Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Half-Life · 03-01-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

How come every time there is proof of the Gospels written by an outside source, atheists immediately pick it apart?

Why do you ask? Should not any proof be immediately picked apart--by an atheist or indeed anyone? Has philosophy given us nothing? Is there no place even for opposition of the advocatus diabolus variety? Have we lost the right to cross-examine any witness?

Quote:

What would constitute as evdence for you guys?

Evidence would.

Peter Kirby

But see, you guys always demand non-apologetic information. When Christians give those to you, you still try to discredit it and go "Where's the non-apologetic sources?"

Just HOW MANY sources would've convinced you?

If 99% of the people wrote about these events you guys would probably still go "Well Person X didn't write about it so there!!"

Peter Kirby · 03-01-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Why do you ask? Should not any proof be immediately picked apart--by an atheist or indeed anyone? Has philosophy given us nothing? Is there no place even for opposition of the advocatus diabolus variety? Have we lost the right to cross-examine any witness?

Evidence would.

Peter Kirby

But see, you guys always demand non-apologetic information. When Christians give those to you, you still try to discredit it and go "Where's the non-apologetic sources?"

Just HOW MANY sources would've convinced you?

If 99% of the people wrote about these events you guys would probably still go "Well Person X didn't write about it so there!!"

Half-Life,

I am explaining to you that your us-them mentality has distracted you from executing good thought process on this subject. One of the first reactions to any proof,--no matter who presents it, to whom it is presented, or on what the presentation is,--should be to take it apart and see how well it works. This is a universal truth about good reasoning regarding "proofs" and is well-advised, not just by atheists, but by Christians such as I am.

The "you guys" attitude has to go if you want to be authentically involved in a discussion about this stuff.

Peter Kirby

Half-Life · 03-01-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

But see, you guys always demand non-apologetic information. When Christians give those to you, you still try to discredit it and go "Where's the non-apologetic sources?"

Just HOW MANY sources would've convinced you?

If 99% of the people wrote about these events you guys would probably still go "Well Person X didn't write about it so there!!"

Half-Life,

I am explaining to you that your us-them mentality has distracted you from executing good thought process on this subject. One of the first reactions to any proof,--no matter who presents it, to whom it is presented, or on what the presentation is,--should be to take it apart and see how well it works. This is a universal truth about good reasoning regarding "proofs" and is well-advised, not just by atheists, but by Christians such as I am.

The "you guys" attitude has to go if you want to be authentically involved in a discussion about this stuff.

Peter Kirby

Yes, you are right. I apologize.

Gullwind · 03-01-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

However, let's say for the sake of argument God telepathically communicated to every human that he exists.

This would VIOLATE free will of either WANTING to receive God's will or being FORCED to obey God's will.

Why? The bible is full of stories about people who knew from first-hand experience that God existed, yet that knowledge didn't stop them from disobeying. Adam and Eve, for starters.

How would God revealing himself "force" anyone to obey him?

03-01-2008, 07:53 PM

If something unusual happened in the heavens I would expect to see it referenced in the writings and folklore of many different cultures.

More importantly, unless the deity spelled out it's name in stars, something unusual happening in the heavens is not proof of the existence of a deity.

If your god existed, he would know exactly what it would take to prove his existence to me. A precedence has been set in the bible. According to the bible god has proved his existence many times in the past. If, as the bible says, god exists and loves me then he will prove his existence to me. If he doesn't prove his existence to me than he is either nonexistent or he is lying when he says he loves me.

03-01-2008, 09:30 PM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

* A pagan historian by the name of Thallus, who lived shortly after the resurrection of Christ. In about A.D. 52 he wrote concerning a miraculous darkness that covered the earth at the Passover of A.D. 32 and attempted to explain it as an eclipse of the sun. Julius Africanus, a Christian teacher in North Africa in A.D. 215, wrote concerning this historian's assertions, "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably as it seems to me." Julius contends, and modern astronomers confirm, that the Paschal full moon in which the Passover occurred (the Passover in which Christ was crucified) could not have been eclipsed. Thus, no known natural explanation can be presented to explain the darkness referred to in the Bible as occurring during Christ's crucifixion.

Mate -
we don't have the words of Thallus, we don't even know for sure when he lived. The claim he lived in 52AD is made up from a mis-understanding.

