter's accounts. Like I said to Wicknight in an earlier post, if the reporters can be believed then what they said is true. We only have their word so it must be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb. It they were lying then it would be fairly obvious at this stage of history. There is no evidence at all in their accounts or any historical account which suggests that they were lying or that they were deluded about what they report.

If you don't agree that the Gospel accounts are reliable source then I suggest you read FF Bruce's - "The New Testament Documents, Are they reliable?" and Simon Greenleaf's ""The Trial of the Witnesses."

Once you cross the hurdle of determining whether or not the accounts themselves are reliable historical sources then you move onto the claims these sources actually make. Seriously hard to believe stuff I know but you need only concern yourself with one claim and that one is central and binds all the others, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Multiply attested to by all the reporters in writings dated to within a few years of the events they record. Paul is supposed to have dies in AD 68 or there abouts this is not recorded in the book of Acts which suggests that He was still alive when Luke penned Acts pushing Acts to at least AD 67. We know that Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts so that shoves Luke's Gospel to at least AD 66 and we have good reasons to think that Mark's is the earliest of the gospel accounts which would push Mark to at least AD 65. These are very conservative estimates and most place them much later than reality but be that as it may, there are no other ancient writings that written any near this kind of time frame and the events they report. But even wothout the Gospel accoutns we still have Paul's letters which are dated even earlier.

Good chart here showing the comparison between other ancient writings and the New Testament. The difference is bordering on the embarrassing.



Well the faith part only comes once you are convinced that Jesus was who He claimed to be and you can only become convinced of that by exposing yourself to the available evidence, the Gospel accounts, Paul's letters etc... Once you can believe that He rose and that He ascended as reported then the decision to give your life to Him in a trusting relationship is where faith starts for you. But without the resurrection of Jesus as a fact of history then our faith vain. Advice to all potential Christians, base your faith soley on the ressurection of Jesus as a fact of history. If that didn't happen as a fact of history then you are wasting your time becoming a Christian.

Ok so you have some supporting evidence from oral sources which are notoriously unreliable and can't be independently verified. Many religions have the same, if not more supporting evidence. How do you know that their evidence is wrong and yours is right?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well really trust and faith are almost interchangeable in this context and I don't think they had trust either. For example when I get on a plane I trust that the engineers have kept the plane in working order and that the pilot is competent etc. There's no way I can verify that so I must trust.

Or think about all those threads on PI where someone is worried that their OH is cheating on them and everyone says that in a relationship you just have to trust, ie you can't know for sure if they are or not so you have to believe it anyway without supporting evidence, ie you have to have faith

If you know something for a fact then trust is no more necessary than faith. In that case it's not called trust, it's called knowing

You are mistaken. They 'knew' that Jesus did all these things they witnessed. They still had to have faith in his word and his promise. Take Peter walking on water. He started to walk on water towards Jesus, because he had faith in him. As soon as he started to doubt, he started to sink. Its certainly faith 'based' on knowledge.

I don't have 'faith' that Jesus walked on water. I 'believe', Jesus walked on water. I have 'faith' in him that he is who he said he was, and that he will fulfil his word and promises.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

You are mistaken. They 'knew' that Jesus did all these things they witnessed. They still had to have faith in his word and his promise. Take Peter walking on water. He started to walk on water towards Jesus, because he had faith in him. As soon as he started to doubt, he started to sink. Its certainly faith 'based' on knowledge.

It's faith based on knowledge in as much as I have faith that if I drop something it will fall. Since we don't know everything about the universe it is entirely possible that the next time I let go of something it will float there but this is very unlikely. I have faith based on the fact that it has been shown to happen before.

In normal situations it is not called faith or trust if something has been demonstrated to us to be true. It's only faith if you interpret faith in the very strictest sense of the word that we cannot truly know anything

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's faith based on knowledge in as much as I have faith that if I drop something it will fall. Since we don't know everything about the universe it is entirely possible that the next time I let go of something it will float there but this is very unlikely. I have faith based on the fact that it has been shown to happen before.

In normal situations it is not called faith or trust if something has been demonstrated to us to be true. It's only faith if you interpret faith in the very strictest sense of the word that we cannot truly know anything

You are assuming that if you witnessed the events, you'd automatically have faith. Jesus however, performed all his great signs in front of the Jews that sent him to his death. Did they have faith in him? No. Even at his death, his own disciples doubted he would return from the grave having witnessed all the signs he performed. This was a lack of faith in his promise and in turn the man himself. They certainly believed he existed, believed what they had witnessed with their eyes, but still did not have faith in him and his word. A strong faith is knowledge though, so you are correct in that. If one feels that if God says it, its as good as done without doubt, it is upmost faith. The word 'Knowledge' however does not convey the personal trust that goes with the word faith, so 'faith is the most suitable term. A knowledge and trust.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

You are assuming that if you witnessed the events, you'd automatically have faith.

