| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| What is the point of atheism? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=800 |
Page 5 of 6 |
| Author: | ed 'lim' smilde [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
corrections wrote: This topic exemplifies the reason Christianity (and all other religions) have lasted so long: because of fear. StrongRad pretty much said what needs to be said on this topic, but really, your point isn't even true. Who still worships Ba'al, Kishar, Egyptian Pharaos, William Branhan, etc? Why didn't 'fear' keep any of those alive?
EDIT: 
|
|
| Author: | Mike D [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: In other words, the only reason to discount it at all is because one begins with the presupposition that either God does not exist, or is unable to perform such a mighty deed. This is only true if we remove all other potential deities from the equation. Allah or Krishna, for instance, likely had no interest in resurrecting Jesus. Or, perhaps there is a deity but no religion has identified it correctly...perhaps all religions are mankind's highly flawed and culturally subjective attempts to understand divinity. If a person wishes to cast doubt on the Christian resurrection story there are many angles of approach. Quote: My suggestion to you, and to anyone else who wishes to explore this, is to actually study the evidence surrounding the event. Don't just dismiss it because it doesn't fit your current worldview. Actually look into it.
I find this statement ironic. I was a practicing Christian for a decade. I hope my posting history here indicates that I'm the sort of person who does his research; it was in fact my research into the Christian faith that drove me away from it. One major sticking point for me was the profusion of miracles I was expected to accept without question. Mike |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It would seem to me, then, that it's not so much that you've gathered evidence to contradict the miracles, so much as you have simply dismissed the miraculous from the equation, and base your assessments on that presumption. It's the same circular reasoning I've cautioned you against before. At least it seems that you are saying you reject the miraculous, primarily on the grounds that you do not believe in miracles. Quote: This is only true if we remove all other potential deities from the equation. Allah or Krishna, for instance, likely had no interest in resurrecting Jesus. Or, perhaps there is a deity but no religion has identified it correctly...perhaps all religions are mankind's highly flawed and culturally subjective attempts to understand divinity. If a person wishes to cast doubt on the Christian resurrection story there are many angles of approach.
Here's the problem: in regards to the mythological gods, like Krishna, there is no specific historical person or events with which to connect them. If Krishna ever acted in human history in a miraculous divine way, I would ask the questions where, when, and who witnessed it. And there's a very odd thing concerning Islam. While they claim to honor Jesus as a great prophet, and even exhort their followers to read the writings of the apostles (after all, they do believe that Allah is essentially the YHWH of the Hebrews - they just don't accept all the claims Jesus made about himself), they claim he was not as great as Mohammed. Of course, I would ask the question, is Mohammed accredited with any miracles on the same level as that of Jesus' crucifixion and death? The problem with appealing to other religions is that they are not all equal regarding the claims that they made or in the evidences that remain to support any belief in them. Krishna, to the best of my knowledge, is not a figure attested by history. And while Mohammed certainly is attested by history, he never made the same kinds of claims that Jesus did; nor did his followers make the same sort of claims about him that Jesus disciples made about Jesus. For more information on this topic, I'd suggest Christ Among Other Gods, by Dr. Erwin Lutzer. |
|
| Author: | corrections [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ed 'lim' smilde wrote: corrections wrote: This topic exemplifies the reason Christianity (and all other religions) have lasted so long: because of fear. StrongRad pretty much said what needs to be said on this topic, but really, your point isn't even true. Who still worships Ba'al, Kishar, Egyptian Pharaos, William Branhan, etc? Why didn't 'fear' keep any of those alive?EDIT: Well, being that Ba'al is a general term for a deity in Semetic lands, I bet some still do. Branham was just a preacher. And regarding Pharoahs, there are still plenty of rulers today who use fear to have them placed in a demi-god status. Has a religion not formed over Emperor Haile Selassie I? |
|
| Author: | DukeNuke [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: It would seem to me, then, that it's not so much that you've gathered evidence to contradict the miracles, so much as you have simply dismissed the miraculous from the equation, and base your assessments on that presumption. It's the same circular reasoning I've cautioned you against before. At least it seems that you are saying you reject the miraculous, primarily on the grounds that you do not believe in miracles. I think what he meant was that he couldn't accept the miracles without any evidence for them, i.e. faith. Is it odd to require evidence for a strange claim? If I say I'm wearing black socks, that's quite probable and you would most likely not demand evidence for it, but if I say Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are having a lightsaber duel in my kitchen, that's quite odd and I would probably need to provide a lot of evidence for it. Of course, if you can first prove that there is a god and that he performs miracles from time to time, then that'd make miracles more plausable and you might not require as much evidence for the miracle you're trying to proove. Didymus wrote: Here's the problem: in regards to the mythological gods, like Krishna, there is no specific historical person or events with which to connect them. If Krishna ever acted in human history in a miraculous divine way, I would ask the questions where, when, and who witnessed it. So if I say "it happened here, just now, and I saw it" is that enough? No. People lie. Even if 50 people claim they saw something, you'd still need some kind of evidence other than that to proove it. At least, to proove that they saw what they think they saw. Like weather baloon vs. alien space ship. Didymus wrote: And there's a very odd thing concerning Islam. While they claim to honor Jesus as a great prophet, and even exhort their followers to read the writings of the apostles (after all, they do believe that Allah is essentially the YHWH of the Hebrews - they just don't accept all the claims Jesus made about himself), they claim he was not as great as Mohammed. Of course, I would ask the question, is Mohammed accredited with any miracles on the same level as that of Jesus' crucifixion and death? No, I think almost everybody agrees that Mohammed was just human. But I guess they concider Mohammed greater than Jesus because supposively Mohammed spoke the truth, and Jesus basicly lied/was wrong. Didymus wrote: The problem with appealing to other religions is that they are not all equal regarding the claims that they made or in the evidences that remain to support any belief in them. Krishna, to the best of my knowledge, is not a figure attested by history. And while Mohammed certainly is attested by history, he never made the same kinds of claims that Jesus did; nor did his followers make the same sort of claims about him that Jesus disciples made about Jesus. For more information on this topic, I'd suggest Christ Among Other Gods, by Dr. Erwin Lutzer. And what evidence remains to support Jesus' death and ressurection? An empty cave, a piece of wood, some texts... I think I've heard of a broken spear? Not really convinceing, since people can lie, things could have been added afterwards, and they wouldn't neccecary proove that particular event either. (Again, think weather baloon vs. alien space ship.) And wouldn't bizarre claims just make one less trustworthy? ed 'lim' smilde wrote: StrongRad pretty much said what needs to be said on this topic, but really, your point isn't even true. Who still worships Ba'al, Kishar, Egyptian Pharaos, William Branhan, etc? Why didn't 'fear' keep any of those alive?
