Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - What is the point of atheism?

Every point of why I'm an Athiest has been hit. Ha ha, and I was about to make some TL;DR post(although, I doubt Teff still holds the same beliefs).
I love you juyz.

Which is why I base my faith on one who has died and returned from the dead. That is, until someone can offer me conclusive data to demonstrate that it didn't take place.

Does one need to disprove the entire bible, or just that event?

But since we're dealing with a supposively supernatural event and a supernatural god, I guess natural data is not good enough?

Can you repeat the phenomena?

Can you proove that the witnesses in the bible were real and not just fictional?

Can you proove that Jesus wasn't just fictional?

Did anybody make sure that Jesus was actually dead, and not just unconscious or even faking it?

Why would god have himself killed, anyway? Couldn't he just forgive right away? Who was he trying to convince? Himself?

2. Of these seven witnesses that wrote, all but one of them were tortured and killed for adhering to what they believed to be true (and the remaining one - St. John - was not himself exempt from interrogation; he too was arrested and tortured, only not put to death). Now, if what they were writing was not true, then you have to ask the question: why would these criminals persist in perpetrating this fraud, knowing that they were going to be killed for doing so? The best answer: they believed it themselves.

Quote:

Why would god have himself killed, anyway? Couldn't he just forgive right away? Who was he trying to convince? Himself?

Because without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins.

There is a story I once heard about a lady who had some unpaid parking tickets and was in danger of losing her license to drive. But when she went into court, the judge was her own father. Now, if he had wanted to abuse his position, he could have simply thrown out the tickets and she'd be absolved of them. But if he had, it certainly would have made him look crooked. On the other hand, he didn't want to see his daughter lose her license on account of those tickets. So what did he do? He declared her guilty and ordered to to remit the fines. Then he took off his robe, stepped down from the bench, and paid the fines himself.

plenty of people have died for their beliefs. that doesn't mean their beliefs were TRUE. Joseph Smith Jr and David Koresh come to mind.

that's misconduct. the judge had a conflict of interest; he should have recused himself.

Can you cite me any reason why I should not believe this? It seems to be a consistent theme throughout the Tanak, and is stated quite clearly in Hebrews 9:22 (yes, I know you do not acknowledge the New Testament - but if you expect me to take your denial seriously, you should back up what you say with some authoritative resource).

Was his judgment unfair? Was he wrong in fulfilling the obligations of his office as judge by declaring her guilty and ordering the remission? Was he wrong in acting in kindness and love toward his daughter by paying the fines himself? Your charge of misconduct is a mere technicality; it does not address whether his final solution was right and just or a blatant violation of the law.

1. At least seven different witnesses wrote about the event, and their different accounts verify each other. As with witnesses in a trial, if their testimonies match, then they are to be considered reliable unless it can be proven that all of them are lying.

But the only reason you claim the event implausible is on account of your assumption that God does not exist, and therefore miracles cannot happen.

I made no such claim. I said that in a modern court seven witnesses reporting something equivalent to the resurrection story would not be considered credible on the mere basis of corroborating testimony.

The fact that a group of people say they saw a miracle does not mean a miracle occurred, after all.

Curious. What kind of data and how much would it take to disprove it? Does one need to disprove the entire bible, or just that event? Perhaps one can prove that people can't come back to life after X hours of death? Or after loosing a certain percentage of your blood? But since we're dealing with a supposedly supernatural event and a supernatural god, I guess natural data is not good enough?

100 people might claim to have seen a UFO in the sky at a certain time, but it could have just been a grouping planes with their flashing lights on (or something more UFO-like).

what other rational explanation can you possibly come up with?

I seriously doubt that any religious person would ever think of their life as "wasted" as you so put it. I most certainly don't think of my life as "wasted." Would you say Mother Theresa "wasted" her life?

So what difference is it to you if Billy Graham enjoys his life by "spreading the good news" rather than through sex, drugs, or whatever else, when he's going to be just as happy when he'd dead anyway?

