Justin70

Pulled from TheologyWeb:

"After reading Richard Carrier's argument about the "possibility" that Jesus' body had been moved and then reading Glenn Miller's response the wheels in my head began turning an little.
As I was going through both men's arguments I saw more than just historical "plausibilities" being tossed around, but instead I saw both men's Presuppositions come to the surface. For Carrier, the Supernatural cannot happen, for Miller the Supernatural can happen. I think Christians and Atheist should learn something from these very thoughtful works of scholarship and research. That When the Christian tries to put forward a case for the Resurrection to the Skeptic it will ALWAYS be rejected or, pretty much always. The Atheist or Materialist simply cannot allow for the super natural to happen so even if we had "irrefutable"(no such thing really) historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, the skeptic would come up with a naturalistic "plausibility"(the Supernatural Cannot happen so we go in search for another explanation). In Carrier's rebuttal of Miller he admits that his "scenario" may be implausible but to Carrier it is not less plausible than a Miracle. I would whole heartedly agree with Richard, but I do not hold to the same Presuppositions. I think Glenn knows this, and he knows that Richard would never accept the Resurrection but that is not the purpose of Glenn's site, all the Christian has to do is defend the faith, and give it rational grounding. The Atheist may say that the Chrsitian has no rational grounds but that in fact is a ruling out of his/her own worldview (Presuppostions)!"

This text is in reference to evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ.

I don't know about any of you, but it insults me to no end that Christians ASSUME that atheists have some type of 'agenda' and that I or any other atheist would absolutely REFUSE evidence if the trail led to the Christian god or ANY other god as an actual REAL option. If there was a TON of evidence for some type of god or superior being out there, I think I'd be the first to pop up and seriously consider doing whatever it is that he/she/it wanted and finding out more.

Anyways, just a rant. Any thoughts?

Asha'man

I gotta agree with you, Justin. Christians are full of assumptions about what atheists believe. They think we are denying god, are afraid of him, are biased, can’t think straight, etc. They have to think this way, otherwise they would have to confront the fact that the flaw in thinking is on their side.

Radorth

Well when you have atheists admitting they would rather burn in hell than serve God in any way, you do wonder. I suggest some would not be able to tell him from the devil, because of their own cynicism, and have admitted as much. Therefore, evidence would not make any difference to their attitude. I know some skeptics disbelieve in good conscience, but these usually admit that they simply don't believe there is a God. Those with an agenda assert "There is no God" and they would not believe until he came and personally proved he was God. And even then they would give him an earful.

Which may explain why God reveals himself plainly to some and not to others.

Rad

Daggah

Straw man #1.

Straw man #2.

Straw man #3.

Tautology - disbelieving is the same as not believing, by definition. So of course those atheists who disbelieve say they simply don't believe.

Straw man #4.

Red herring.

Non-sequitur.

Radorth

Heh. Of course no one will deny skeptics have said these things (I hope).

Rad

Dr Rick

....strawman #5.

Radorth

Ooh, it appears the Gang of Four is assembling to prosecute another Salem Rad trial, hoping to sway the jury with a mountain of irrelevant comments, (using precisely the tactics they accuse the witch of).

Rad

Daggah

Actually, Rad, not quite. The fallacies in your post are self-evident, and your entire post is just an attempt to derail the discussion. This will be my last post directed to you in this thread unless you attempt to reply with an on-topic post.

Radorth

Really? I thought one of the issues was whether Christians assume atheists are biased and have an agenda. I responded by saying we have reason to wonder about SOME atheists and I gave reasons why, and referred to statements most people have heard made on II.

Do tell us the post topic then.

And this time he really means it.

Rad

Illithid

On Topic: It has seemed to me in a previous discussion that the Christian with whom I was discussing this question could not allow himself to accept that I was honestly not believing in his God due to lack of evidence for his existence. Consider: if I really have no evidence of God's existence, then my lack of belief is not my choice. I cannot accept a proposition for which there is no evidence, and if I do not accept this proposition I am damned, through no free willed act of my own, which contradicted his concept of a just God.

Thus, he was forced by his own beliefs to the position that I was not honest, that I actually knew "in my heart" that God existed, and was denying him by choice, rendering me culpable and responsible for my ultimate fate. He _could_not_ accept my word that I simply had no reason to believe, but must by lying (conciously or not). Naturally, I found this humorous and insulting by turns, and the discussion ended.

Off Topic: Hi, Radorth. I would just like to clarify, without starting a big debate, that many comments I've seen like those you cite might be best described as being addressed toward a hypothetical God. It's a sort of shorthand, like a behaviorist psychologist who says "the rat was hungry" rather than "the rat was subjected to a hunger stimulus". Some of us might not want to go to the trouble of typing the extended version, which might be "God (if such a being existed, as described by the Christian Bible especially the OT, and judging by the moral standards that Christians claim this God invented and that they follow) is an evil bastard". The short version, without the parenthetical insertion, is admittedly easy to misinterpret.

For my own position: I see no evidence for any "supernatural" beings or events. I have no particular preference one way or another for the existence of a deity, or several. Some form of existence after death might be nice. However, the god YHWH, as described in the OT, is indeed evil, both by my own standards, that of this society, and by the standards most Christians espouse. If this being existed and were demonstrated to me to be the Supreme Being of the Universe, I would probably pragmatically knuckle under, though I would always be ashamed I didn't have the courage to defy him. But I doubt the occasion will arise.