Because most people (who care, mind you, since a lot of people don't care and just stick with whatever they happened to be born into) eventually realize it's just BS and stop worshiping. Unless, of course, the religion is so heavily enforced that they keep worshiping because of fear of punishment in this life. Also, dictators sometimes decide that they need a new religion to keep the peasants in line and simply switch. Ta-daa, old religion gone! (and I'm of course talking about the dark ages, the middle ages, etc, and not the present) |
|
| Author: | ed 'lim' smilde [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DukeNuke wrote: Because most people (who care, mind you, since a lot of people don't care and just stick with whatever they happened to be born into) eventually realize it's just BS and stop worshiping. Good, so you see the point - you can't be afraid of something that you don't believe in (or don't care about). Therefore, Christians today aren't Christians simply out of fear.DukeNuke wrote: Also, dictators sometimes decide that they need a new religion to keep the peasants in line and simply switch. Ta-daa, old religion gone! (and I'm of course talking about the dark ages, the middle ages, etc, and not the present) Well, apparently it didn't work for whatever Roman dictators tried to end Christianity...
|
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I think what he meant was that he couldn't accept the miracles without any evidence for them, i.e. faith. Is it odd to require evidence for a strange claim? If I say I'm wearing black socks, that's quite probable and you would most likely not demand evidence for it, but if I say Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are having a lightsaber duel in my kitchen, that's quite odd and I would probably need to provide a lot of evidence for it. Of course, if you can first prove that there is a god and that he performs miracles from time to time, then that'd make miracles more plausable and you might not require as much evidence for the miracle you're trying to proove. I've presented evidence for why I believe in a particular miracle, and the only answer I've received from you or anyone else is that I should discount that evidence because it points to an "implausible" event. My expectation is that if you wish me to consider this event "implausible" you present me evidence why I shouldn't believe it any more than I believe any other historical event of that time period, most of which have even less evidence than this one. My contention is that the evidence is being dismissed without due consideration on your part. Quote: So if I say "it happened here, just now, and I saw it" is that enough? No. People lie. Even if 50 people claim they saw something, you'd still need some kind of evidence other than that to proove it. At least, to proove that they saw what they think they saw. Like weather baloon vs. alien space ship. Then by that standard, there should be no such discipline as history. How do you know that any historian recording any event was ever telling the truth? Furthermore, I have also presented my reasons for believing that those witnesses were in fact telling the truth. You have yet to present any real reason why I should not believe they were. Quote: And what evidence remains to support Jesus' death and ressurection? An empty cave, a piece of wood, some texts... I think I've heard of a broken spear? Not really convinceing, since people can lie, things could have been added afterwards, and they wouldn't neccecary proove that particular event either. (Again, think weather baloon vs. alien space ship.) And wouldn't bizarre claims just make one less trustworthy? A bizarre claim can only make an otherwise trustworthy witness less trustworthy if and only if the bizarre claim can be proven false. It seems to me that this conversation is essentially, "Miracles cannot happen; therefore any evidence for them is to be considered unreliable." I claim that is circular reasoning. For more information as to why I feel this is an inappropriate approach on your part, please read the following article: http://www.carm.org/evidence/extraordinary.htm I'd like to highlight this part here: Quote: The skeptic often requires "proof" that God exists, or "absolute proof" that Jesus rose from the dead. I have heard many atheists, for example, say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus' resurrection would be if it could be tested using the scientific method. Of course, we know that is an impossibility since the scientific method means observation, experimentation, and repetition and we can't apply that to an event that occurred 2000 years ago. Atheists know this and that is why they require it; therefore, they are being unreasonable. Nevertheless, when the Christian fails to produce a scientific method or scientific evidence, the atheist feels vindicated.
However, the requirement for absolute proof ignores the fact that there is a category of "sufficient evidence." In logic, there is deduction and induction. Deduction is drawing a conclusion based on facts. It is reasoning from the general to the specific. Induction is process of drawing general principles from specific facts. It is from the specific to the general. Often times, we use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about events in history. In so doing, there is no requirement of "extraordinary evidence." The evidence is simply examined contextually; that is, it is examined according to the genre in which it fits. This is what I mean: We do not apply observation, experimentation, and repetition to the subject of Napoleon's existence. The genre, history, does not fit that methodology. Yet, the skeptic will sometimes require that experimentation and repetition be applied to Jesus' resurrection, thereby, misapplying evidential and logical analysis. Another good article: http://www.apologetics.org/books/historicity.html#B2 Once again, it seems to me that the basic discussion going on here is, "Miracles cannot happen; therefore any claim concerning them is unreliable." I contend, therefore, that you're not so much examining evidence as simply dismissing that which doesn't already fit your world view. I seem to remember you saying in another thread, Duke, that if God appeared in front of you and performed a miracle right before your eyes, you would not believe it. Therefore, it would seem to me, that there is no sufficient evidence that you would accept anyway. |
|
| Author: | Cobalt [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: Apparently, you still have some study to do in the Tanak itself. The theme of sacrifice for the sake of forgiveness is a common theme throughout the Old Testament, from the very beginning. When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, they attempted to cover their shame with garments they made themselves from fig leaves. But these were not sufficient, and so God provided them clothing made from lamb's skin. Which meant that, in order for their guilt to be covered, a lamb had to die. that is ridiculous. what you're doing is taking the assumption "animal sacrifice = forgiveness" and then reading it into every instance where an animal died in the Bible. it doesn't work that way. first of all there was no sacrifice made there, God just made leather clothes for Adam and Eve. that's not what a sacrifice is. second, they in no way received forgiveness for anything by the presumed death of the animals that provided the leather. Quote: When God established his covenant with Abraham, was not that covenant sealed with the sacrifice of animals? and the covenant with Noah was sealed with a rainbow, what's your point? a covenant has nothing to do with sin or forgiveness, and there are plenty of things for which sacrifices were offered that had nothing to do with sin or forgiveness either. you're making a false connection. Quote: And what of the Passover? When