Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 08-22-2012, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Resurrections are fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If you are wrong then you are a LIAR. And an arrogant one. Wouldn't you rather be more honest and just say "I don't believe in resurrections because I see no evidence for them"?

My BELIEFS are COMPATIBLE with the evidence.

I BELIEVE Resurrections are fiction based on the available evidence and that is precisely why I declared, "Resurrections are Fiction"

I guess I object to stating an opinion and a belief as a fact. That is what you do that I have a real problem with. It isn't fact. As you say here--one of the very RARE times you have done this--it is a belief. I know that. Everyone knows that. But, when you don't qualify it as such, and you state it as a fact, it comes across -to me anyway-as arrogant and self-important. Maybe I overreact because I am keenly aware of--and bothered by--the fact that I don't really KNOW much of anything..anyway, it is good to see you respond this way above.

Quote:

Again, your own posts betray you. Your posting pattern exhibit a lot of anger. Examine one of your own angry post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

There have been several unsubstantiated claims about my ability to understand reason, yet no one attempts an actual argument and few try to address my arguments. freeratio has really gone downhill in the quality of the posters. aa leads the pack--just awful. The level of conspiracy thinking would be hilarious if it were so sad. Have fun, you all--although it doesn't seem like many here really are anymore..I miss the good old days..

I don't know. That sounds to me more like frustration and some sadness than anger. But there are some things going on with me that perhaps are surfacing unconsciously. I've said I'm done here and now it is time to follow through.

Peace to all.

Toto · 08-22-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I cannot assume the resurrection may have occured when I have no evidence that a resurrection can happen.

Why not? Prior to their being evidence that the earth is round would you have said you cannot assume that it may be round? Prior to their being evidence for evolution would you have said you cannot assume that evolution may be true? Prior to the discovery of black holes would you have said you cannot assume that black holes may not exist? How are these different than saying prior to being shown evidence of a resurrection you cannot assume that a resurrection may have happened? Do you know enough about life and death to claim that a dead person can never come back to life? When we don't even know what the source is for this universe and the life in it, how can we say one way or the other?

Scientists know enough about human life to say that a person who has been dead for 3 days and is not cryogenically preserved or otherwise the subject of a science experiment cannot come back to life.

Besides, you have zero credible evidence of a resurrection.

Quote:

My Objective is KNOWN. I will show that the HJ argument is hopelessly flawed, contradictory and based on logical fallacies, Presumptions and sources that are ADMITTEDLY filled with erroneous and implausible information.

But you haven't said why you care so deeply about this issue. You are very driven psychologically. I think it might be fascinating to discover why that is--what the REAL REASON is that you do this. Are you angry as hell about something? Did a Christian treat you badly? You certainly don't have to answer personal questions, but I would suggest that there has got to be a more satisfying way...

There may be psychological motives behind a post, but exploring them is off topic here. A person may be angry or neurotic, but that has nothing to do with whether the argument is correct or not.

TedM · 08-22-2012, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Scientists know enough about human life to say that a person who has been dead for 3 days and is not cryogenically preserved or otherwise the subject of a science experiment cannot come back to life.

They may say it, but they do not "know" it. They know enough to say they they cannot come up with any scientifically plausible method in which to bring the person back to life. No one can say that the subject "cannot" come back to life because no one can stop God or the God's (if there are any) from acting in a supernatural way or by using laws of our universe that we have not yet discovered to resurrect him in a natural way.

Quote:

Besides, you have zero credible evidence of a resurrection.

Now that's one I think I can agree with you on.

Toto · 08-22-2012, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...no one can stop God or the God's (if there are any) from acting in a supernatural way or by using laws of our universe that we have not yet discovered to resurrect him in a natural way...

This is not a serious argument. There are thousands of years of scientific observation, and no actual example of supernatural intervention. The possibility of a god intervening to resurrect one person has to be infinitely small.

And the idea that such a god would intervene to supernaturally raise one person from the dead 2,000 years ago, but not provide any evidence, yet expect people to believe - it's just silly.

aa5874 · 08-22-2012, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Scientists know enough about human life to say that a person who has been dead for 3 days and is not cryogenically preserved or otherwise the subject of a science experiment cannot come back to life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

They may say it, but they do not "know" it. They know enough to say they they cannot come up with any scientifically plausible method in which to bring the person back to life. No one can say that the subject "cannot" come back to life because no one can stop God or the God's (if there are any) from acting in a supernatural way or by using laws of our universe that we have not yet discovered to resurrect him in a natural way.

Your view is hopeless. When a person is declared to be dead this implies that the subject cannot come back to life and can be BURIED OR CREMATED.

This is so basic.

Once a subject has LOST its life it cannot come back.

aa5874 · 08-23-2012, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I guess I object to stating an opinion and a belief as a fact. That is what you do that I have a real problem with. It isn't fact. As you say here--one of the very RARE times you have done this--it is a belief. I know that. Everyone knows that. But, when you don't qualify it as such, and you state it as a fact, it comes across -to me anyway-as arrogant and self-important. Maybe I overreact because I am keenly aware of--and bothered by--the fact that I don't really KNOW much of anything..anyway, it is good to see you respond this way above...

Please, what you say is really irrelevant because I can say that you come across as angry, arrogant. illogical and unreasonable.

Please, I am not here for argument sake. I am here to show that the HJ argument is hopelessly flawed and is supported by discredited sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't know. That sounds to me more like frustration and some sadness than anger. But there are some things going on with me that perhaps are surfacing unconsciously. I've said I'm done here and now it is time to follow through.

Peace to all.

Almost everytime you start a thread as soon as you are challenged you immediately threaten to withdraw but continue to post.

Any argument that cannot withstand scrutiny is already flawed and must fail.

The Short gMark has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Salvation or Remission of Sins by the crucifixion and Resurrection.

Lugubert · 08-23-2012, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Mark 16:2-7

Quote:

2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, “ Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘ He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

If that isn't a resurrection, what is?

It isn't a resurrection, it is a story that alleges that there was a resurrection.

In this connection, I'd like to know if there are writing that are more specific on the number of persons who rose from their graves (Mt. 27).

Those guys had been dead for much longer than Jesus. Doesn't this reduce the uniqueness of Jesus' supposed revival?

Minimalist · 08-23-2012, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Technically that's true of all of them. Only in the gospel of Peter with its super-sized jesus and walking-talking cross was there an actual, walk-out-of-the-tomb resurrection story..... and that one was too stupid even for early xtians apparently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think that Mark (and Paul too, for that matter) did not conceive the Resurrection as an interval of physical resuscitation prior to an ascension. I think the Resurrection was originally just believed to be an exultation - the ascension straight to Heaven was the Resurrection. Neither Mark or Paul has a secondary ascension. I believe this is because the resurrection and the ascension were originally the same thing, and that the interlude of physical resuscitation prior to a final ascension was a later accretion, probably developed to counter docetic views.

The various stories, and various versions of various stories, is evidence for evolving or competing myth-fiction, or both.

Precisely, sir. In a fish story the fish never gets smaller.

MrMacSon · 08-23-2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

In a fish story the fish never gets smaller.

As does the alleged capacity for a fish or two to feed the multitudes ...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.