Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…5681011…17

Comments

  • #212
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Winters wrote: »
    Actually, what I was not trying to claim was that any of the above stories to be absolute fact (I reject both as pure puppycock) and mearly provided two examples of stories which contain elements which are similar to that of Jesus.
    Nobody said you were claiming that they were fact. What you claimed was that they predated Jesus with details like the virgin birth etc. That is plainly not true. Your argument depends on accepting testimony from those who came long after Christianity wasw in place.
    What I said (maybe not said but implied?) was the fact that the elements of the story of Jesus have been used in stories that existed before Jesus.

    You said: "The fact is that the story of Jesus (Born to a virgin mother, performed miracles, persecuted and killed then rose from the dead etc.) has been told by stories and scriptures for many thousands of years."
    I dont believe in any story of a supreme being, so I dont know why you would assume I would believe in the idea of some 2600 year old god. However maybe I mislead on my last post I write quickly before leaving work? The idea that I as an Athiest would disreguard the story of Jesus, but believe in other as-silly stoires about gods/supreme beings that existed at the time is laughable, they are all equally as insane to me
    Stop trying to change the subject. No-one accused you of believing in any gods.

    What you are accused of is criticising the historicity of the Gospel accounts and then blithly swallowing the idea that Mithraism prefigured the story of Jesus, even though any competent historian would tell you that such a view of Mithraism is much more dubious from a historical perspective.
    Also believing what Bill Maher says as truth would be like getting upset at BrassEye. Its entertaining and raises some interesting questions but on a whole is there for comic relief.
    In that case you have a serious credibility problem. I had charitably assumed that you were silly enough to believe Bill Maher's makey-up hogwash about Krishna. Now you appear to be saying that you knew Maher might well be wrong but you still tried to pass it off as fact on a public internet forum.


  • #213
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I actually agree with PDN, I've found the reasons people have given for Christianity to be far more reasonable than anything I've heard from an atheist. Infact most atheists are reluctant to give reasons why they don't believe in a God for some reason.

    Lack of good evidence.


  • #214
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    What's wrong with the differences in the accounts? I would be more concerned if each account was exactly the same. If 4 witnesses give the exactly same account of an event you would then begin to suspect collusion - a divine version of the Manchurian Candidate. Minor differences aside, the central story remains the same across all 4 Gospels.

    Even in secular historical accounts you find contradictions. For instance 'there are striking differences between the historical accounts of Hannibal crossing the Alps e.g., Polybius of Megalopolis states that Hannibal's soldiers could see Italy from the pass, and Titus Livy writes that they saw Italy only after they had started the descent.' More here. But nobody is going to throw out both accounts because they disagree on this point surely.


  • #215
    Winters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    PDN wrote: »
    Nobody said you were claiming that they were fact. What you claimed was that they predated Jesus with details like the virgin birth etc. That is plainly not true. Your argument depends on accepting testimony from those who came long after Christianity wasw in place.

    The virgin birth myth itself has orginiated before christ and there are various ancient Egyptian and Greek myths which bare a striking resembalce to the myths and aspects of the life of Jesus Christ. I do not take these myths as fact but it is a fact that they do exist, either through foalklore or as hieroglyphs etc.

    The two examples I gave (which you believe to be incorrect however they are still debateable) do show that various aspects of their lives can bare a slight resembalce to that of Jesus but again it can depend upon how someone reads them and how they read into them. But this can also be done with the bible, various groups can read in certain aspects and take a different meaning than others.


    PDN wrote: »
    You said: "The fact is that the story of Jesus (Born to a virgin mother, performed miracles, persecuted and killed then rose from the dead etc.) has been told by stories and scriptures for many thousands of years."
    I was trying to imply that the various aspects of the story's could be assumed dubious as there are writins from other mythology which feature strong resembalance to aspects of his life. In heindsight I should have worded it in a better way to convey what I was implying. Would you accecpt my apoligies on a slight error in my wording of a sentance that has obviously given the wrong idea to my rushed point from hours earlier? :)

    PDN wrote: »
    Stop trying to change the subject. No-one accused you of believing in any gods.
    I'm sorry, from the way I read your last post I thought you had beleived that I took the stories of Mithra and Krishna as some sort of actual truth and didnt quite grasp that I used them as examples to prove that various other stories existed at the time in the region. I was trying to re-affirm that I take neither those nor any story of diving power as truth at all but mear fairytale :)