God sent the angel to strike the firstborn in Egypt, what was it that protected the Israelites from harm? Was it not the blood of lambs that was painted onto their doors? So, in order for the Hebrews to live, lambs had to die. no, it wasn't. the blood didn't protect the Israelites from harm. the blood was a symbol of the Israelites' belief in God. the lamb was a deity to the Egyptians, and the whole point was that the Israelites would take a lamb and slaughter it in plain sight of the Egyptians in the middle of the afternoon, then paint their doorposts with its blood. the blood was a symbol of the Israelites' trust in God, it wasn't some magic forcefield that prevented death from visiting their houses. and, yet again, it also has nothing to do with sin or forgiveness. therefore irrelevant. Quote: And yes, it is also true that there is another recurring theme in the Tanak, and that is that the animals sacrificed were not sufficient to cover sin once and for all. The sacrifices themselves were repeated through history. Why is that? Because, as perfect as the sacrificial animals were, they were not enough to cover all sins for good. For this reason, I'd highly suggest you actually read the Book of Hebrews sometime, with particular emphasis on Chapter 9. The reason animal sacrifices weren't adequately complete was because their intent was to point to the one perfect sacrifice that was to come, namely Christ himself. So, yes, God does not desire the blood of animals, because only the pure blood of his own Son is sufficient to completely cover sin. All those lambs, from the time of Adam and Eve, all the way through the Passover, were there to point the way to the one perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
So if God ever offered forgiveness of sins apart from animal sacrifice, it is because animal sacrifice itself served as sign to point to the pure sacrifice which God himself offered on the cross. Forgiveness to those who repented, therefore, was never given without that ultimate sacrifice coming to bear. again, that is ridiculous. the reason that the sacrifices were repeated through history is because they were insufficient to compensate for all the sins of all time? absurd. the reason that they were repeated was because God commanded us to do it. i shall repeat again: first of all, not all sacrifices are for the purpose of forgiveness of sins. most of them weren't, as a matter of fact. second, again, sacrifices could only be useful for unintentional sins anyway. most importantly, even then why should bringing a sacrifice one time redeem you from sin forever? that's absurd! if you accidentally commit a sin and you bring a bull and sacrifice it to show that you're sorry, why in the world should that free you from responsibility in case you sin again sometime in the future? if you commit a crime and you go to jail for it, after they let you out you're not free to commit other crimes just because you've already been in jail! your logic is completely messed up here. i notice that you totally ignored all the multiple references i gave for God expressing how He doesn't care about sacrifices, all He wants is sincere repentance. i don't see how you can dismiss that. |
|
| Author: | DukeNuke [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: I seem to remember you saying in another thread, Duke, that if God appeared in front of you and performed a miracle right before your eyes, you would not believe it. Therefore, it would seem to me, that there is no sufficient evidence that you would accept anyway.
What I meant at that time was that a god would not be able to prove that there was no "higher layer" of gods above him, just as we cannot prove that there is no "higher layer" of gods above us. He might be able to prove that he created the universe, the eart, life, sent Jesus, etc, but he would not be able to prove that he is the ultimate creator of everything, he wouldn't even be able to know if he was or not. There could, for example, be millions of gods each with it's own home made universe, and an over-god that has created the multiverse and each sub-god. Or mabye something like the Matrix, and god is just a program running in it. Or perhaps something from a Star Wars episode, what do I know... In short, I'm just saying it's impossible to prove a negative, even for an allmighty and allknowing god. |
|
| Author: | Dark Grapefruit [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: However, the requirement for absolute proof ignores the fact that there is a category of "sufficient evidence." In logic, there is deduction and induction. Deduction is drawing a conclusion based on facts. It is reasoning from the general to the specific. Induction is process of drawing general principles from specific facts. It is from the specific to the general. Often times, we use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about events in history. In so doing, there is no requirement of "extraordinary evidence." The evidence is simply examined contextually; that is, it is examined according to the genre in which it fits. This is what I mean:
We do not apply observation, experimentation, and repetition to the subject of Napoleon's existence. The genre, history, does not fit that methodology. Yet, the skeptic will sometimes require that experimentation and repetition be applied to Jesus' resurrection, thereby, misapplying evidential and logical analysis. Funny you should bring up inductive reasoning. I am of the opinion that all of the statements we regard as facts ultimately derive from inductive reasoning. Take the statement, "A man cannot rise from the dead". It's not just an arbitrary supposition: it comes from years of observation. I have never seen anyone rise from the dead, nor has anyone I know, nor anyone they know, and so on. Nor has there been any historical documentation saying that someone did so (pretend I haven't come across the Bible yet). That's a lot of case studies giving out a negative answer, enough that I believe I can generalize it into the conclusion "A man cannot rise from the dead". Now I'm not saying that this proves 100% that resurrection is impossible. It is impossible to prove a negative - in this case you'd need to observe all people in all of history to make sure they didn't ressuerect. What it does tell us is that the probability of coming back from death is extremely low, so low that it might never happen in a hundred million years. Now I come across the Bible. In it, we have the testimony of several people saying they did see a man rise from the dead. I can take that in as evidence counter to my conclusion. But I'd have to weigh it against several other options: are they lying? are they mistaken? Both of which seem to be more probable than an actual ressurection. In essence, you're weighing the testimony of these few against the unspoken testimony of billions that say that a ressurection has never happened. None of which can tell me that Jesus definitely didn't rise from the dead, but it is enough to make me think that he probably didn't. |
|
| Author: | sci-fi greg [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: That's a nice attitude, Greg. But on two parts I do not concur:
1. The God of Scripture says that the greatest and most important commandment is, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength." If this God is real, then he expects that a good portion of your "excellent life" be dedicated to loving him. Yes, it is also important - but less so - to love your neighbor as yourself, but how can you claim to have an excellent life when you miss the single most important thing that God expects? 2. While you claim that there is no "proof", I would still point you to the evidence of the cross and empty tomb, for which no one has yet to offer a decent rational explanation other than that it is the very "proof" you claim does not exist. Perhaps if you took some time to examine the evidence for those events you'd find that maybe, just maybe, there's more to this than you think. Well yeah, you're right about the proof thing, but I meant proof so indisputable that you can't even argue it. But for the other thing, I have a hypothetical situation. Say you invented a robot. Would you rather the robot brought you drinks and fanned you all day or discovered a cure for cancer? I think God, if he is real, doesn't care that we think about him. I think if there is a god, he's not the one we think about. I don't think the Moses thing ever happened or that Jesus ever came back to life. But it is plausible that we do have a creator. And I think a creator would be happier with us if we didn't claim to worship him but then go to war and kill thousands upon thousands of people. Who do you think is going to heaven, a racist jerk who served in the army, but goes to church every sunday, or a pagan who brought world peace? Sorry, I kind of got off athiesm. So I'm gonna toastpaint myself. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
See, DG, you raise the kinds of issues that I would have expected to be raised here. The reason I have not addressed some of these issues yet is because I felt from the progression of the thread that the primary concern was not the evidence in question, but how that evidence was to be viewed. There are other possible explanations, but are we simply going to toss out the testimonies in favor of a belief that one of those alternatives MUST be the answer? Here is my view: in order to properly examine the data, we must begin with a neutral position: neither presupposing God's existence (and therefore the probability of the miraculous) nor dismissing it (and therefore dismissing the possibility that this could in fact be a miraculous event). Such a position would mean that we must begin with the notion that this could POSSIBLY be a miraculous event. Once we've done that, then we can address whether any of the other explanations are as plausible as the miracle one or not. Quote: In essence, you're weighing the testimony of these few against the unspoken testimony of billions that say that a ressurection has never happened. Actually, to put it more accurately, it is the testimony of a few against the unspoken testimony of billions who, at best, can claim that a resurrection is not an every day occurance, but not that it never or couldn't happen. There's a fine distinction there. And there are three possible ways to view that distinction:
(2) if one presupposes that God does not exist, then it IS an extremely unlikely occurance; (3) if one takes a neutral position, then it might be viewed as an extremely unlikely event, given the number of times in history that is has been observed, but without a sufficiently plausible alternate explanation, it might be necessary to view it as evidence for the existence of God. I just wanted to touch on that, because to me, that seems to be the overall theme of this thread at present: how exactly are we to weigh the testimonies in question? Quote: But I'd have to weigh it against several other options: are they lying? are they mistaken? Both of which seem to be more probable than an actual ressurection.
Perhaps at face value, but what about under careful consideration? Are these two options really more plausible, if we consider the events as they played out afterward? Let's look at these alternatives now: "The witnesses were lying." If this was an isolated event, and the events that took place in the following century or so had not occurred, I'd say this was probably the most plausible answer. But I do not feel that this attempt at explanation fully takes into account the lives of the men involved, their writings, or even some of the extraordinary events that surrounded their lives after they witnessed the resurrection. For one thing, we begin with a motley band of men, about half of whom were uneducated fishermen, the others from drastically different walks of life. What we do know is that, when Jesus was crucified, these men went into hiding, and on the day that Jesus supposedly arose from the dead, they were locked in an upper room of a house, hiding. Even bold Simon Peter had denied Jesus three times before the crucifixion, despite swearing he would die for the Lord. Then something happens on that day that we now call Easter. And within 50 days, these motley cowards are boldly proclaiming what they had seen in the streets of Jerusalem. We also know that they were sometimes arrested and tortured on account of what they declared, and many of them were killed because they refused to renounce what they claim to have seen. I have to ask the question: what would motivate them to suffer and die for something they knew to be false? I can only surmise that, at the very least, they must have been convinced they were right. I mentioned earlier in the thread a person by the name of Saul of Tarsus. He was training to be a teacher under Rabbi Gamaliel, and was commissioned to hunt down, arrest, torture, and even kill Christians, something which, by all accounts, he did with great zeal and hatred. That is, until something happened to him on the road to Damascus, something that changed him from one of Christ's most violent enemies to one of his most vocal supporters. What was it that motivated Saul of Tarsus in this way? Well, from what we know about his earlier career, he was motivated entirely by zeal (albeit misguided) for his own religious faith. But whatever happened, it effected a sudden change from an opponent of Christ to a proclaimer of Christ. Could he have been corrupted by some conspiracy that led him that way? Highly doubtful. Especially considering that, after his conversion, he actually had much more to lose than he did before. Would a man so zealous for the truth of his own faith be so easily swayed to renounce that faith in favor of a conspirators' lie? But another issue would be the change, not only of his support, but his attitude as well. Prior to his conversion, he was not above resorting to violence for his cause. But afterward, he turned from violence and instead adopted persuasion as his means of expressing his zeal. What's more, if you take the time to read St. Paul's writings (yes, that's right - this Saul of Tarsus is now known to us as the Apostle Paul), you'd see that he seems to take a great deal of comfort in his suffering for the truth. He seems to think that his own death will be perfect freedom for him; none of his writings seem to me like the ramblings of a guilty man trying to cover the truth, but rather one who loves truth and takes great comfort in it himself. But I admit, that might just be my own assessment: you might want to read them for yourself and make your own judgment in this matter. Not only that, but also notice that the teachings of the early Christians placed a very high value on truth. I just find it highly unlikely that a teaching so solidly oriented toward truth would be founded on a conspiracy of this sort. Particularly when those who would have been guilty of perpetrating this fraud themselves suffered and died on account of their own zeal for truth. All it would have taken would be for one of them under one of the many beatings, torturings, or executions they endured, to simply renounce the lie. "The Disciples Were Wrong." There's a number of different approaches to this particular issue. I'll try to tackle a few of them. "Jesus Didn't Really Die." This is a theory that has been raised a couple of times here already. Here's the deal: he was crucified, a type of execution that puts tremendous stress on the body. It pulls joints out of alignment and causes severe lack of oxygen in the body. After having endured hours of this particular type of execution, it is highly unlikely that a person would be up walking around without severe pain ever again (at least, medically speaking, it wouldn't be possible). But that's not all. When