I fail to understand your distinction between "spreading the good news" and "doing good deeds in God's name." Perhaps you should clarify.

I seriously doubt that Billy Graham would see it that way

And, when you get right down to it, since every human being on the face of the earth is going to die anyway, then wouldn't it be true that, regardless of what how a person lived, their life would be pretty much wasted anyway? On one hand, you could derive mindless pleasure from certain things, but when you're dead, you won't remember them anyway. On the other hand, you could find pleasure in great things, such as caring for the sick, or coming up with some great discovery. But since everyone who benefited from your discovery will end up dead in the end, wouldn't that make them pretty much meaningless as well? So what difference is it to you if Billy Graham enjoys his life by "spreading the good news" rather than through sex, drugs, or whatever else, when he's going to be just as happy when he'd dead anyway? All of this is a roundabout way of saying that, apart from some transcendent quality to life, you really have no criteria on which to base whether or not a life is wasted, now do you?

And I think it would actually be better if you enjoyed your life by sitting at home and minding your own buisness, be that drugs or games or whatever, rather than walking around and bothering people, who just try to mind their own buisness.

The things that Mother Theresa did were undoubtedly good, productive things that helped the world, whether the God she did it in then ame of exists or not. Billy Graham, on the other hand, committed his life to telling others about Jesus. SO, if Christianity si right, he's one of them ost influential people to ever exist, but if its wrong, his life doesn't amount to much. Either way, Mother Theresa matters, but Billy Graham gets polarized. See the difference?

This topic exemplifies the reason Christianity (and all other religions) have lasted so long: because of fear. No one has all the answers, so a few people who were wise for their time decided to make some. Also, all religions have some sense of 'we're right, they're wrong' to it. So if the point of this thread is to get us unsaved nonbelievers to throw an occasional prayer to Jesus, how do you know that's the 'right' religion. Millions of ethnic groups have made their own explanation on who we are as life forms and where we are headed, so who is to say with authority which is right? To me, that shows the invalidity of all religion.

It is not that your reasoning is circular, but rather instead that of those who would observe such testimony and reject it outright as entirely implausible.

Author:	Didymus [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:21 am ]
Post subject:
homerstarrun70fireboy wrote: Every point of why I'm an Athiest has been hit. Ha ha, and I was about to make some TL;DR post(although, I doubt Teff still holds the same beliefs). I love you juyz. Actually, I'd be very interested to know what Teff has to say on the subject these days, since, after all, this thread was his baby.

Author:	DukeNuke [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:11 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Which is why I base my faith on one who has died and returned from the dead. That is, until someone can offer me conclusive data to demonstrate that it didn't take place. Curious. What kind of data and how much would it take to disprove it? Does one need to disprove the entire bible, or just that event? Perhaps one can prove that people can't come back to life after X hours of death? Or after loosing a certain percentage of your blood? But since we're dealing with a supposively supernatural event and a supernatural god, I guess natural data is not good enough? It's impossible to disprove a negative, thus the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim. Can you repeat the phenomena? Can you proove that the witnesses in the bible were real and not just fictional? Can you proove that Jesus wasn't just fictional? Did anybody make sure that Jesus was actually dead, and not just unconscious or even faking it? Why would god have himself killed, anyway? Couldn't he just forgive right away? Who was he trying to convince? Himself?

