leonarde

Previously posted by Clutch:I agree with 1) and 2) but not with 3). And by the
way, it's no biggie if you don't believe in a god.

Cheers!

malookiemaloo

When I said that the gospel writers were not historians I did not mean that they did not record history. In the strict sense of the word they were not historians like, say, Tacitus.

I do not believe that the gospel writers fabricated anything. It just does not make any sense to do so. What motivation is there in fabricating the resurrection especially by doing so you puts your life in danger?!

However, to return to the empty tomb.

If the body of one of the thieves on the cross crucified beside Jesus went missing after three days, would anyone take note. Obviously not.

But in Jesus we had someone different. He appears, by all accounts, rather un-charismatic. Performs signs and wonders viz. heals people, raises the dead and 'speaks as no ther man speaks'. (I am aware that signs and wonders have been carried out by others, but not to the same degree.) Oh, and by the way, he said he would rise again.

The disciples did not understand the references to his rising again. Perfectly understandable, but the claims were enough for the Pharisees to request permission from Pilate to place a guard on the tomb.

Then, on the Sunday, an empty tomb plus reports of Jesus rising.

In addition, Genesis records that death was a punishment for sin. Jesus had no sin, therefore death could not hold him.

You must admit, there is a certain logic to it all.

By the way all you smart alec sceptics who think the Bible wrong when it says that Jesus appeared to the Twelve and it really should have been Eleven. Well, go read you Bible because it should have been Ten as Thomas was not present!!

bye for now,


Alistair

Clutch

leonarde,

Sorry for not making the point too obvious to avoid. I was sending up the convenience and vacuity of your response, namely: The reason why there's nothing like the evidence that would make it rational to believe in a very good, very powerful creator is... uh, well, you wouldn't believe it even if there was.

What a weird, unmotivated and insulting bit of armchair psychoanalysis! It amounts to saying, in essence, "Yes, the evidence for my view is crap."

leonarde

Partial post by Clutch, trying to sum up (my?) position:No, that's not how I would put it; it isn't really
even a fair statement of the situation. If you read this board assiduously you find that there are almost as many 'evidences' requested as there
are non-theist members. A LOT of those 'evidences'
amount to fantasy evidence: I'll ask for X because
I know that X doesn't exist. So, for example, a while back we had a member/user say: if only Jesus had PERSONALLY written a book of the New Testament......(the implication being that
this was a great stumbling block to religious belief). But then when the proposition was explored further on the thread it was clear (to me
anyway) that even if such a NT book existed
it would mean nothing to the non-theist in question: he would just ask for some OTHER (presumed non-existing)evidence. Usually though things aren't explored in such depth: the fantasy evidence requested is unremarked on (or perhaps matched by some OTHER idiosyncratic demand
for fantasy evidence).
On this thread we had, momentarily, a member (Dargo) who claimed that if god would only spare 10 minutes 'proving' his existence (the proof was
never really spelled out) then things would be be
hunky dory. I was, and remain unconvinced. But perhaps Dargo can give US 10 minutes and tell us
what god could do in those 10 minutes that would
be more persuasive than anything in the NT and the
OT....

Cheers!

Clutch

Didn't you just go on to argue -- badly -- that in fact it is a fair statement of the situation?

I'm sure that lots of non-theists have mentioned lots of different kinds of evidence that would make it more rational to believe in (at least) a very good, very powerful creative being. Examples are examples; they are meant to be instances of a kind. It's an interpretation too weird for words, that you take these examples to be, in aggregate, some sort of Overall Atheist List of Absolutely Required Evidence -- even though the satisfaction of even such a list would be less than trivial for an omnipotent agent.

Dargo's point, as I understood it, was not the absurd claim that "things would be hunky dory" if a god undertook to provide ten minutes of evidence. It was that no god has done even that much. See the difference?

And the bottom line is that you are making exactly the move I observed: Rationalizing the actual lack of evidence by appealing to your mysterious knowledge that, even if there were lots of evidence, atheists still wouldn't believe.

Shall we run the same reasoning with the IPU, then?

leonarde

Posted by Clutch:I do. But I ALSO see that Dargo didn't specify what was (in his fantasy) going to happen in those
10 minutes. And in my very first post to this thread I observed that ----if we brought the fantasy just a TAD down to earth---- it's unlikely
anything could happen in those 10 minutes that would be any more persuasive to, say, people 2000
years from now than the remarkable events of Judea/Galilee of 25 to 30 AD (okay alleged events) are to........Dargo and company.