    PDN wrote: »
    What you are accused of is criticising the historicity of the Gospel accounts and then blithly swallowing the idea that Mithraism prefigured the story of Jesus, even though any competent historian would tell you that such a view of Mithraism is much more dubious from a historical perspective.
    Can you provide examples of these 'competent historians'? It is still a somewhat debatable topic. It is easy to argue that just because the story was not scribed first doesnt mean it did not originate first? But that gets into the whole other relm.
    PDN wrote: »
    In that case you have a serious credibility problem.
    You also appear to have a serious credibility problem if I go by what other posters say, but I generally take eash post to their own. Everyone has off posts or may post some incorrect information here or there but I would never hold that against all their posts.
    PDN wrote: »
    I had charitably assumed that you were silly
    Nice to see you now beleive me to be a charity case due to my intelligance somewhat lacking. Might I take it you are mearly are now replying to me for my own charitable benefit as you nolonger believe any of my posts to be of substance?

    PDN wrote: »
    Now you appear to be saying that you knew Maher might well be wrong but you still tried to pass it off as fact on a public internet forum.
    Are you saying that nobody can quote anyone on a public forum without the 100% knowledge and worldwide agreement it is absolute fact? If that is the case then this forum should be closed as many people reguard Christinainty to be based on fiction and not fact. No?



    Again going back to the OP's question. I dont think it is actually possible to logically change an Atheist into a believer in Christianity. It requires there to be a lack of true logical thinking in aspects which will always create a possible explotable hole. The only way I can see how would be to prove the illogical as truth/logical (Which I stated at the start and is impossible) or for their to be a true absolute miracle (inexplinalable, and not the sort of Fox news "I fell 8 stories and survived" miracles). As this thread highlights either side will always end up drawing a line at some point and sticking to it. Going to any measure to ensure not to cross it.


  • #216
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Winters wrote: »
    As this thread highlights either side will always end up drawing a line at some point and sticking to it. Going to any measure to ensure not to cross it.

    The most coherent thing you've said all thread. :pac:

    But on that note, we all know that there is no scientific proof that God does not exist right? And that, absence of scientific evidence for His existence is not evidence of His absence. Therefore any confidence in the atheist that there is no God must be faith based, as it is not based on scientific fact. Basically at some point in everyone's life a time comes for a leap of faith before one decides to base one's life on something. There is no ideology in the world (including atheism) that is based solely and solidly on a scientific irrefutable fact.

    A Christian usually has already heard enough about what they are asked to believe before they take such a leap of faith. Now just because what convinced them doesn't convince everyone is not a basis for saying that what they believe is false. To believe that it is false also takes faith in somehting else that you have heard, and you have demonstrated in your posts why you believe it to be false and IMO what you posted has been totally taken as a given as being true without a question in your mind about it. That is faith my friend whether you like it or not.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭Phototoxin


    I've never come across an atheist whose disbelief really was based solely on logical reasons.

    No I'd imagine they'd be agnostic instead


  • #218
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The details about the Ark can be examined in several creationist sites

    Creationists? The same creationists who come up with this nonsense?

    jesus_dinosaur.jpg
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Two of Every Kind The Animals on Noah’s Arkhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind

    I'm sorry, but after reading that article, it actually makes sense that the same type of person who would write such ludicrous ideas (Divine metamorphosis) would also believe the earth is 6000 years old.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You also assume longevity has always been subject to the same enviromental and genetic factors as today.

    I'm really not sure where to begin on this one, so I'll ask a question. Seeing as you've linked to a Creationists site ... do you really think that biochemistry was so different years ago, that someone could actually live to be over 600?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Let me suggest that the people of old were no different from us in their gullibility. Those who believe energy can self-organise over billions of years into incredibly complex living organisms seem to me to be more gullible than the most ignorant idolator.

    Of course we can believe that protozoa can evolve into sentient lifeforms. We've got fossil records showing the evolutionary links between species, and even last week on the Examiner newspaper, the Vatican Astronomer was quoted as saying that Creationism is hurting the CC, and that Evolution is how the world developed over millenia (Albiet, with God's direction and influence). Are you saying the Vatican is also wrong?


  • #219
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Lads, take it to the creationism thread. We have all strayed so far off topic that it's becoming ridiculous.


  • #220
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    To answer your question, I would first have to put the qualifier that I don't believe that there is anyone whose disbelief is built solely on logical reasons. We are not purely rational beings and I think it becomes impossible to compartmentalise the things that make a man (or woman).

    You're probably right about this, there's an interesting article about some research done by the neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio on emotional and rational thought here:

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/feeling-our-way-to-decision-20090227-8k8v.html

    Out of interest, has anyone read his book Descartes' Error?