Author:	Didymus [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Does one need to disprove the entire bible, or just that event? If you could disprove that one event, you'd pretty much have proven the Bible's central point untrue (1 Corinthians 15). Quote: But since we're dealing with a supposively supernatural event and a supernatural god, I guess natural data is not good enough? But that's just it. We are dealing with an event that transcends nature as we know it. You'd be very hard pressed to find a natural explanation, and if you were able to do so, then you would have made the significance of the event pretty much pointless. Quote: Can you repeat the phenomena? But that's just it: if I could repeat the phenomenon at will, then its nature as a miraculous event - i.e., one accomplished only by God himself - then it pretty much makes the significance of it as a miracle of little value. Quote: Can you proove that the witnesses in the bible were real and not just fictional? 1. At least seven different witnesses wrote about the event, and their different accounts verify each other. As with witnesses in a trial, if their testimonies match, then they are to be considered reliable unless it can be proven that all of them are lying. 2. Of these seven witnesses that wrote, all but one of them were tortured and killed for adhering to what they believed to be true (and the remaining one - St. John - was not himself exempt from interrogation; he too was arrested and tortured, only not put to death). Now, if what they were writing was not true, then you have to ask the question: why would these criminals persist in perpetrating this fraud, knowing that they were going to be killed for doing so? The best answer: they believed it themselves. 3. The Christian faith has always placed a very high value on truth. It is highly doubtful that, given this prevailing sense of honesty, that any conspiracy to propagate falsehood would be carried out by its adherents. Not impossible, perhaps, but there would have to be something they valued even higher that truth to motivate them. And how valuable was truth to them? Most of them were willing to suffer and die for what they believed rather than renounce it. So either it is the most clever lie in history - and even that with motives that would make no sense - or we must submit that, at the very least they thought they were telling the truth. 4. Manuscript evidence: one of the popular claims of the last hundred years was that the biblical writings were not actually written by those whom the Church historically claims wrote them, but were written hundreds of years later. Since that time, available manuscript evidence has been uncovered that show that these writings were written much earlier than some scholars were willing to claim. And the sheer proliferation of the available copies makes it highly likely that they were written much earlier than even the earliest dated manuscripts we yet have. So the "written hundreds of years later" claim is essentially debunked by archaeology. Now, these "clues" if you will may not in your mind "prove" the integrity of the early witnesses, but you'd be hard pressed to offer me a believable explanation as to why they are not to be trusted. In the end, it seems to me that the only reason they are not trusted by more people is because people don't really want to follow their testimony to the ultimate conclusion: that this Jesus of Nazareth really did die and really did rise from the dead in a miraculous event. People have already discounted the event, and that's pretty much the only reason they do not trust the witnesses. Quote: Can you proove that Jesus wasn't just fictional? Can you cite me any serious contemporary scholarship that denies he was an actual historical person? That tactic has been used before, but no serious historian would even entertain the notion that the man never existed. Let's be realistic here. Quote: Did anybody make sure that Jesus was actually dead, and not just unconscious or even faking it? Yes. A Roman soldier stabbed him in the chest with a spear after checking to make sure he wasn't breathing. Not breathing with a spear in your chest is pretty sure evidence that you're dead. But even if he weren't fully dead, how long do you think he'd survive wrapped in grave clothes (which, at the very least, would make it very difficult to breathe), lying in a tomb without medical attention, with loss of blood and a gaping wound in his chest. I seriously doubt that, given what he had endured, that under normal circumstances, he'd be up and walking without assistance within 48 hours. Quote: Why would god have himself killed, anyway? Couldn't he just forgive right away? Who was he trying to convince? Himself? Because without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins. God does not break his own rules. Now, the idea of self-sacrifice may not sit right with you - it may not be the kind of thing you would do - but that says almost nothing about the nature of God, since you aren't him and therefore are in no place to speak on his behalf. It was necessary for God's justice to be appeased - by the Law, sin has a penalty that must be paid, and God was not willing to simply do away with the Law. And so, rather than dooming all mankind, he chose instead to pay the penalty of the Law himself. There is a story I once heard about a lady who had some unpaid parking tickets and was in danger of losing her license to drive. But when she went into court, the judge was her own father. Now, if he had wanted to abuse his position, he could have simply thrown out the tickets and she'd be absolved of them. But if he had, it certainly would have made him look crooked. On the other hand, he didn't want to see his daughter lose her license on account of those tickets. So what did he do? He declared her guilty and ordered to to remit the fines. Then he took off his robe, stepped down from the bench, and paid the fines himself. Yes, God could simply ignore sin, turn a blind eye to it and let men do whatever they want. But if he did, he would not be very just in doing so. It is necessary for the penalty to be paid, and that's exactly what took place on Calvary. Which, as I was discussing in another thread, is exactly why Jesus cries out, "Tetelesthai!" just before he dies. "Tetelesthai," (usually translated "It is finished!") is a Greek idiom for "Paid in Full." So, no, maybe it doesn't make sense to your limited human reasoning, but it makes sense to God.