the soldiers checked the prisoners to see if they were still alive at the end of the day, Jesus was not breathing. Lack of oxygen would cause severe brain damage under normal circumstances. But the Romans didn't just pronounce him dead; they made sure by sticking a spear into him, which, by the descriptions given, would have been into the chest cavity, either into the heart or the lungs. His body was then wrapped in grave clothes, not unlike a mummy, and placed within a tomb. Given the severity of the injuries already received, it would be highly unlikely that he would be able to maintain any type of breathing through cloth. Given the extent of the injuries, as well as the condition of the body after lying untreated within a tomb for at least 36 hours (from dusk on Good Friday to sunrise on Easter), do you think it's possible he could have naturally survived? Some have argued that the vinegar and gall given to him might have contained some sort of medicine that would have made him appear dead, but again, I think the extent of the injuries (particularly the spear to the side) would have made it impossible to survive. In any case, I find it highly unlikely that Jesus would be up walking around a mere 36 hours after sustaining all that trauma. A related theory is that someone - perhaps Thomas Didymus, aka "The Twin" - died in Jesus' place. I find this theory highly unlikely, considering the encounter with Thomas the following week. When told that the Lord was alive, Thomas expresses his unbelief. Then, in the upper room, just like with the other disciples on Easter, Jesus comes to Thomas and shows his wounds, and invites the erring disciple to feel that he is real. What's more, such a decoy theory would once again smell of a conspiracy, and we'd be right back to the earlier issue of discussing the disciples' honesty. I'll add more to this later. I still want to address what the disciples experienced of the risen Jesus beginning in the upper room, and continuing for the next 40 days. If it has been a single isolated vision that they all could have shared that one time, I'd say it's entirely possible that they were hallucinating. But there is the problem that this was not the only time Jesus appeared to them. For a period of about 40 days, he continued to appear to them and to teach them, preparing them for a time when he would no longer be among them. But more on that later. I'm getting tired of typing now, and very likely, if you're reading this, you're getting tired, also. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sci-fi greg wrote: Would you rather the robot brought you drinks and fanned you all day or discovered a cure for cancer? I think God, if he is real, doesn't care that we think about him. I think if there is a god, he's not the one we think about. 1. Loving God, as you describe it here, is not about us doing menial service for him like slaves. Loving God, as I understand it, is to be a part of a familial relationship with God. It's not so much "fanning him and bringing him drinks" as it is eating dinner with him, or telling him about our day, or playing baseball out in the backyard. Yes, I'm sure that any father would be proud of a child who did such great things as cure cancer, but only a distant, uncaring father (i.e., a dysfunctional one) would care more about that than actually enjoying a loving relationship with his child. 2. As I pointed out in another thread, the whole point of the two Great Commands is to show us God's intended purpose for our lives. A consistent theme in Scripture is that God wants us to "walk with the Lord," that is, to be with him and to follow him. Yet, when mankind does not walk with God, but instead turns away, then evil almost always results (it could even be argued that cancer exists only because mankind didn't walk with God as closely as it should have). Quote: And I think a creator would be happier with us if we didn't claim to worship him but then go to war and kill thousands upon thousands of people. What does this have to do with anything? Since when is war the cardinal sin? And if so, where do you get that from? Did you not know that one of God's most common names in the Old Testament is YHWH Sabaoth, which literally translated means, "Lord God of the Armies?" I'm having a very difficult time understanding why you're bringing warfare into this at all. In my own thinking, as a former military man myself, it is sometimes necessary for people to fight. War itself is a tragedy, don't get me wrong. But when there are threats to life and security, only a very stupid person would ever say that fighting to defend life, freedom, and safety is in any way wrong. As it has been said, a true soldier loves peace, but he loves it enough that he's willing to fight to preserve it. The same is true with God. When he is called YHWH Sabaoth, it is almost always in the context of fighting to defend his people from those who threaten them. You might also note that, in the New Testament, at least four different soldiers were accounted as blessed by God: (1) a centurion who came to Jesus requesting healing on behalf of his servant, (2) a soldier at the cross who declared, "Surely, this man was the Son of God;" (3) Cornelius, a centurion who became the first Gentile Christian, and (4) a Philippian soldier who requested help from St. Paul during an earthquake. So, Greg, unless you have some distinct reason for bringing an anti-war sentiment into a discussion of theology, I'd suggest we move on. Quote: Who do you think is going to heaven, a racist jerk who served in the army, but goes to church every sunday, or a pagan who brought world peace?
I'm not sure it's my place or yours to say either one. Are you God that you can determine the hearts of men and pass judgment upon them? As for the racist fellow, God's answer is this: "A man cannot claim to love God, whom he has not seen, if he does not love his brother, whom he has seen." But as for the Pagan, "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me." |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: i notice that you totally ignored all the multiple references i gave for God expressing how He doesn't care about sacrifices, all He wants is sincere repentance. i don't see how you can dismiss that.
I also notice that you didn't bother to address the Book of Hebrews that I cited, either, so I guess that would make us even. Except that your remark here is untrue. If you'd go back and read again, you'd note that my answer is essentially this: the animal sacrifices were never sufficient to begin with, that God was ultimately looking forward to the sacrifice of his own Son. That is my answer as to why he did not always require an animal to be sacrificed in order to offer forgiveness of sins: ultimately, his own Son's sacrifice would accomplish what no animal sacrifice could. It's all there in Hebrews. Look, Cobalt, the chief difference between your understanding of these Old Testament concepts and mine is that I do believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, who demonstrated God's perfect love by redeeming the world with his shed blood, and that as evidenced by what he accomplished during his life, and by his death and resurrection. That being the case, I sincerely doubt that you're going to do much to convince me otherwise. |
|
| Author: | Dark Grapefruit [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: Here is my view: in order to properly examine the data, we must begin with a neutral position: neither presupposing God's existence (and therefore the probability of the miraculous) nor dismissing it (and therefore dismissing the possibility that this could in fact be a miraculous event). Such a position would mean that we must begin with the notion that this could POSSIBLY be a miraculous event. Once we've done that, then we can address whether any of the other explanations are as plausible as the miracle one or not.