Cheers!

GreggLD1

Why would the gospel writers have been putting their lives in danger by making up this story? You seem to be confusing the gospel writers, who wrote 3 or 4 decades or more after the supposed events, with the disciples. And the only word we have that the Jewish authorities could have cared less what the disciples claimed about their revered Rabbi comes from the Gospels! We have no corroboration for Jesus' existence, much less his trial and crucifixion, outside of two highly controversial passages from Josephus.The only evidence we have for this is the claims of Christians writing 35 years or more after the supposed events! Do you expect them to say, "our Lord performed ordinary, garden-variety miracles that any hack could do, and his teachings weren't especially original"? You should read this post in "Miscellaneous Discussions" that lists what Josef Stalin's propoganda writers had to say about him.Again, the only evidence you have for this are stories written by Christians 35 or more years after the supposed events. There is no record of these things anywhere else.And people aren't capable of making up fictional or allegorical stories that have a certain logic to them? Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a certain logic. Star Wars has a certain logic. All the mythical tales of antiquity have a certain logic. Lord of the Rings has a certain logic. Does this make them fact?

Dargo

How about introducing himself, telling us which one of the Earth's numerous religions is the true one, and what exactly he expects from us. If the Christian god was the real one, I would expect him to say something like Jesus is my son and unless you accept him as your lord and savior you will burn in hell for all eternity. He might also take a few minutes to clear up some of the doctrinal disputes that have divided Christianity into numerous sects. God (if he/she it exists at all) is silent, so any fraud can claim to speak for god. Prophets for god have caused untold misery throughout human history. If god appeared regularly they would find this very difficult to do.

I was a Christian only a few years ago. Years of repeated disapointments finally caused me to start questioning my religion. While I was deconverting, I pleaded with god for some tiny piece of evidence to help keep my faith from eroding. To make a long story short, my prayers went unanswered, yet again. Many others on this board have had similar experiences. It would take many times as much evidence to convince me Chrisitianity is true now than it would to have kept me from losing my faith in the first place. It takes a lot more effort to rebuild a collapsed bridge than to repair one that is just starting to sag. Those of us who used to be Christians, have seen our faith shattered. Repairing it is beyond human capacity. You will no doubt say that god can do anything. This omnipotent god was unable or unwilling to keep our faith from collapsing. What makes you think he is going to perform some impossible miracle to restore it?

Clutch

Please tell me that you're not thinking carefully before you write things like this. We're talking about what it's rational for each of us, now, to believe. Not what it will be rational to believe in 2000 years about what's happening now.

Let's take just one example. An old book exhibiting all the signs of mythology says that at least two of every ("kind" of) animal could be fit onto a wooden boat of such-and-such dimensions. I don't buy it, says a sceptic; there's just no way, especially if you allow for food... etc.

BUT -- continues the sceptic -- if a god really wanted to give me a more defensible reason to believe that two, or seven, or whatever, of every animal could be fit onto a wooden boat of such-and-such dimensions, he would just make one, complete with all the animals, and let me walk around in it, have a good look, count the animals, etc. It wouldn't "cost" him anything, since he's omnipotent; the notions of "busy", "bothersome" or "hassle" just don't apply.

WELL -- comes the reply from leonarde -- here's the thing. There's just no better conceivable evidence than the unsubstantiated, science-defying say-so of an old book exhibiting all the signs of mythology. If that wouldn't convince a sceptic, well then, neither would an actual existence proof of physical wood, flesh and sinew in his backyard. Surely the latter is no better evidence than the former!!!! (Keep adding exclamation marks until this stops looking like utter stupidity...)

Are you really unaware of how desperately awful your argument is, here?

Peter Kirby

How about writing the Nicene Creed (in English, Latin, Greek--any existing human language, or better yet multiple ones) clearly in huge ravines on the far side of the moon?

Also, your challenge might make sense if God were a deist type, who decided long ago that it would be impossible to convince humanity of His existence so doesn't even try. However, allegedly, your God does attempt to reveal his existence--through age-old scribbles without autographs and fuzzy feelings attributed to the Holy Spirit. If God is going to interact with the world, why does He do so in a way that is so easily explained in naturalistic terms?

best,
Peter Kirby