  • #221
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    ned78 wrote: »
    Creationists? The same creationists who come up with this nonsense?

    jesus_dinosaur.jpg


    I'm sorry, but after reading that article, it actually makes sense that the same type of person who would write such ludicrous ideas (Divine metamorphosis) would also believe the earth is 6000 years old.



    I'm really not sure where to begin on this one, so I'll ask a question. Seeing as you've linked to a Creationists site ... do you really think that biochemistry was so different years ago, that someone could actually live to be over 600?



    Of course we can believe that protozoa can evolve into sentient lifeforms. We've got fossil records showing the evolutionary links between species, and even last week on the Examiner newspaper, the Vatican Astronomer was quoted as saying that Creationism is hurting the CC, and that Evolution is how the world developed over millenia (Albiet, with God's direction and influence). Are you saying the Vatican is also wrong?

    Taken to #15231 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59724248#post59724248


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    There are a few problems with this line of thinking

    Firstly it assumes that someone wouldn't actually die for a lie and uses this as a basis for determining the validity of these claims.

    No it doesn't. It establishes that a 'group' of people who claimed they 'saw with their own eyes' certain events, died a 'torturous' death for it. If they had set up a scam, it would seem very, very odd, that not one of them said, 'actually I admit it, I may have been mistaken'. They all stood by what they testified to. That does not proove it. It is 'compelling evidence' that they genuinely believed that they witnessed what they did.
    Which is a reasonable assumption on the surface but look at what you are trying to validate. Someone being prepared to die for a lie is hardly less plausible than a man coming back from the dead, is it? I'm pretty sure over the course of human history more people have been prepared to die for a lie (for what ever reason) than have come back to life.

    Firstly its not 'someone', its a 'group' of people. Also, its not merely 'dieing for a lie'. Its that they would have 'Known' for 'certain' that they were lying, and would have each suffered a 'torturous' death in the 'knowledge' that it was 'worthless'. Again, its not proof, but it is compelling evidence that at the very 'least', these people believed they 'witnessed' what they testified to.
    And lastly it is entirely possibly that these men did believe every bit of their faith and went to their deaths happy in this faith and it is still all wrong. History is full of genuine believers. I have little doubt that Tom Cruise genuinely believes all the Scientology nonsense. I have little doubt that a suicide bomber genuinely believes the militant Islamic nonsense. The fact that religious people believe something to the extreme of being prepared to die or kill for that beliefs is hardly new.

    Again, you miss the point. Tom Cruise hasn't witnessed galactic emperor Xenu rid some distant planet of Thetans. An Islamic suicide bomber hasn't witnessed first hand what awaits him in death. So yes, people do die for lie's etc that they really believe in. The big difference with the apostles, is that it was 'knowledge' not merely 'belief'. There is absolutely no comparrison.


  • #223
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, you miss the point. Tom Cruise hasn't witnessed galactic emperor Xenu rid some distant planet of Thetans. An Islamic suicide bomber hasn't witnessed first hand what awaits him in death. So yes, people do die for lie's etc that they really believe in. The big difference with the apostles, is that it was 'knowledge' not merely 'belief'. There is absolutely no comparrison.

    I wouldn't waste my breath. This has been explained to him on several occasions, so at this stage his apparent overlooking of the distinction is quite deliberate.


  • #224
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    No it doesn't. It establishes that a 'group' of people who claimed they 'saw with their own eyes' certain events, died a 'torturous' death for it. If they had set up a scam, it would seem very, very odd, that not one of them said, 'actually I admit it, I may have been mistaken'.
    Isn't that what I said?

    The point is that it may seem "very very odd" that someone (or a collection of people) would die for a lie, but someone rising from the dead is very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very odd. So which is more likely?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    It is 'compelling evidence' that they genuinely believed that they witnessed what they did.
    But not that what they believed they witnessed actually was what they witnessed.

    When you get into degrees of plausibility a man rising from the dead is right at the bottom. Both the idea that they believed what they saw but it wasn't what actually happened (they were mistaken) AND the idea that they were all collectively lying and prepared, for some unknown reason, to die for that lie are far far far more plausible scenarios than a man coming back from the dead.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its that they would have 'Known' for 'certain' that they were lying, and would have each suffered a 'torturous' death in the 'knowledge' that it was 'worthless'.
    Which is still infinitely more plausible scenario than the alternative where a man actually came back to life.