No I'm not, I'm saying that if you witnessed the events yourself then you don't need faith because you have knowledge

JimiTime wrote: »

Jesus however, performed all his great signs in front of the Jews that sent him to his death. Did they have faith in him? No.

All the more evidence that he didn't actually do these things. If you see someone raised from the dead you'd have to be pretty hard headed to convince yourself you didn't see it.

And if people who apparently actually saw this happen weren't convinced by his claims how can we possibly accept them?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I'm not, I'm saying that if you witnessed the events yourself then you don't need faith because you have knowledge



All the more evidence that he didn't actually do these things. If you see someone raised from the dead you'd have to be pretty hard headed to convince yourself you didn't see it.

And if people who apparently actually saw this happen weren't convinced by his claims how can we possibly accept them?

You are conflating 2 things here. Knowledge, and faith. The Jews saw the signs he performed and thus had 'knowledge' that he was doing something supernatural. This did not in turn make them have faith 'based' on this knowledge. Instead, they said that he performed these signs by means of the devil. So they had 'knowledge' but not faith. As for the second part of your post, the Jews did not deny he did the things he did, they just accredited them to Satan. Soooo, you see how different knowledge and faith are. Simple. If you haven't picked it up now, I'll leave you to your own interpretation.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is true but I consider it unfortunate. In my opinion religion is not necessary in order to have those things. I look at the teachings of Jesus and I can see that following them can lead to a happy life but I don't see why I should have to accept that he walked on water in order to live my life by his teachings or to be accepted by this community

If Jesus was not divine, where does his authority as a teacher come from? Living by his teachings consists of following him as God. That is what he taught. He didn't spend much time on teaching "how to live a good life". As he said, "only God is good".

If you follow Jesus even in a Jeffersonian way that rejects his supernatural elements, it is still something akin to a religion, or cult of personality.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

You are conflating 2 things here. Knowledge, and faith. The Jews saw the signs he performed and thus had 'knowledge' that he was doing something supernatural. This did not in turn make them have faith 'based' on this knowledge. Instead, they said that he performed these signs by means of the devil. So they had 'knowledge' but not faith. As for the second part of your post, the Jews did not deny he did the things he did, they just accredited them to Satan. Soooo, you see how different knowledge and faith are. Simple. If you haven't picked it up now, I'll leave you to your own interpretation.

Jews don't believe in the devil except in terms of a sort of prosecuting attorney in God's court

Also, if you want to define faith as faith in the claims of Jesus and not necessarily to do with his abilities, I don't see why the resurrection should have any effect on their beliefs and it doesn't explain Paul sinking because of doubt. From what you describe, the idea that he had supernatural powers was not in dispute, it was an established fact and did not require faith to believe it. The only thing that required faith was belief in his claims to be the son of God etc because being able to do magic doesn't automatically imply you're telling the truth. So why did Paul sink? Just because Jesus might not have been telling the truth about being the son of God didn't change the fact that he had shown the ability to walk on water.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

If Jesus was not divine, where does his authority as a teacher come from? Living by his teachings consists of following him as God. That is what he taught. He didn't spend much time on teaching "how to live a good life". As he said, "only God is good".

If you follow Jesus even in a Jeffersonian way that rejects his supernatural elements, it is still something akin to a religion, or cult of personality.

Well, you see, that's what I believe Christianity is......


Also, authority can come from lots of places. We listen to teachers because they went to school, they learned and got qualifications. We listen to scientists, again, because they have qualifications and if people don't have qualifications we can look at the merit of their statements and judge whether they are good or not. Aristotle and other philosophers never claimed to be divine and yet people still accept their life lessons. Unlike the people of 2000 years ago, I don't need an unquestionable higher power to tell me right from wrong

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Come on mate, it's been observed by psychoanalysts for a hundred years that decisions are almost never made by logic alone.

That's hardly surprising since Freudian Psychoanalysis has little time for logic which, amongst other reasons, is why it's no longer taught in the medical departments of the world's universities as anything other than a historical curiosity; that, and Freud's fraud of course.

Húrin wrote: »

Seeing an atheist accuse someone else of "having a hard time imagining how there could be people out there who think differently from you" is deeply ironic.

Given that PDN's the one who can't imagine that people make decisions using logic only, while I can easily imagine it happening, as well as decisions made upon an emotional basis, as well as just about any combo in between, I politely suggest that the irony is all mine.

Simply because much religion is acquired through emotional reasoning, does not mean that rejection of religion requires emotion too.

You, for example, probably reject Zeus because he's a clearly-made-up deity. Us atheists tend to reject your deity/deities for exactly the same reason -- it's all clearly-made-up (and not very interesting or original either). No need to involve emotion.

Bduffman

JimiTime wrote: »

the Jews did not deny he did the things he did, they just accredited them to Satan.

I didn't know this.
However, if that is true - & (I'm assuming) there were more jews who didn't believe the things he did than did believe during his lifetime, the evidence from eye witnesses is strongly against any of these things happening.