There WAS an eclipse in 29AD, and it appears that Thallus may have referred to this eclipse as an eclipse.

Then,
centuries later, Christians claimed he was referring to THEIR darkness.

Pretty much the same thing happened with Phlegon - he referred to a known eclipse as an eclipse.

Then, much later, Christians believers claimed he referred to THEIR darkness.

In fact -
there is no evidence what-so-ever that Thallus or Phlegon referred to the Christian darkness in any way. They simply mentioned a known eclipse - so what?

This is the problem Peter pointed to - you never bother to CHECK these claims, you just believe anything that supports your faithful beliefs.

Until you show some critical thinking, your faithful beliefs will get no traction here.

Iasion

Half-Life · 03-01-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

However, let's say for the sake of argument God telepathically communicated to every human that he exists.

This would VIOLATE free will of either WANTING to receive God's will or being FORCED to obey God's will.

Why? The bible is full of stories about people who knew from first-hand experience that God existed, yet that knowledge didn't stop them from disobeying. Adam and Eve, for starters.

How would God revealing himself "force" anyone to obey him?

So if you won't obey God, why should he show up and appear to you?

Just so you can go "Oh Hey God! Nope sorry, still not worshiping though. Nice effort though buddy."

GenesisNemesis · 03-01-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

So if you won't obey God, why should he show up and appear to you?

He shouldn't.

juergen · 03-01-2008, 10:36 PM

I'm sorry I keep showing up in your threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

However, let's say for the sake of argument God telepathically communicated to every human that he exists.

This would VIOLATE free will of either WANTING to receive God's will or being FORCED to obey God's will.

It only violates free will if it makes the person believe whatever it says, and makes him or her act differently if the person doesn't want that. Why does every little evidence so often gets interpreted as having the power to totally violate free will?

For the moment, I'm going to ignore that differing Christians totally disagree with each other to what the word of God has to say about free will and say this: If a voice tells you something, it doesn't necessarily have to coerce the person to believe it and leave out any personal choice.

What about the possibility of reasoning for possible outcomes? What if this voice of God simply displays evidence which God would know could appeal to that person's way of looking at things, and is in itself convincing enough that it's from way beyond our known dimensions? The possibility for choosing to follow would still be there, wouldn't it?

There's always "convincing" as an option, which doesn't violate personal choice, though it influences it. I got a lot of married friends and though I'm not married myself, I'd argue that if you're married, you know about how the act of convincing your spouse influences the spouse's POV and desicions, it's not a bad thing necessarily (well, depending on what the the spouse wants i guess :Cheeky

.

If I had to sum it up in one question: Does anyone, when he tries to convince someone else, violate that someone else's free will? Who better to know how to convince someone of the right thing, than the creator himself? It would be for a good cause, yes? Preserving that person from eternal punishment? Instead, this doesn't happen to a whole lot of people who go through doubts that tear all faith from them, even though they'd wish it had gone differently at the time of going through it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Just so you can go "Oh Hey God! Nope sorry, still not worshiping though. Nice effort though buddy."

You underestimate what this apparition would really mean for a rational person. Just because it doesn't happen doesn't mean one can claim that a skeptic would be unimpressed at the presence of something entirely supernatural (if it existed and showed up like it).

fta · 03-01-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Interesting. If there was a darkness that covered the whole Earth in AD 32, would any other historians be expected to comment on it?

ARE there any other historians that mention the world-wide darkness? No matter what their ideology...?

Reminds me of a well-known passage from Gibbon:

Quote:

But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, daemons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Caesar, when, during the greatest part of a year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendor. The season of obscurity, which cannot surely be compared with the preternatural darkness of the Passion, had been already celebrated by most of the poets and historians of that memorable age...

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

03-01-2008, 07:53 PM	#15
Donn10 Guest Posts: n/a	If something unusual happened in the heavens I would expect to see it referenced in the writings and folklore of many different cultures. More importantly, unless the deity spelled out it's name in stars, something unusual happening in the heavens is not proof of the existence of a deity. If your god existed, he would know exactly what it would take to prove his existence to me. A precedence has been set in the bible. According to the bible god has proved his existence many times in the past. If, as the bible says, god exists and loves me then he will prove his existence to me. If he doesn't prove his existence to me than he is either nonexistent or he is lying when he says he loves me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.