Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Godfather · 10-09-2004, 07:59 PM

A popular apologetics book titled " I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" has some interesting things to say about evidence. Just look at this: "God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anone willing to believe, yet he has also let some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling."
They say throughout the book that God wants the decision to be ours if we want to believe in Him or not. The book states that there is enough evidence to make Christianity a reasonable choice for our worldview but for those looking for that solid concrete proof, such as seeing God in the flesh and seeing Him rise from the dead etc.., they will not get it. Now that seems to make sense, but it leaves out a very important point: supposedly a lot of people SAW GOD, SAW MIRACLES, SAW CONCRETE PROOF! :banghead:
We are to believe a book that puts people in situations where they have no choice but to believe in the Christian God, but we are expected to believe without any of the evidence that they had. :huh: Pathetic.

Does he need to eat the computer screen? That would be cool. :rolling:

Epictetus · 10-11-2004, 03:10 PM

After thinking about this for a while, I have come to the conclusion that debating the fact / fiction of the resurrection is a bit like debating what period of the Mesozoic did Barney the Dinosaur came from? Was it the Triassic, Jurrasic or Cretaceous? How many hours could be spent arguing that purple dinosaurs only came from the Triassic and predated green dinosaurs? We could endlessly converse on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of Barney and how it corresponds with Michael Crighton's views on Velociraptor.

But to what end? The contemplation of the resurrection of ANY human being is irrational and pointless. Just as it is stupid to argue about what genus Barney came from, discussing the possibility and historicity of the resurrection is moot if Jesus never even existed. The point is that BARNEY IS A GUY IN A DINOSAUR SUIT. The resurrection is a fairy tale of the same credibility as the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. :rolling:

Golgo_13 · 01-24-2005, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

If anyone can produce ONE shred of evidence which contradicts the claimed facts that they did not die alone for the witness of the Resurrection I will eat this post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinAce

(Total annhilation)

Would you like fries with that?

10-09-2004, 07:59 PM	#41
Godfather Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Hurricane Central. Posts: 158	Happy Day! A popular apologetics book titled " I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" has some interesting things to say about evidence. Just look at this: "God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anone willing to believe, yet he has also let some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling." They say throughout the book that God wants the decision to be ours if we want to believe in Him or not. The book states that there is enough evidence to make Christianity a reasonable choice for our worldview but for those looking for that solid concrete proof, such as seeing God in the flesh and seeing Him rise from the dead etc.., they will not get it. Now that seems to make sense, but it leaves out a very important point: supposedly a lot of people SAW GOD, SAW MIRACLES, SAW CONCRETE PROOF! :banghead: We are to believe a book that puts people in situations where they have no choice but to believe in the Christian God, but we are expected to believe without any of the evidence that they had. :huh: Pathetic. Does he need to eat the computer screen? That would be cool. :rolling:

10-11-2004, 03:10 PM	#42
Epictetus Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: The Tethys Sea Posts: 369	Useless expenditure of energy After thinking about this for a while, I have come to the conclusion that debating the fact / fiction of the resurrection is a bit like debating what period of the Mesozoic did Barney the Dinosaur came from? Was it the Triassic, Jurrasic or Cretaceous? How many hours could be spent arguing that purple dinosaurs only came from the Triassic and predated green dinosaurs? We could endlessly converse on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of Barney and how it corresponds with Michael Crighton's views on Velociraptor. But to what end? The contemplation of the resurrection of ANY human being is irrational and pointless. Just as it is stupid to argue about what genus Barney came from, discussing the possibility and historicity of the resurrection is moot if Jesus never even existed. The point is that BARNEY IS A GUY IN A DINOSAUR SUIT. The resurrection is a fairy tale of the same credibility as the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. :rolling:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.