Morbert

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hmmm, it might. This question is easily the biggest reason why I'm agnostic rather than atheist. Might be worth rephrasing the question to 'what caused the big bang' if they've any technical interest in the area though.

It's the implication of God that I would object to. We certainly don't know what's responsible for the big bang.

Given that PDN's the one who can't imagine that people make decisions using logic only, while I can easily imagine it happening, as well as decisions made upon an emotional basis, as well as just about any combo in between, I politely suggest that the irony is all mine.

We have to be careful about how we use the word logic. Strictly speaking, we are talking about a set of rules for inference, so even if we base our decisions on logic, we still need a set of premises than cannot be logically constructed.

I believe the most productive way to engage with Christians is to see where these premises differ. A lot of times, people will wrongly claim that a logical premise of atheism is "supernatural things don't exist" and that a logical premise of Christianity is "God exists". It's certainly how I go about 'converting' Christians (I have converted a grand total of one).

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jews don't believe in the devil except in terms of a sort of prosecuting attorney in God's court

Sigh. Moses was a hebrew. Take it from there. You'll find a bit about the subject of the serpent, the liar, that original deciever etc throughout the books of the old testament. Heck, just look at the book of Job. Anyway, I'm not here to argue on yours or mine knowledge or lack of it in relation to the Jews of Jesus' day. You are flip flopping out of the discussion of what faith is into, 'well if the jews didn't believe, why should we' and 'well actually they didn't believe in the devil'. These little avenue's will do nothing to further your understanding of the topic at hand if indeed that is your motivation.

Also, if you want to define faith as faith in the claims of Jesus and not necessarily to do with his abilities,

I have never defined faith by using the word faith. I have told you, it is a personal word that involves knowledge and trust. Belief is taken as a given if one has faith, for you can't have faith in someone you don't believe in.

I don't see why the resurrection should have any effect on their beliefs and it doesn't explain Paul sinking because of doubt. From what you describe, the idea that he had supernatural powers was not in dispute, it was an established fact and did not require faith to believe it.

Firstly, it was Peter, not Paul. Secondly, you are correct about not having to have faith in order to believe what you are seeing. That has been the point from the start. Faith is not belief, and belief is not faith.

The only thing that required faith was belief in his claims to be the son of God etc

In his claims, and in the man himself.

because being able to do magic doesn't automatically imply you're telling the truth.

I don't like the word 'magic' being used in such a way. It always denotes disrepect in this subject. In answer to your question though, being able to perform signs, does not denote truth.

So why did Peter sink? Just because Jesus might not have been telling the truth about being the son of God didn't change the fact that he had shown the ability to walk on water.

He sank, because he looked around at the boisterous conditions and became afriad instead of trusting that Jesus would not let him perish.

Matthew 14
22Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24but the boat was already a considerable distance[a] from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.
25During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.

27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."

29"Come," he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"

31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

32And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

34When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret. 35And when the men of that place recognized Jesus, they sent word to all the surrounding country. People brought all their sick to him 36and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Sigh. Moses was a hebrew. Take it from there. You'll find a bit about the subject of the serpent, the liar, that original deciever etc throughout the books of the old testament. Heck, just look at the book of Job. Anyway, I'm not here to argue on yours or mine knowledge or lack of it in relation to the Jews of Jesus' day. You are flip flopping out of the discussion of what faith is into, 'well if the jews didn't believe, why should we' and 'well actually they didn't believe in the devil'. These little avenue's will do nothing to further your understanding of the topic at hand if indeed that is your motivation.

Yes they believe in someone who can deceive and lie and tempt you but the Jewish Satan is actually more of an ally of God. He is completely subservient to him and can only do that which God wishes

And I'm not flip flopping anything. I'm making points in response to your posts. You mentioned the devil, therefore my response contained reference to the devil, obviously

JimiTime wrote: »

I have never defined faith by using the word faith. I have told you, it is a personal word that involves knowledge and trust. Belief is taken as a given if one has faith, for you can't have faith in someone you don't believe in.

I know it is, my point was that it doesn't apply to the belief in Jesus' miracles because they were apparently witnessed with their own eyes - which you're not contesting

JimiTime wrote: »

He sank, because he looked around at the boisterous conditions and became afriad instead of trusting that Jesus would not let him perish.

But that doesn't fit with your definition of faith, ie faith in the man and not the abilities. Jesus had already shown the ability to do what he was doing. Or do you mean that he was afraid that Jesus would deliberately drown him?


edit:Also, admittedly I haven't looked much but I'm looking for the reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus and I can't find any mention of them thinking that he was sent by Satan

Sam Vimes

For example, here:
http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html
it says that Jews don't believe he was resurrected. So do they think his powers came from Satan as you claim or do they simply not believe the accounts?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know it is, my point was that it doesn't apply to the belief in Jesus' miracles because they were apparently witnessed with their own eyes - which you're not contesting

I'm a little unclear on what you're saying, but if you are saying that it does not require faith to say 'I saw jesus heal a blind man', then I agree. It does not require faith. It simply requires that you witnessed Jesus healing a blind man.