    So what is the point of saying this is unlikely? What you guys are proposing as an alternative if far less likely.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, its not proof, but it is compelling evidence that at the very 'least', these people believed they 'witnessed' what they testified to.
    Yes but that is not what it is being used as evidence for. It is being used as evidence that they were not lying therefore what they claim happened is true.

    It is more likely they weren't lying than they were lying. But it is not more likely that their claims actually happened.

    Again it is degrees of plausibility.

    It should also be pointed out that it is not what they claimed. It is what someone claimed they claimed. So you are removed by another step in this. How plausible is it that what they claimed was misreported by the person who actually wrote it down? Unlikely? More unlikely than a man rising from the dead?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, you miss the point. Tom Cruise hasn't witnessed galactic emperor Xenu rid some distant planet of Thetans. An Islamic suicide bomber hasn't witnessed first hand what awaits him in death.

    That is straw maning some what.

    Who knows what Tom Cruise believes he has or hasn't witnessed to confirm his belief in aliens and Xenu and Thetans. What ever it was he genuinely believes it.

    You are getting into a weird conversation if you start saying that it is ok to accept a supernatural belief if you believe you have witnessed X but not if you believe you have witnessed Y or Z.

    Is there any reason to suppose that people believing they have seen a dead man walking around and talking to them after he died is any more impressive than the countless tales of supernatural events from around the world that are reported every year?

    It is simply Christian bias that supposes their miracle is some how special and more believable.


  • #225
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I wouldn't waste my breath. This has been explained to him on several occasions, so at this stage his apparent overlooking of the distinction is quite deliberate.

    You simply stating something isn't really "explaining" PDN ...

    Christianity is totally unbelievable and anyone who does believe it is totally irrational and doing it simply because they have deep emotional problems and the desire for a father figure to love them

    ... see, that should be explained for you now :pac:


  • #226
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Firstly its not 'someone', its a 'group' of people. Also, its not merely 'dieing for a lie'. Its that they would have 'Known' for 'certain' that they were lying, and would have each suffered a 'torturous' death in the 'knowledge' that it was 'worthless'. Again, its not proof, but it is compelling evidence that at the very 'least', these people believed they 'witnessed' what they testified to.

    Plus if they genuinely believed in what they were professing but were just badly mistaken then surely the best way to convince them of their error was to go to the tomb and produce the body of Jesus. Here lads look, here is His body, now stop preaching that He rose from the dead will ya, thanks. Plus the place where this message was first preached was in the very city that Jesus was crucified and buried so they could easily have produced the body for these poor deluded disciples and nipped this preaching in the proverbial bud.

    Now that means that these disciples were knowingly lying or they were telling the truth, and if you read their independent reports you find things in them which strongly suggest they were not lying. Things like the personality sketches of the disciples. They all have the same personalities interwoven with consistency by all the reporters. Thomas is always the doubter, Peter is always the unstable one, James and John are always the sons of thunder and wanting the best seats in the kingdom and yet they all change for the better after the resurrection. Thomas becomes a man of never wavering faith after he is convinced. Peter becomes a rock. James and John become synonymous with love. All are change for the better after the resurrection, before which they were a pretty miserable bunch. If the resurrection story was a made up lie then I doubt seriously that they could have this cataclysmic change of nature as reported by all the reporters.

    Now a lie can change people and a group lie will change them even more but seldom if ever for the better, all these people were change for the better and those prior personality sketches are interwoven with consistency by all the reporters. You don't find that kind of accuracy in reporting in a liar who doesn't care about truth and only wants to convince people of a lie which they know will send them to hell by their own Jewish religion's standards because it was a blasphemous doctrine if it wasn't true.

    It is psychologically inconceivable that a group of Jewish men like these simple disciples would knowingly make a up lie like this and perpetrate it on everyone in order to make sure as many people are damned with them as possible just so they could save face because they followed Jesus for over three years and bet on the wrong horse. Jesus was obviously a fraud too because now He is dead. These are the alternatives that you must believe if you don't believe that what they reported was in fact true. Which I think is still the best explanation for the empty tomb, the disciples genuine beliefs in Jesus as the Son of God, and the post resurrection appearances of Jesus to many different witnesses at different times, and even to groups of people at once. There is no naturalistic explanation that explains adequately all these three facts.

    So what we are left with is the reliability of the New Testament documents themselves. Are they reliable. I can tell you now that there is no other ancient story better attested to than the story of Jesus. The earliest manuscripts are Paul's writing which can be dated to within a few years of the events described in the Gospels and even there Paul states that Christ was risen from the dead as a fact of history to which he, the greatest enemy of the church could testify as an eye witness, and that he in his day could assemble eyewitnesses of this same fact.