Quote: This is what I try to do when I analyze any situation like this. I'm not sure if I'm doing a good job of it, though. Quote: Quote: In essence, you're weighing the testimony of these few against the unspoken testimony of billions that say that a ressurection has never happened. Actually, to put it more accurately, it is the testimony of a few against the unspoken testimony of billions who, at best, can claim that a resurrection is not an every day occurance, but not that it never or couldn't happen. There's a fine distinction there. Fair enough, you've got me there. Quote: And there are three possible ways to view that distinction:
(2) if one presupposes that God does not exist, then it IS an extremely unlikely occurance; (3) if one takes a neutral position, then it might be viewed as an extremely unlikely event, given the number of times in history that is has been observed, but without a sufficiently plausible alternate explanation, it might be necessary to view it as evidence for the existence of God. Actually, I'd prefer to accept it as something unexplained if we can't find an alternative. I don't think it would necessarily be evidence toward God, because there could potentially be any number of explanations that we don't understand logically, but don't involve God (at least the way most people think of God). As you can tell, I am not a fan of the concept of necessity. I get it from my main man David Hume. This is why I consider myself agnostic, not atheist. Quote: "The witnesses were lying." If this was an isolated event, and the events that took place in the following century or so had not occurred, I'd say this was probably the most plausible answer. But I do not feel that this attempt at explanation fully takes into account the lives of the men involved, their writings, or even some of the extraordinary events that surrounded their lives after they witnessed the resurrection. For one thing, we begin with a motley band of men, about half of whom were uneducated fishermen, the others from drastically different walks of life. What we do know is that, when Jesus was crucified, these men went into hiding, and on the day that Jesus supposedly arose from the dead, they were locked in an upper room of a house, hiding. Even bold Simon Peter had denied Jesus three times before the crucifixion, despite swearing he would die for the Lord. Then something happens on that day that we now call Easter. And within 50 days, these motley cowards are boldly proclaiming what they had seen in the streets of Jerusalem. We also know that they were sometimes arrested and tortured on account of what they declared, and many of them were killed because they refused to renounce what they claim to have seen. I have to ask the question: what would motivate them to suffer and die for something they knew to be false? I can only surmise that, at the very least, they must have been convinced they were right. Sounds good so far. I think we can safely assume they believed in what they were saying. My question now is, how literally can we take their belief? When they say that they saw and spoke to the risen Christ, is it possible that this was meant to be read as a metaphor for a spiritual presence, and that Jesus was not physically there? I am indeed getting tired (becuase it's getting late, certainly not out of boredom!) so I will stop here for now. edit: and I will also have to leave because the forum is messing up. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: My question now is, how literally can we take their belief? When they say that they saw and spoke to the risen Christ, is it possible that this was meant to be read as a metaphor for a spiritual presence, and that Jesus was not physically there? I don't think that the spiritual metaphor or ghost presence is the best answer to a lot of what was actually said concerning Jesus' resurrection. John, in his accounts, both of Easter and of the following week with Thomas, makes clear that Jesus showed them that he was flesh and blood, he showed them his wounds, and he ate with them as well. Furthermore, Paul, in his writings in 1 Corinthians 15, makes it plain that he expects Christians, not just to believe that Jesus is spiritually alive, but that his resurrection was physical as well. If this teaching of the resurrection were intended only to be metaphorical, it would seem to me that they went out of their way to say things concerning it that probably only clouded the issue (in fact, St. Paul goes on to say that unless Jesus was raised bodily, then the entire Christian faith is completely hopeless. For these men, the Christian's hope of everlasting life was intimately connected to Jesus' own bodily resurrection. Quote: This is what I try to do when I analyze any situation like this. I'm not sure if I'm doing a good job of it, though. Perhaps none of us are as good at this as we think, myself included on account of my own disposition and experiences. But I did not mean to say that you in particular weren't doing this, just that it seemed to be the overall feeling I was getting from others in the thread. Quote: Actually, I'd prefer to accept it as something unexplained if we can't find an alternative. I don't think it would necessarily be evidence toward God, because there could potentially be any number of explanations that we don't understand logically, but don't involve God (at least the way most people think of God).
True, but here I think understanding, not just the event itself, but how these men came to understand the event comes into play (as well as what took place afterward - but more on that later). |
|
| Author: | Cobalt [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: I also notice that you didn't bother to address the Book of Hebrews that I cited, either, so I guess that would make us even. except that i don't believe that the Book of Hebrews is divine, whereas you presumably do believe in the divinity of all the references i gave. not exactly even. Quote: Except that your remark here is untrue. If you'd go back and read again, you'd note that my answer is essentially this: the animal sacrifices were never sufficient to begin with, that God was ultimately looking forward to the sacrifice of his own Son. That is my answer as to why he did not always require an animal to be sacrificed in order to offer forgiveness of sins: ultimately, his own Son's sacrifice would accomplish what no animal sacrifice could. It's all there in Hebrews.
Look, Cobalt, the chief difference between your understanding of these Old Testament concepts and mine is that I do believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, who demonstrated God's perfect love by redeeming the world with his shed blood, and that as evidenced by what he accomplished during his life, and by his death and resurrection. That being the case, I sincerely doubt that you're going to do much to convince me otherwise. well, exactly. the only possible way that you can come to your conclusion by looking at the "Old Testament" texts is if you're already looking through Jesus-coloured glasses. because all that stuff is just not there if you're doing an unbiased reading of the text. it's pure revisionism, plain and simple. it's presuming the answer before asking the question. it just doesn't work. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I disagree with your conclusion there. I do not see it as "revisionism" at all, but simply dismissal on your part of many key ideas and themes that are already in place in the Judaism of the Tanak, and of Judaism of Jesus' era. In fact, I'm fairly sure the only way there could have been such a phenomenon surrounding Jesus is that there was huge expectation already in place. Prophecies of the Old Testament foretold his coming, and even foretold exactly what he would do and what he would accomplish, and these things he even taught his disciples before he died. If anything, it seems to me that your particular brand of Judaism (and I say "your particular brand" because it is also clear to me that not all Jews agree with your assessment in this matter), which has had 2,000 years of revision to eliminate some of the expectation surrounding it just prior to Jesus coming. Certainly Jesus saw himself as the fulfillment of these things, and so did his disciples (even if they didn't completely understand until they saw it for themselves). So if you're going to blame anyone for this "revisionism," blame Jesus and the apostles. But then if you're going to do that, I'd suggest you offer some sound reason for me to believe that Jesus' resurrection - and God's attestation of his ministry through miracles - is completely invalid. Quote: except that i don't believe that the Book of Hebrews is divine, whereas you presumably do believe in the divinity of all the references i gave. not exactly even.