But that doesn't fit with your definition of faith, ie faith in the man and not the abilities. Jesus had already shown the ability to do what he was doing. Or do you mean that he was afraid that Jesus would deliberately drown him?

Yes he had shown the ability, but at that point, they were still not sure about who he actually was. They saw him do all this amazing stuff, but were still a bit unsure. Thus you see in the passage I quoted, they start saying 'You really are the Son of God etc', indicating, the doubt that resided in them still. This doubt continued after this too. Here comes the concept now, that most non-christians hate. It was only after God revealed himself to them, that they finally understood who he was.

Matthew 16

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

edit:Also, admittedly I haven't looked much but I'm looking for the reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus and I can't find any mention of them thinking that he was sent by Satan

I didn't say that they thought he was 'sent' by satan, but rather his power came from him.

Matthew 12
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For example, here:
http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html
it says that Jews don't believe he was resurrected. So do they think his powers came from Satan as you claim or do they simply not believe the accounts?

I think we may have crossed wires here. I am not claiming that Jews today reject Jesus because they say he was sent by Satan. I am talking of the account I quoted in relation to what 'some' of the jews attested his power to.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm a little unclear on what you're saying, but if you are saying that it does not require faith to say 'I saw jesus heal a blind man', then I agree. It does not require faith. It simply requires that you witnessed Jesus healing a blind man.

Yes that is what I'm saying

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes he had shown the ability, but at that point, they were still not sure about who he actually was. They saw him do all this amazing stuff, but were still a bit unsure. Thus you see in the passage I quoted, they start saying 'You really are the Son of God etc', indicating, the doubt that resided in them still. This doubt continued after this too. Here comes the concept now, that most non-christians hate. It was only after God revealed himself to them, that they finally understood who he was.

If I understand the passage you quoted correctly based on what you've told me, Peter walked on the water, then doubted the claim that Jesus was the son of God and started to sink and so Jesus reached out and saved him, then everyone said "Truly you are the son of God".

My understanding of that has always been that they believed him to be the son of God based on the miracles he performed but now you're telling me that they already knew he could do miracles but still doubted that he was the son of God. I don't see how performing yet another miracle finally convinced them. How was this miracle different to any others and how did this one indicate that he was the son of God any more than the others?

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say that they thought he was 'sent' by satan, but rather his power came from him.

Matthew 12
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons

Fair enough but that raises another problem. I have always been taught that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus are the entire basis of Christianity but now you're telling me that according to the beliefs of the time, such feats could have been performed by a man whose power came from Satan and that many people who actually witnessed the events and so in theory know a lot more about them than we do believed that to be the case

So even if someone completely accepts that Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected, that doesn't actually show him to be the son of God does it? We still have to have faith that he didn't get his power from Satan. How can we know?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ok so you have some supporting evidence from oral sources which are notoriously unreliable and can't be independently verified. Many religions have the same, if not more supporting evidence. How do you know that their evidence is wrong and yours is right?

It is possible that all religions could be wrong but it is certainly not possible for all religions to be right. For instance, if Christianity is right then Islam is wrong and vice versa. Christianity says that Christ was crucified whereas Islam says that Christ wasn't crucified. One of them is wrong on this point. If Christianity is wrong on this crucial point then all of Christianity is wrong, because the central claim of Christianity is that God raised Jesus from the dead three days after His crucifixion, so if He wasn't crucified then how can He be raised from he dead three days after His crucifixion?

If Islam is wrong on this point then what else is it wrong about? How could Allah get the Jesus being crucified issue so wrong? The claim of Mohamed is that the angel Gabriel dictated the Koran via visions but there are no other witnesses or verifiers of this claim. There is one source for the claim that Islam makes and that is the Koran, which was (as already said) delivered via visions to Mohamed by the angel Gabriel, and which came 600 years after the claims that Christianity made in the first century. Plus if Islam was dictated by the angel Gabriel then why does the Koran practically quote from the heretical gnostic gospels of the 2nd century when describing things Jesus is supposed to have done in his childhood? Things which are not recorded in the New Testament accounts and things which don't gel at all with the general revelation of Jesus in the gospels, things like Jesus killing kids with His power when they wouldn't play with him as a child.

The New Testament accounts on the other hand have multiple records written by different people at different times which attest to the crucifixion of Jesus as an historical event. There are even secular writings by the Roman historian Tacitus which also testify to this same fact. If you had to pick then which one would you believe on this point? Christianity or Islam?