    To all the atheist who want to logically conclude that this story is true then may I suggest reading the following books on the subject:
    • The New Testament Documents, Are they reliable? - FF Bruce
    • Who moved the Stone - Frank Morrison
    • The Trial of the Witnesses - Thomas Sherlock
    • Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
    • The Trial of the Evangelists - Simon Greenleaf
    • Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig
    • Jesus Christ Supernut or Supernatural - Dr Gene Scott
    • The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel
    If you can read all these books and still not be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the reporters were not lying, that their accounts are relaible historical sources and that their is only one explantion that makes sense then maybe Christianity isn't for you.


  • #227
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Plus if they genuinely believed in what they were professing but were just badly mistaken then surely the best way to convince them of their error was to go to the tomb and produce the body of Jesus.
    Who said they were trying to convince them? You think the Romans were in the habit of trying to politely convince the hundreds of cults and micro-religions at the time that they were in fact mistaken? Why would they be interested in showing them the body of Jesus?

    Who said they even had the body of Jesus (assume the resurrection is based on someone stealing Jesus' body.. or that his body never made it to a tomb at all). Some of these people were put to death years after the cruxifiction was supposed to have happened.

    Again you guys are talking about plausibility while the elephant in the corner is the totally implausible explanation that he actually resurrected himself.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Plus the place where this message was first preached was in the very city that Jesus was crucified and buried so they could easily have produced the body for these poor deluded disciples and nipped this preaching in the proverbial bud.

    If that was the way it worked you would never have a rumour in Dublin. Remember the rumour a few years back (even in the papers) that asylum seekers from Africa got free 200 euro for fancy hair cuts.

    Why didn't the Social Welfare Office simply bring everyone who believed that rumour down to the local health care office and spend the day showing them the procedures used in allocating money for emergency needs to asylum seekers?

    Obviously they didn't because asylum seekers DO get 200 euro for hair cuts ....
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    They all have the same personalities interwoven with consistency by all the reporters. Thomas is always the doubter, Peter is always the unstable one, James and John are always the sons of thunder and yet they all change for the better after the resurrection.
    That sounds like religious propaganda story rather than reality. They all have clinched personalities and they all change for the better?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    If the resurrection story was a made up lie then I doubt seriously that they could have this cataclysmic change of nature as reported by all the reporters.
    Why not? If the purpose was to spread the propaganda of Christianity it makes little sense to say it only effect some people?

    You ever hear a Scientologists tell you that Dianetics only helps 1 in 5 people?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Now a lie can change people and a group lie will change them even more but seldom if ever for the better, all these people were change for the better and those prior personality sketches are interwoven with consistence by all the reporters.
    How many reporters are you counting when you say "all" the reporters?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    You don't find that kind of accuracy in reporting in a liar

    You don't do you? Do you find people rising from the dead?

    Degrees of plausibility. How can you say this doesn't happen or is so unlikely to happen that it can be disregarded as so unlikely, and then embrace a man rising from the dead?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    It is psychologically inconceivable that a group of Jewish men like these simple disciples would knowingly make a up lie like this
    How can you talkin about something being "inconceivable" in the same breath as a resurrection?

    It is totally conceivable and plausible that a group of men would knowingly make up a lie like this if you have lowered the standard of plausibility to include things like resurrections.

    This just highlights the nonsense of the double-think going on here guys, the compartmentalisation with one standard over here and then a completely different standard applied to other things.

    Look at what you are claiming. There is no plausible explanation for this so therefore a man rose from the dead. How does "resurrection" make it into the set of plausible explanations?


  • #228
    Bduffman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Sinners are antagonistic to God, therefore they suppress any knowledge they consciously have of Him. We see suppression at work in other areas of life, where the truth does not suit our innermost desires. We can con ourselves very successfully. It is of course illogical - but it feels good..
    On the contrary - I find the idea of god facinating - how else would you explain the amount of atheists posting here & the christian forum? I am confident that I know the truth - I have probably thought about it as much as you have.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Add to that the deceiving work of Satan, bringing many plausible alternatives, alternatives that better suit our desires. For the heathen, their knowledge that there is a spiritual world is accommodated by way of many gods/spirits/idols/demons ruling the world and responding to our service. For the atheist, materialistic evolution fits the bill. Anything but God.
    Aah - but maybe you are the one deceived by satan? Isn't he supposed to be very clever that way?