But one consistent theme that I have noticed in every response you make to me is this: you are completely unwilling to even admit the possibility that this Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. You are not willing to investigate claims that have been made about him, some of them by your own fellow Jews who don't happen to agree with your conclusions. You are also unwilling even to try to at least understand why it is that I hold to my faith. That being the case, I'm not sure why you expect me to simply drop everything I understand about both the Old Testament and the New in order to converse with you. |
|
| Author: | Amorican [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm . . . This thread seems to have gone from "What's the point of atheism" to "Defend your Christianity." There are probably many threads dedicated to that already. I don't know exactly that Atheism has a point. But, as far as I'm concerned, this is the only life we have. It is special and it is unique. We are only here for a short time, so we have to make it as good as possible. And since everybody is in the same boat, we have to make it as good as possible for as many as possible. Everybody seems to have their own definitions of what constitutes a "good life", and that might be part of the human story . . . defining for ourselves what it means to be good. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, this thread was dead and buried. Someone recently dredged it up to make a point, but from then, it's basically gone this route. I've considered locking it, mostly because I get the idea that people really don't want to discuss it at all, but every time I post in it myself, I always feel somewhat obligated to let others answer my own posts. But I think you hit the nail on the head in that last part there: everyone has their own ideas of what a "good life" looks like. For some, it's partying (which, btw, I'm not opposed to, within moderate limits), for others, it's trying to serve their fellow man, and that in different ways depending on their viewpoint. From a purely secular standpoint, there can be no objective means to define a "good life"; we Christians believe we have a means to define it, but that depends entirely on whether God as we know him truly exists. And that's pretty much where the whole "defend your faith" thing has come to play. Truth to tell, the only reason I haven't simply buried this thread is because I've been hoping that the thread's originator, Teff, will speak up on his current views. A few of his friends say he no longer holds the same view anymore, but it would be interesting to hear from him what he thinks now, after three years of experience have reshaped him. So how about it, Teff? Care to elaborate on your current views? |
|
| Author: | Mike D [ Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Goodness, I don't check these boards often enough. This thread has covered a lot of ground since I last looked at it. There is still one thing I want to address, however: Didymus wrote: At least it seems that you are saying you reject the miraculous, primarily on the grounds that you do not believe in miracles. Well then, let me clarify. I do not patently disbelieve in miracles or God. I am not a hard atheist. I feel that hard atheists -- people who claim to "know" that there is no God -- need to back up their claims. If you cannot disprove God then disbelief is illogical. Thus circular logic comes in, but that's not my stance at all. That reasoning cuts both ways, of course. Religious or hard atheist, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. This is my question: There could've been a resurrection, but was there one? However, I do recognize that you've presented some evidence for the resurrection...what we see in this thread is probably all we have at this point. I do have some info on miracles attributed to Mohammad and the historical record of Krishna (who may in fact have been based on a real person), but I'll leave it out for now. This thread, and this post, are huge enough. Now, if we're looking to get things back on topic, here's the original post, edited mildly for length: The Experimental Film wrote: Are you atheists really condemning yourself to hell, just in case God doesn't exist?
Why not just accept Jesus? Start believing in him, and pray once in a while. That's really all it takes. When we die, if there isn't a God, you can tell us all, "I told you so". If there is a God, we can tell you that. My reason for rejecting Pascal-esque arguments is based on my experience as a practicing Christian. Before I get started I will mention that the following is pure personal opinion. That said, I don't think it would be enough to stand before God on the day of judgment and say, "I believed because it seemed like the best bet." As I understand it, God is interested in devotion, not oddsmakers. How sincere is your conversion if your only goal is to score a piece of prime afterlife real estate? The above argument can still be used, but should be shored up with honest discussion on the nature of love and the personal sacrifice that (in my view at least) is absolutely necessary for the Christian faith. Mike |
|
| Author: | sci-fi greg [ Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: What does this have to do with anything? Since when is war the cardinal sin? And if so, where do you get that from? Did you not know that one of God's most common names in the Old Testament is YHWH Sabaoth, which literally translated means, "Lord God of the Armies?" I'm having a very difficult time understanding why you're bringing warfare into this at all. In my own thinking, as a former military man myself, it is sometimes necessary for people to fight. War itself is a tragedy, don't get me wrong. But when there are threats to life and security, only a very stupid person would ever say that fighting to defend life, freedom, and safety is in any way wrong. As it has been said, a true soldier loves peace, but he loves it enough that he's willing to fight to preserve it. The same is true with God. When he is called YHWH Sabaoth, it is almost always in the context of fighting to defend his people from those who threaten them. You might also note that, in the New Testament, at least four different soldiers were accounted as blessed by God: (1) a centurion who came to Jesus requesting healing on behalf of his servant, (2) a soldier at the cross who declared, "Surely, this man was the Son of God;" (3) Cornelius, a centurion who became the first Gentile Christian, and (4) a Philippian soldier who requested help from St. Paul during an earthquake. sorry to break toastpaint and getting off atheism again but... As I said, I don't believe that any god people thought of is the real god. The new testament was written by a person. Not god. Why is it necessary to fight? Tell me that. It's just a demonstration of power. Why can't we just see which country can build the best city? Then we help people, instead of killing thousands of people and breaking apart thousands of families. You said, in a round about way, god supports war. Why on earth would he create us just so he could watch us kill each other. Now seriously, let's get back to atheism. (I'm really talking to myself with that statement) |
|
| Author: | Clever Danielle [ Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can't believe it took me so long to find this: linked for language Yeah, I got nothing else constructive to add to this thread. edit: Church Across America With Pastor Eman Laerton. Again, I got nothing. |
|