Paul says twice in his epistle to the Galatians that "though we (Paul and his companions) or an angel from heaven come preaching any other gospel other than the one which you have received then let him be accursed." And that Gospel or good news was that Jesus WAS crucified according to the Scriptures in order to pay the ransom required in order to redeem fallen man. If there is a God and a devil and one of these religions is from God then the other one has to be from the devil. You pick.

Also please give me one example of the other religions you mentioned which are better attested and which have more supporting evidence than Christianity, I'm curious to know what their central claim is, how it should affect me today even if it were true, and how does it prove that Christianity is false. Cheers

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

The New Testament accounts on the other hand have multiple records written by different people at different times which attest to the crucifixion of Jesus as an historical event. There are even secular writings by the Roman historian Tacitus which also testify to this same fact. If you had to pick then which one would you believe on this point? Christianity or Islam?

Based on everything you just said, if I had to pick one I would of course pick Christianity, but only if I had to pick one. Really I'd be choosing something with a 10% chance of being reliable over something with a 9% chance. And that's only one religion, what about the rest?

To be honest I don't and will never accept 2000 year old eye witness accounts as valid evidence. I wouldn't accept an eye witness account from yesterday as the sole evidence because they are notoriously inaccurate.

Also, you are attempting here to show evidence for the bible but except for the account of Tacitus, you are using the bible to do it. That is a circular argument, you cannot use the bible to prove the bible. Doing so is comparable to someone in a court using the alibi "I was with myself all night your honour".

You also seem to be attempting to discredit the koran based on the fact that it is contradicted by the bible but that makes the assumption that the bible is the correct one and that assumption cannot be made in this case because that is the point of contention.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Also please give me one example of the other religions you mentioned which are better attested and which have more supporting evidence than Christianity, I'm curious to know what their central claim is, how it should affect me today even if it were true, and how does it prove that Christianity is false. Cheers

You see the thing is that you have a book that makes many claims. There are claims that things were witnessed by many people but they are just that, claims. The supporting evidence for these claims seems to be simply that they have been made - and that's not evidence

Also, on the point of Tacitus confirming the resurrection, I found a source that I hope is wrong for your sake:

Tacitus, a Roman historian, goes as far as to say, "Christus…suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea. . .but even in Rome." (Tacitus, Annals 15.44 as quoted in Case for Christ)

Scholars assert that when Tacitus says Jesus, "checked for the moment" it indicates Jesus' death, and, "again broke out" refers to the resurrection.

If the above is correct, it quite clearly does not confirm the resurrection. He is simply saying that a superstition broke out after his death, not that he himself broke out. If the quote is correct it in fact indicates that even at the time when these events supposedly occurred, it was believed to be simply a superstition


I'm beginning to see that there might be no point to this. I don't accept the bible to be an accurate historical record any more than any other holy book so I'm not going to accept any argument that comes from it without independent verification....

wolfsbane

Bduffman said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I do think atheists do in reality believe in God but just choose to deny it.
Wow - didn't think you'd actually admit that.

So why - if its true about god & an afterlife etc - do you think we would deny it? Think about this logically now. If I know there is a god & an afterlife, I still deny it & risk eternity in damnation? And for what? Just to be awkward & annoy christians? Just for a good argument?

No. Because you hate God, yet you know if you continue doing so you will end up in hell. That is too severe a reality to just accept. So you must either repent or suppress the truth. Being evil, you choose to suppress the truth.

I know it's complex, but we see it happen many times in regard to other difficult mental choices. Addictions, perversions, even things like an unfaithful spouse whom we are unwilling to break with, but whose infidelity we cannot just accept. DENIAL.

Add to that the help the sinner gets from Satan, the master deceiver - he provides all the excuses and alternative strategies we need to be blinded to the light.

How about I said that I actually think you know there is no god but you choose to believe because it makes you feel better. Now that makes sense as the comfort of wanting to believe in an afterlife makes our mortality more bearable.

But the other way around makes no sense

Hmm. I think the prospect of an eternal (dreamless) sleep after a life of fun isn't so bad. But also, I have had many confirmations that my God is real - answers to prayer, for example.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

According to one of the accounts, Joseph of Arimathea - a member of the Sanhedrin and secret follower of Jesus - requested the body of Jesus from Pilate. This request was granted and that is how he got the body.

No, I meant the Jewish leaders, the ones that you say should have produced the body of Jesus if he had not been resurrected. Why would they have and be preserving Jesus' body weeks after his execution simply to counter a story of a resurrection that they aren't even aware of yet.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Of course. They even said it to Pilate that Jesus claimed that He would rise form the dead after three days and wanted to have a guard at the tomb in case the disciples steal the body and start claiming that He rose.

You are confusing two things here, what the story claimed happened and what you claim should have happened if the story is not true.

If the Christians made up or imagined the story of Jesus' resurrection you claim that when this story starts being told by the Christians the Jews should have presented the body of Jesus to demonstrate that he didn't rise.

Now if the story of the resurrection is a Christian fiction why would the Jewish leaders have been keeping Jesus' body lying around to show Christians?

