Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Atticus_Finch · 10-21-2002, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin:
That is incorrect. Christian faith is based on historical fact. Paul wrote that if Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain. Therefore, Christianity purports to be based on historical fact. "Faith" is belief in the promises of God and His word. For example, one could believe that Jesus lived, died and rose again and not have "faith" that he will return in glory. But, a Christian can not reasonably believe that Jesus will return in glory unless he believes that Jesus actually lived, died and rose again.

You are chasing your tail, Atticus.

You, as a Christian, must 'believe without proof' that the entire biblical fable that was chucked together from assorted tales is a literal account of events.

You must also discount all of the other religious fables of the assorted world cultures that contradict the claims of Christianity and those Christian fairy tales that 'did not make the cut' when the canon was collected.

That you have a character in a story named Paul admonishing 'believers' that if Christ is not risen then our 'faith' is in vain is merely a circuitous snare to keep the sheep in line. To say that the Bible is true, because the characters in the Bible say it is true is credulity at its worst.

Ultimately, your last sentence reduced your defense back to re-inforcing the fact that ~

The crucifixion and all the tenets of Christianity are based on 'faith' ~

Faith is the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

You misunderstood my post. I did not intend it as a proof of the claims of the NT. I offered it as proof that the Christian "faith" purports to be based upon historical facts. Like Paul, I assert that it is irrational for someone to believe that Christ will come again if Christ is dead and buried. Christianity rests upon the premise that Jesus rose from the dead. That is either a fact or it is not. There is evidence of his resurrection and it is upon that evidence that I base my "faith" in his promise to return. You may dispute the evidence but you can not reasonably say that it does not exist. Nor can you say that Christian faith is not based upon historical evidence. You may not agree that the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion but you can not say there is no evidence.

Regards,

Finch

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]

Atticus_Finch · 10-21-2002, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:


accidental double post

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]

Layman · 10-21-2002, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wade-w:


As I understand it, the legal system doesn't technically require proof that will convince a jury, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt

The correct legal standard would probably be by a preponderance of the evidence.

Of course the whole issue is rather silly. Determining the occurrence of past events is not really the primary goal of the legal system.

Vorkosigan · 10-21-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rdalin:


The historicity of Jesus is hotly debated, let alone the resurrection. It is not correct to state that no serious historian doubts it.
.

In any case, as Bede knows perfectly well, historians are without a methodology for extracting history from literary creations like the gospels. Only outside vectors can do that, and no outside vector confirms the Jesus legends.

Ronin · 10-21-2002, 02:10 PM

Atticus ~

I did not intend it as a proof of the claims of the NT. I offered it as proof that the Christian "faith" purports to be based upon historical facts.

An assertion such as this is not 'evidence'. It is yet more circuitous nonsense.

Christianity rests upon the premise that Jesus rose from the dead. That is either a fact or it is not.

It is a 'premise' based on 'faith' and not a fact. You have said it yourself.

There is evidence of his resurrection and it is upon that evidence that I base my "faith" in his promise to return.

There is no evidence, Atticus, just your faithful assertion. I have seen ancient and modern art depicting Zeus in all his godly glory ~ is this evidence to you of his existence?

You may dispute the evidence but you can not reasonably say that it does not exist.

Nor can you say that Christian faith is not based upon historical evidence. You may not agree that the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion but you can not say there is no evidence.

It does not exist, Atticus, and for the reasons I have repeatedly given.

The Christ fable is not evidence that its claims are factual and historical just because the fable says that it is so.

That is why it is called the 'Christian Faith' ~ a pretentious myth among thousands of others.

HelenM · 10-21-2002, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin:
Atticus ~

I did not intend it as a proof of the claims of the NT. I offered it as proof that the Christian "faith" purports to be based upon historical facts.

An assertion such as this is not 'evidence'. It is yet more circuitous nonsense.

So, you assert without evidence, that Atticus's assertions are without evidence.

Helen

Ronin · 10-21-2002, 03:14 PM

No. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the 'believer'.

But, I missed you too.

HelenM · 10-21-2002, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin:
No. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the 'believer'.

Then that would be you - if you believe your assertions

Quote:

But, I missed you too.

Unlikely but, perhaps you did

Helen

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]

Kosh · 10-21-2002, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


In any case, as Bede knows perfectly well, historians are without a methodology for extracting history from literary creations like the gospels. Only outside vectors can do that, and no outside vector confirms the Jesus legends.

Michael - which accunt was just a sockpuppet for Bede? Was it Atticus Finch, or Alexus Commonus? I can never keep the two straight!

Thanks.

leonarde · 10-21-2002, 07:02 PM

Partial post by Ronin:

Quote:

You, as a Christian, must 'believe without proof' that the entire biblical fable that was chucked together from assorted tales is a literal account of events.

Why is it that on thread after thread of this message board "Christian" is equated by non-theists with "Biblical inerrantist/literalist" when by everyone's estimate such inerrantists make up only a fraction of the Christian believers?

Cheers!

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

10-21-2002, 02:10 PM	#25
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	Atticus ~ I did not intend it as a proof of the claims of the NT. I offered it as proof that the Christian "faith" purports to be based upon historical facts. An assertion such as this is not 'evidence'. It is yet more circuitous nonsense. Christianity rests upon the premise that Jesus rose from the dead. That is either a fact or it is not. It is a 'premise' based on 'faith' and not a fact. You have said it yourself. There is evidence of his resurrection and it is upon that evidence that I base my "faith" in his promise to return. There is no evidence, Atticus, just your faithful assertion. I have seen ancient and modern art depicting Zeus in all his godly glory ~ is this evidence to you of his existence? You may dispute the evidence but you can not reasonably say that it does not exist. Nor can you say that Christian faith is not based upon historical evidence. You may not agree that the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion but you can not say there is no evidence. It does not exist, Atticus, and for the reasons I have repeatedly given. The Christ fable is not evidence that its claims are factual and historical just because the fable says that it is so. That is why it is called the 'Christian Faith' ~ a pretentious myth among thousands of others.

10-21-2002, 03:14 PM	#27
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	No. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the 'believer'. But, I missed you too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.