  • #229
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Bduffman said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Sinners are antagonistic to God, therefore they suppress any knowledge they consciously have of Him. We see suppression at work in other areas of life, where the truth does not suit our innermost desires. We can con ourselves very successfully. It is of course illogical - but it feels good..
    On the contrary - I find the idea of god facinating - how else would you explain the amount of atheists posting here & the christian forum? I am confident that I know the truth - I have probably thought about it as much as you have.
    I did not say antagonistic to theism, I said antagonistic to God. If you are not antagonistic to God, you will be glad to obey Him.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Add to that the deceiving work of Satan, bringing many plausible alternatives, alternatives that better suit our desires. For the heathen, their knowledge that there is a spiritual world is accommodated by way of many gods/spirits/idols/demons ruling the world and responding to our service. For the atheist, materialistic evolution fits the bill. Anything but God.
    Aah - but maybe you are the one deceived by satan? Isn't he supposed to be very clever that way?
    Hmmm. Deceiving me into thinking God is good and Satan is bad - don't you think that not very clever? And going to the bother of doing so many good things for me in answer to prayer - very bizarre!


  • #230
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is straw maning some what.

    Who knows what Tom Cruise believes he has or hasn't witnessed to confirm his belief in aliens and Xenu and Thetans. What ever it was he genuinely believes it.

    You are getting into a weird conversation if you start saying that it is ok to accept a supernatural belief if you believe you have witnessed X but not if you believe you have witnessed Y or Z.

    Is there any reason to suppose that people believing they have seen a dead man walking around and talking to them after he died is any more impressive than the countless tales of supernatural events from around the world that are reported every year?

    It is simply Christian bias that supposes their miracle is some how special and more believable.

    You're doing it again. You're deliberately misrepresenting Jimi by pretending to be so dim that you don't get his point.

    He is not saying that claiming to have witnessed X is more impressive than claiming to have witnessed Y or Z.

    He is saying that being prepared to die for the sake of something you have seen with your own eyes is different to being prepared to die for something that you weren't an eyewitness to.

    If the 9/11 bombers were thoroughly convinced of a belief that was indoctrinated into them at childhood then their willingness to die is not testimony to the truthfulness of that belief - only to the effectiveness of the indoctrination. However, if they had been prepared to die for the sake of something they witnessed with their own eyes, then that does carry more implication to the truth of what they witnessed.

    The willingness of the disciples to die rather than to deny what they had witnessed is certainly not conclusive proof of the resurrection, but it is more powerful evidence than someone simply being willing to die for a belief. That is a good point, it is logical, and Jimi stated it clearly. Your pretending not to understand it is both amusing and irritating.


  • #231
    Kess73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Otaku Girl wrote: »
    ....what argument/stategy would you use?Bearing in mind the said atheist is atheist soley due to logical reasons not because God did'nt get her/him a pony nor to sound pretentious or pseudo intellectual.




    Why would you want to change someone else's belief or lack of it? Because they don't subscribe to the same belief system as yourself?


    Also does the use of logic to change someone's belief not kind of go against the Christian belief, where it seems that faith in God does not need to quantified or proven?

    I know people of differing faiths, and am willing to respect their beliefs as long as they do not try to impose it on me or convert me to use the way you said it in your thread title. What gives you the right to decide that what you believe in, is what they need to be converted to?


    If someone has a belief or lack of it, but are generally a good person, then whatever they are doing is working for them. Personally I find those that find the need to have to try and convert others have their own doubts and are trying to overcompensate by bringing more onboard, and I do not aim that at any one faith in particular as all can be found guilty of it at times, just as some of those without a structured belief can be just as guilty of trying to shake people from their own beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Isn't that what I said?

    The point is that it may seem "very very odd" that someone (or a collection of people) would die for a lie, but someone rising from the dead is very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very odd. So which is more likely?


    But not that what they believed they witnessed actually was what they witnessed.

    When you get into degrees of plausibility a man rising from the dead is right at the bottom. Both the idea that they believed what they saw but it wasn't what actually happened (they were mistaken) AND the idea that they were all collectively lying and prepared, for some unknown reason, to die for that lie are far far far more plausible scenarios than a man coming back from the dead.


    Which is still infinitely more plausible scenario than the alternative where a man actually came back to life.

    So what is the point of saying this is unlikely? What you guys are proposing as an alternative if far less likely.


    Yes but that is not what it is being used as evidence for. It is being used as evidence that they were not lying therefore what they claim happened is true.