Since in this scenario the early Christians made up the story the Jewish leaders would know nothing about it until they first hear it from the Christians weeks months or even years after Jesus' execution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

A day actually. "The next day, (after the crucifixion) the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.'" Matthew 27:62-63

No, that is part of the story. I'm asking when did the early Christians start spreading this story around.

Because if it is fiction then that point would be the first time the Jewish leaders would have heard it. If it is fiction and only appears months or even years after the events it describes then it is hardly surprising that the Jewish leaders would not have had Jesus' body on hand to counter the claims being made. Do you not agree?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well yeah, but who is claiming alien mind control?

Totally irrelevant. A fantastical supernatural event does not become more plausible simply because someone claimed it happened. If that was the way the world worked alien abductions would be being investigated by every government agency in America.

What logical reason is there to consider one fantastical supernatural event (to the point of criticising me for being "biased" against these) while ignore all others simply because they were not the ones picked by the authors to explain this story?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You reasoning goes like this:

A) Miracles don't happen.
Therefore miracles didn't happen.
C) So anybody who says that they do happen are liars or kidders because...
A) Miracles don't happen.

No more like this

1. Miracles (a supernatural event that break or contradicts the laws of physics) are incredibly unlikely and implausible explanations for things that happen or are claimed to have happened
2. Therefore an explanation that requires a miracle is in itself very implausible
3. When someone invokes such an explanation to explain something that has happened or is claimed to have happened the plausibility that this explanation is correct is way way down on the list of possibilities.
4. Therefore most if not all other explanations that don't invoke a miracle or supernatural event are more plausible for explaining some event than the explanation that does invoke a miracle .

I would imagine you would agree with all of that for anything other than the religious beliefs of your religion, for example if we were discussing claims of a mind reader or claims of an Indian holy man.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You start out with the a-priori assumption that 'miracles don't happen'

No I start with the a-priori assumption that miracles are very very implausible way to explain something, much more implausible than say a conspiracy of lies that people are prepared to die for (something which is also implausible but nearly as implausible as a supernatural event)

I'm kinda curious that you seem to take the opposite position, and I'm left wondering if you would given a explanation of an event that has nothing to do with your religious beliefs?

Is it simply that you believed the Christian god existed and that Jesus was his son before you came to examine the story of the resurrection?

Or is that to believe this stuff you have to accept the story of the resurrection, and you want to believe this stuff?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Eh no actually I'm not.

Yes you are, you have already ruled a good number of explanations out because you deemed them highly implausible, such as them all dying for a lie they know is a lie, something that may be implausible hardly as implausible as a god re-animating a living being.

Soul Winner wrote: »

All I'm saying is that the best explanation for the empty tomb, the genuine belief of the disciples that Jesus was the Son of God and the post mortem appearances of Jesus, is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

It is not the best explanation, how can you say that

It is an explanation that requires the introduction of a god to explain it for crying out loud. It is an explanation that requires that we introduce an agent that can alter the laws of nature!

How is that the best explanation unless you have already assumed that said god exists and did this, in which case what is the point of arguing over the historical validity of these stories if you are starting from the faith that they are true?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Unless you can explain those facts better with logical deduction instead of bias against the supernatural then I'm all ears.

Any explanation that stays within the realms of the natural world is better than one that requires the introduction of a supernatural element given the high implausibility of supernatural events.

But if you can introduce a supernatural agent to explain this you must surely consider any explanation with a supernatural agent to be equally likely? What grounds do you have to say that an explanation with your god as the agent is better than an explanation with Loki or Mars as the agent?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But remember your explanation must explain all three at the same time, not just one, for
instance saying that the disciples stole the body would explain the
empty tomb but it doesn't explain the genuine belief that the disciples had in Jesus being the Son of God because stealing the body would make them liars and knowers that what the were professing was false hence they couldn't have been genuine believers in Jesus, but the evidence strongly suggest that they were genuine believers in Jesus as the Son of God.

You are working on the basis of the implausibility that they would be prepared to die for a lie. But how is that less plausible than introducing a supernatural being into the mix to resurrect dead people?

I could suppose that perhaps they knew it was a lie but alien parasites had infect their brains messing up their judgement systems and that explanation, while being very implausible, would still be vastly more plausible than your explanation of a supernatural being bringing someone back to life. I'm at least still within the known laws of physics and biology, while your explanation throw them out the window.

Unless you want to argue that the existence of your god is more plausible than alien parasites, which I see absolutely no reason for beyond your personal faith that your god exists.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even if you don't believe that it actually happened you cannot deny that it explains all the facts that are logically deduced from the evidence.

Of course it does, but the explanation is ridiculously implausible.

Rasputin being a supernatural being of great evil explains the legend of how it was necessary to poison, shoot and stab him before he actually died, but that is hardly the most plausible explanation, and recent evidence indicates that he was never actually poisoned and shot in a non-critical area.