| Author: | Parlod [ Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I haven't really read any of the discussion, but the question being asked doesn't really make sense. There is no point to Atheism. They simple just don't believe in any kind of god. Atheism isn't something you do, it's something you don't do. So there really is no point. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: As I said, I don't believe that any god people thought of is the real god. The new testament was written by a person. Not god. Correction: it was written by several people. But here's the problem with your reasoning here: it was written by men who were divinely appointed messengers of God. Matthew, Peter, and John were among Jesus' earliest disciples, and John was actually Jesus' best friend. Furthermore, Peter, Paul, John, James, and Jude were men appointed as leaders among these disciples not only because of their testimonies, but because their lives exhibited evidence of the work of God. Mark and Luke both wrote at the behest and under direction of apostolic leadership (Mark apparently traveled with Peter, and Luke we know did travel with Paul). So while you think you can simply dismiss their writings as "written by a person," you're not taking into account whether or not they are doing so under the direction and guidance of God, which is essentially what we Christians believe. So no, I don't think that, just because they are written by men, that this means they are not authorized to speak on God's behalf. But here's the contradiction in what YOU'RE saying: while you dismiss the writings of those divinely appointed to speak on God's behalf, you then present your own ideas of what you think God should or should not be in favor of, or how you feel God's disposition toward certain things is. I ask you, upon what are you basing your ideas? Where do you get them from? And, most importantly, who appointed you his divine representative to speak on his behalf? Apart from knowing God yourself, you do not have any way of knowing what he is or is not in favor of: those are only presumptions on your part. Quote: Why is it necessary to fight? Tell me that. It's just a demonstration of power. Why can't we just see which country can build the best city? Then we help people, instead of killing thousands of people and breaking apart thousands of families. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill your family, are you going to just sit back and watch them do it? Your faulty reasoning here is that you cannot understand that war is sometimes necessary for defense and justice. Honestly, do you believe that America was wrong for entering into WWII after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Or fought against the Nazis in Europe? Or, for that matter, fought to free the slaves during the Civil War? I'm not saying that war in and of itself is good, only that sometimes you have to fight for what is right. But I already covered this. It's plain common sense. Quote: You said, in a round about way, god supports war. Why on earth would he create us just so he could watch us kill each other. Now seriously, let's get back to atheism. (I'm really talking to myself with that statement)
First of all, I did not say that God supported war in and of itself. I stated that God is not specifically against war, but has at times described himself as a warrior. Just as God would not hold at fault a man who fights to protect his family, so he does not fault a soldier who is sent to fight to protect his community or his nation. Again, your assumption seems to be that the only reason people fight wars is just so they can kill other people, and I do not agree with your presumption that fighting is always wrong. Again, using the example I cited above, only a person who is thoroughly insane would ever claim that fighting to protect one's self, or to protect one's family, is never right. In the same way, fighting to protect one's nation or one's allies against those who seek to destroy is never wrong. Greg, seriously, I would suggest you reconsider your faulty anti-war sentiments. Furthermore, I would also suggest that you actually start reading what I write and answer my points, rather than simply dismissing them. I feel like you completely missed the point of my previous post. Furthermore, I'd suggest you wrap your mind around this concept: if someone does not fight to protect the innocent, then evil people will just slaughter more of them. God does want people to fight for justice and the protection of the innocent. I fail to see why anyone would ever consider that wrong. |
|
| Author: | sci-fi greg [ Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well... everyone believes differently, there really isn't a point in trying to convince everybody your way is right. I'm not trying to be hypocritical here, as I have tried to argue my case. Didymus, why does every post you make have to be why the person who posted before you is wrong? I'm just gonna stop arguing, as it's not going to go anywhere. I live my life my way, you live yours your way. |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sci-fi greg wrote: Didymus, why does every post you make have to be why the person who posted before you is wrong? It comes with the collar. He's always trying to practice his powers of conversion. 
|
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm sorry for being harsh in my response, Greg. It just seemed to me at the time that warfare was more of a distraction issue than one to be specifically dealt with here. I'm not claiming that war is a good thing in and of itself, but at times it is a necessary thing. As I said, a true soldier is not someone who loves war, but rather someone who loves what is good enough that they are willing to fight when when good is threatened. Furthermore, you really haven't given me much reason to consider your own ideas about God as carrying more weight than those of the writers of Scripture. Are you God? Do you know him personally? Are you one of his appointed representatives here on earth? If not, then I have absolutely no reason to simply cast aside my own theological education in favor of your speculations. (That in and of itself does not prove their claims to be true, but with the absence of such authority on your part, there's no reason why I should consider your claims more valid than theirs, now is there?) Quote: Didymus, why does every post you make have to be why the person who posted before you is wrong?
Because, in case you missed it, Greg, all those people keep trying to tell me I'm wrong. I'm perfectly capable of being rational with people who are rational with me (note my response to Dark Grapefruit earlier, for example). But I don't see why I should let people tell me I'm wrong and not make some sort of response. But to turn the question back around, why did you feel it necessary to try to tell me I'm wrong? Does that not make you guilty of doing the same thing you accused me of? In short, if you don't really want an answer, don't ask the question. |
|
| Author: | Amorican [ Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it's human nature to want to be right. If that means having to "prove" somebody else wrong, then so be it. I don't have any problem with it. However, I do feel that many people have no ability or willingness to ever say "I was wrong" about anything. That might be human nature as well, but I don't like that quite so much. |
|
| Author: | sci-fi greg [ Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Amorican wrote: However, I do feel that many people have no ability or willingness to ever say "I was wrong" about anything. That might be human nature as well, but I don't like that quite so much.
But, in this sense, there is no way to say "I was wrong" because no one can really prove if there is a god or not until they die, at which point it's kind of hard to tell other people. But the "about anything" part, yeah, but not for this. |
|
| Page 5 of 6 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|