    It is more likely they weren't lying than they were lying. But it is not more likely that their claims actually happened.

    Again it is degrees of plausibility.

    It should also be pointed out that it is not what they claimed. It is what someone claimed they claimed. So you are removed by another step in this. How plausible is it that what they claimed was misreported by the person who actually wrote it down? Unlikely? More unlikely than a man rising from the dead?


    So what you've got is your worldview that God doesn't exist. Thus, whatever anyone 'thinks' they might have seen to the contrary, if it doesn't match up to 'God doesn't exist' its bogus. I really don't see how you can declare that good logic. I wont argue anymore though.
    That is straw maning some what.

    Who knows what Tom Cruise believes he has or hasn't witnessed to confirm his belief in aliens and Xenu and Thetans. What ever it was he genuinely believes it.

    You are getting into a weird conversation if you start saying that it is ok to accept a supernatural belief if you believe you have witnessed X but not if you believe you have witnessed Y or Z.

    Is there any reason to suppose that people believing they have seen a dead man walking around and talking to them after he died is any more impressive than the countless tales of supernatural events from around the world that are reported every year?

    It is simply Christian bias that supposes their miracle is some how special and more believable.

    You really don't seem to get it IMO, but maybe you do. I think its run its course though.


  • #233
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Kess73 wrote: »
    Why would you want to change someone else's belief or lack of it? Because they don't subscribe to the same belief system as yourself?


    Also does the use of logic to change someone's belief not kind of go against the Christian belief, where it seems that faith in God does not need to quantified or proven?

    I know people of differing faiths, and am willing to respect their beliefs as long as they do not try to impose it on me or convert me to use the way you said it in your thread title. What gives you the right to decide that what you believe in, is what they need to be converted to?

    If one more poster blunders in with this kind of stuff without reading the OP properly then I will lock this thread.

    THE ORIGINAL POSTER IS AN ATHEIST - NOT A CHRISTIAN.


  • #234
    Kess73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    PDN wrote: »
    If one more poster blunders in with this kind of stuff without reading the OP properly then I will lock this thread.

    THE ORIGINAL POSTER IS AN ATHEIST - NOT A CHRISTIAN.




    Well while I will admit I had only read the first eight pages of this thread before posting, at no point in those eight pages did the OP say she was an atheist, and after re reading her original post again, it is difficult to see that she is an atheist.


    I will go through all the remaining posts in the thread then, as the OP must have clearly said she is an atheist for a mod to be threatening to lock the thread over a post that is not offensive to my eyes, and is in reply to a post that could easily be taken as what I took it for.

    Also my comment of using logic being somewhat against the Christain belif imo was not calling the OP a Christain, it was simply me saying that I thought it would be against the idea of faith to be using logic.


  • #235
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Kess73 wrote: »
    Why would you want to change someone else's belief or lack of it? Because they don't subscribe to the same belief system as yourself?


    Also does the use of logic to change someone's belief not kind of go against the Christian belief, where it seems that faith in God does not need to quantified or proven?

    I know people of differing faiths, and am willing to respect their beliefs as long as they do not try to impose it on me or convert me to use the way you said it in your thread title. What gives you the right to decide that what you believe in, is what they need to be converted to?


    If someone has a belief or lack of it, but are generally a good person, then whatever they are doing is working for them. Personally I find those that find the need to have to try and convert others have their own doubts and are trying to overcompensate by bringing more onboard, and I do not aim that at any one faith in particular as all can be found guilty of it at times, just as some of those without a structured belief can be just as guilty of trying to shake people from their own beliefs.


    I'd like to put an end to this line of thinking here. This whole live and let live nonsense that some non-christians peddle that Christians should be like.

    'I'm going to walk over there, as there is a ledge beyond that wall'

    Now, I know that there is no ledge beyond that wall, but rather a 1000ft drop. should I

    a) Tell them that there is a 1000ft drop?
    or
    b) Just let them fall to their death?

    We as Christians feel compelled to share the good news of the kingdom in order that those who hear the good news may know that not only is there that 1000ft drop if they walk over there, but there is a paradise over the wall over here. You can believe it or not, thats up to you, but it would be irresponsible for me not to share this good news of the kingdom and the coming of Gods appointed day.


  • #236
    Kess73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I'd like to put an end to this line of thinking here. This whole live and let live nonsense that some non-christians peddle that Christians should be like.

    'I'm going to walk over there, as there is a ledge beyond that wall'

    Now, I know that there is no ledge beyond that wall, but rather a 1000ft drop. should I

    a) Tell them that there is a 1000ft drop?
    or
    b) Just let them fall to their death?