Simply because a supernatural explanation can explain a story (and basically once you introduce the supernatural you are always going to end up with some explanation because any and all rules go out the window), but that has little to do with the plausibility of the explanation.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only way that you can accept that He rose from the dead as a fact of history is to study the facts in evidence.

Well from where I am sitting the only way to you can accept that happened is if you have a strong emotional need to believe in the supernatural promises of the Christian religion, a need that causes you to ignore the rational side of your brain.

I don't have a need to believe in Christianity, so this is probably why I don't get it like the rest of you seem to.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Most people who bother to look at the evidence invariably come away convinced that they were not lying, so if they were not lying then that means He rose from the dead as reported

No it doesn't Soul Winner. It is when you come up with nonsense like that I just think you are desperately trying to find any logical argument to a belief you need to hold. We have already discussed this at length with regard to the followers of other cult leaders.

Them being prepared to die for a belief simply means it is likely that they believed what they did. It means nothing for the truth of these beliefs themselves.

And it merely means this is likely they believed what they did. It is implausible but still totally possible that they knew it was a lie all along and were, for some reason, still prepared to die for it.

You can argue that this is implausible but it is not less plausible than the introduction of a supernatural being who resurrects people.

It is also possible than the stories of how they died are completely made up. Implausible possibly, but still vastly more plausible than a supernatural deity who resurrects people.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Please give me one explanation that explains all the facts like the resurrection.

Jesus never existed. Around 40AD the Norse god Loki (trickster god) decided to have some fun with humans by inventing his own religion to see how many people he could get to follow it. He brain washed a couple of people in Palestine to follow a rather elaborate story of a cult leader based on the Jewish Messiah who promised salvation if people believed in him. Being a god Loki was rather clever and knew the right amount of elements to put into the stories so that they appealed to Jews and Gentiles. He then sat back to watch as the religion spread through the western world.

Were you looking for a natural explanation .... ?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I get the impression that you have some sort of mental blockage which renders you incapable of understanding anything that does not fit in with your naturalistic worldview.

I certainly do have a "mental blockage" to the sort of nonsense reasoning you are using here, such as suggesting that because this is the explanation given by the authors and no other explanation was given by them that this some how supports the likelihood of the explanation they gave.

Every time someone claims they are abducted by aliens you get one explanation from the person (they were abducted by aliens) for what happened to them. The fact that they only give one explanation for what they believe happened has nothing to do with the plausibility of this explanation. Neither does the fact that "being abducted by aliens" as explanation does actually explain why Earl or Billy Bob were missing in the woods for 6 days.

The idea that the only explanation we have from the Bible explaining these events was that Jesus rose, and that this does explain the events, some how increases the plausibility of this story over any other explanation is very faulty reasoning Soul Winner which again I'm pretty sure you wouldn't apply to anything if you were examining something that had nothing to do with your religion (such as alien abduction)

All you are doing is searching for a way to make the "God did it" explanation fit, which some what shows your motivation here.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So the simplest of explantions works out to be the best, where's Occam's razor when you need it?

"God did it" is not the simplest explanation, it requires that you introduce an all powerful supernatural deity in order to make your explanation work. That is not being "simple".

Occam would be rolling in his grave.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So the the logic still applies, you must prove God doesn't exist in order to prove that He didn't raised Jesus from the dead.

I'm not interested in proving God didn't do it. Such a feat is impossible (how do you prove a supernatural negative )

What matters here is the plausibility of such an explanation placed next to other explanations.

And "God did it" is very very very implausible explanation.

Unless of course you start from a position that God exists and Jesus was his Son, which is not a historical position and it is in fact the position you are trying to show with the resurrection itself!

Cyclical reasoning anyone?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I hate religion, don't need it at all, can live quite a happy life without it, but when I become convinced that God raised Jesus from the dead then what else would you have me to do?

Well I would start by evaluate the thought process that lead you to the conclusion that God raised Jesus from the dead. Because based on your posts in this thread it is all over the place.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How did the New Testament authors profit from selling Christianity?

I didn't mean financially "sell" ... I mean sell as in convince (as you might say to an actor "sell the part!"

Soul Winner wrote: »

They lost family, friends, jobs and property, they were ostracized form society, ridiculed, laughed at and spat on, flayed to death with whips, pierced with swords, crucified, dragged to death, hanged and so on and you want to draw analogies with them and the multi millionaire John Travolta/Scientology?

You clearly haven't seen Battlefield Earth ...

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes they did but not because they were changed for the better, that is just incidental and can be used to show that what happened was powerful enough to change their lives.

Do you not think that that is exactly what the authors were going for?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they were lying about what they saw then they did not know that what they were saying was going to become the worldwide movement that it is today, so their motivation for telling the story would have been very different, which means that they would not have included the embarrassing elements into the record in the first place.

Why not?