    We as Christians feel compelled to share the good news of the kingdom in order that those who hear the good news may know that not only is there that 1000ft drop if they walk over there, but there is a paradise over the wall over here.




    That seems to be a line trotted out by many beliefs who think their way is the one way. Smacks of propaganda to me. I'm sorry you do not subscribe to "This whole live and let live nonsense " and seem to put across a view that it is your way or no way, but I have no problem with people of different faiths, nor do I feel a need to tell them about some paradise. If they have peace with whatever faith they follow, then good for them


    Funny how you decided it was me saying how Christians should be though, when I was saying it towards all faiths. Not very tolerant of you.


  • #237
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    To all the atheist who want to logically conclude that this story is true then may I suggest reading the following books on the subject:

    The New Testament Documents, Are they reliable? - FF Bruce
    Who moved the Stone - Frank Morrison
    The Trial of the Witnesses - Thomas Sherlock
    Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
    The Trial of the Evangelists - Simon Greenleaf
    Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig
    Jesus Christ Supernut or Supernatural - Dr Gene Scott
    The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel

    I have read one of those books (Mere Christianity) and I did not find it convincing. But I will try and get a hold of some of the others.

    The conviction held by the apostles was certainly impressive. But genuine conviction, even if it is based on something witnessed, is not sufficient to confidently conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. Or to but it a better way, atheists are not being unreasonable if they do no trust the apostle accounts.

    To tie this conversation back to the OP: The Bible is certainly a reason to consider christianity, but it is not going to convert atheists. Atheists would need to be shown that the God described in the Bible is real.


  • #238
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Kess73 wrote: »
    Funny how you decided it was me saying how Christians should be though, when I was saying it towards all faiths. Not very tolerant of you.

    Not funny at all. He had a clue. It's the word in the forum title - 12 letters - starts with C and finishes with Y.


  • #239
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    angelfalling wrote: »
    And you've also missed the point. Morbert is saying that its all fine and dandy to take someone's word on something easily explained and understood. But if someone is telling me they saw some pigs flying through the sky yesterday, I'm probably going to need to see more proof-- if they told me they saw it 50 year ago, I'm DEFINITELY going to want more proof.

    And as I've said several times, historians don't take all written word at face value. You have to examine written texts within the bias they are written (based on the knowledge of the people at the time, whether a man or woman is writing it in a patriarchal society, whether this person is literate because of higher class, etc etc etc). It's not so simple as "well they wrote it so it must be true" It's rarely that simple. Haven't you heard the saying "the victors write history"? Same idea, bias.
    So do you accept most of what we learn in history as being fairly accurate, given that historians as you put it have examined the written texts within the bias that they were written etc etc and have put forward the most relevant and least biased account for education?


  • #240
    Kess73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    PDN wrote: »
    Not funny at all. He had a clue. It's the word in the forum title - 12 letters - starts with C and finishes with Y.


    It was not meant to be funny, and your attempt at sarcasm is just as unfunny.

    "starts with C and finishes with Y"


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Kess73 wrote: »
    That seems to be a line trotted out by many beliefs who think their way is the one way. Smacks of propaganda to me. I'm sorry you do not subscribe to "This whole live and let live nonsense " and seem to put across a view that it is your way or no way, but I have no problem with people of different faiths, nor do I feel a need to tell them about some paradise. If they have peace with whatever faith they follow, then good for them


    Listen, believe what you want to believe. I've no issue with that. However, don't tell me that I should have the same view being a christian. there is an Irony there in your logic no? As I said, a christian doesn't just have a 'belief he wants you to believe', that is the fallacy which you quite bleightently ignored from my previous post! A christian has a 'life giving message'. If I believe I've got a life giving message. it would be very mean and irresponsible of me to keep that to myself. Just because you think its cr@p, and that all beliefs are equal etc etc, does not mean that I should not be responsible with my faith. By all means believe what you like, but you do not understand why a christian is supposed to proclaiming the good news.
    Funny how you decided it was me saying how Christians should be though, when I was saying it towards all faiths. Not very tolerant of you.

    No, its funny how you think I'm being intolerant, when its you that doesn't tolerate a christians duty. I have no issue with your beliefs, just don't ignorantly declare that I should share them. For a christian, your belief of, 'keep it to yourself, and let others get on with it' equates to 'Let the guy walk off the cliff'. When one accepts the good news of the kingdom, one doesn't keep it to oneself.


Advertisement