You ever heard the phrase "too convenient?" We have you using the story as evidence of the stories authenticity. Perhaps that is exactly what they wanted. You keep saying that it would make them look silly, but here you are a converted believer. How silly do you think they are? You don't think it makes them look silly you think it makes them look genuine.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Two is good.

It really isn't. Two sources for all the claims of the resurrected Jesus. That is not good at all. It is all very well talking about the 500 who witnessed here and the 12 who witnessed there etc but you don't have any of these testamentary. All you have is 3 accounts (including Paul who never saw it himself and who simply claims others have) that they exist.

Which is more plausible, that a man came back to life or that these 3 people are wrong/lying/mistaken etc

Soul Winner wrote: »

Without supernatural intervention I would submit that merely natural resurrection from the dead is absolutely impossible.

Right so demonstrate your God exists and we might get some where .... otherwise this story is very implausible.

Remember you are trying to raise the plausibility of the God did it explanation above that of explanations such as They were all lying

To do that you have to actually demonstrate, historically, that your god exists, which you so far haven't done.

Historically we know people lie. We know people can be mistaken. We don't know your god is real. Demonstrate that and you might have a chance. Without that your explanation is at the bottom of the pile, with the Alien Space Mice.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Bduffman said:

No. Because you hate God, yet you know if you continue doing so you will end up in hell. That is too severe a reality to just accept. So you must either repent or suppress the truth. Being evil, you choose to suppress the truth.

I know it's complex, but we see it happen many times in regard to other difficult mental choices. Addictions, perversions, even things like an unfaithful spouse whom we are unwilling to break with, but whose infidelity we cannot just accept. DENIAL.

Add to that the help the sinner gets from Satan, the master deceiver - he provides all the excuses and alternative strategies we need to be blinded to the light.

The above is why the world would be better without religion

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

No. Because you hate God, yet you know if you continue doing so you will end up in hell. That is too severe a reality to just accept. So you must either repent or suppress the truth. Being evil, you choose to suppress the truth.

I know it's complex, but we see it happen many times in regard to other difficult mental choices. Addictions, perversions, even things like an unfaithful spouse whom we are unwilling to break with, but whose infidelity we cannot just accept. DENIAL.

In response to this, I say you know God doesn't exist, and are in denial.

Where do we go from here?

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

In response to this, I say you know God doesn't exist, and are in denial.

Where do we go from here?

Ultimately, where I said we would go:
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2b.

But argument-wise, we go to the crux of the matter: we are either right or wrong about our assertions. If I'm wrong, I cramp my style somewhat and miss out on many opportunities for immoral 'fun'.

If you are wrong, you end up in hell.

Makes sense for you to seriously think about the nature of your life and what you ought to do.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ultimately, where I said we would go:
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2b.

But argument-wise, we go to the crux of the matter: we are either right or wrong about our assertions. If I'm wrong, I cramp my style somewhat and miss out on many opportunities for immoral 'fun'.

If you are wrong, you end up in hell.

Makes sense for you to seriously think about the nature of your life and what you ought to do.

Meh, could be argued that if you are wrong you waste your life (the only one you have) and facilitate a myth that causes others to do the same

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ultimately, where I said we would go:
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2b.

But argument-wise, we go to the crux of the matter: we are either right or wrong about our assertions. If I'm wrong, I cramp my style somewhat and miss out on many opportunities for immoral 'fun'.

If you are wrong, you end up in hell.

Makes sense for you to seriously think about the nature of your life and what you ought to do.

I don't actually believe you know God doesn't exist. Your assertion was vapid, and I presented an equally vapid assertion for comparison.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

In response to this, I say you know God doesn't exist, and are in denial.

Where do we go from here?

To a forum dedicated to those who know God doesn't exist?

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I'm wrong, I cramp my style somewhat and miss out on many opportunities for immoral 'fun'.

Nah, you miss much more. You'll be missing out on the FSM's beer fountain, Islam's 72 virgins (or raisins), Hindu's whatever-it-is not to mention the eternal bliss granted by the Great Wagga-Wagga.

You stand to lose far more by not believing all of these stories, than by just believing your own story of fire and brimstone.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ultimately, where I said we would go:
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2b.

But argument-wise, we go to the crux of the matter: we are either right or wrong about our assertions. If I'm wrong, I cramp my style somewhat and miss out on many opportunities for immoral 'fun'.

If you are wrong, you end up in hell.

Makes sense for you to seriously think about the nature of your life and what you ought to do.

Do you not think that an omniscient and omnipotent being would see through someone who was only believing for the selfish reason of not wanting to go to hell?

In fact I don't think it's possible to trick your own mind into believing something that you don't believe. You can claim you can believe it and outwardly appear to believe it but God can see through all that.

Personally I think God would be more forgiving of someone who stood in front of him and said "No evidence was presented for your existence and there were many other possibilities, therefore I did not accept it as the only possibility" than someone who spent his life thinking he could trick God into letting him into heaven