Author:	Cobalt [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:53 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: 2. Of these seven witnesses that wrote, all but one of them were tortured and killed for adhering to what they believed to be true (and the remaining one - St. John - was not himself exempt from interrogation; he too was arrested and tortured, only not put to death). Now, if what they were writing was not true, then you have to ask the question: why would these criminals persist in perpetrating this fraud, knowing that they were going to be killed for doing so? The best answer: they believed it themselves. plenty of people have died for their beliefs. that doesn't mean their beliefs were TRUE. Joseph Smith Jr and David Koresh come to mind. Quote: Quote: Why would god have himself killed, anyway? Couldn't he just forgive right away? Who was he trying to convince? Himself? Because without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins. untrue. Quote: There is a story I once heard about a lady who had some unpaid parking tickets and was in danger of losing her license to drive. But when she went into court, the judge was her own father. Now, if he had wanted to abuse his position, he could have simply thrown out the tickets and she'd be absolved of them. But if he had, it certainly would have made him look crooked. On the other hand, he didn't want to see his daughter lose her license on account of those tickets. So what did he do? He declared her guilty and ordered to to remit the fines. Then he took off his robe, stepped down from the bench, and paid the fines himself. that's misconduct. the judge had a conflict of interest; he should have recused himself.

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:23 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: plenty of people have died for their beliefs. that doesn't mean their beliefs were TRUE. Joseph Smith Jr and David Koresh come to mind. But the fact that they died for their beliefs demonstrates at least this much: they they themselves believed them to be true and were not willing to renounce them. But in the two cases that you mention, what we have are individuals who had various claims that were independent. In the case of the apostles, what we have is an essentially unanimous testimony, not just of those who wrote the New Testament writings, but also those whose writings have not survived. We have not isolated martyrs of singular causes, but multiple martyrs who bore testimony to the same event: namey the resurrection of Christ. In the case of Joseph Smith, it appears that at least a large portion of the issue revolved around a political maneuver on his part to suppress freedom of the press. To the best of my knowledge, his death was not directly related to any accounts he offered of any miraculous events. The same appears to be true of David Koresh. I have not been able to locate any documentation concerning whether he bore witness to any particular events of a miraculous nature, other than some prophecies that he was the Messiah, but none that, to the best of my knowledge, were witnessed by others who could attest their validity. So in both of the cited instances, while some may see correspondence, I see them as being entirely different. Quote: untrue. Can you cite me any reason why I should not believe this? It seems to be a consistent theme throughout the Tanak, and is stated quite clearly in Hebrews 9:22 (yes, I know you do not acknowledge the New Testament - but if you expect me to take your denial seriously, you should back up what you say with some authoritative resource). Quote: that's misconduct. the judge had a conflict of interest; he should have recused himself. Was his judgment unfair? Was he wrong in fulfilling the obligations of his office as judge by declaring her guilty and ordering the remission? Was he wrong in acting in kindness and love toward his daughter by paying the fines himself? Your charge of misconduct is a mere technicality; it does not address whether his final solution was right and just or a blatant violation of the law.

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 4 of 6

Author:	sci-fi greg [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:34 am ]
Post subject:
The Greeks believed they served their gods not by worshiping them, but by being excellent. So I'd rather live my life well instead of wasting half of it worrying about some almighty being that there is no proof exists.

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:42 am ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	Acekirby [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:11 am ]
Post subject:
I'd also be interested to see Teff's current point of view on this subject. What he said at the beginning of the thread (in '04) doesn't sound like something he'd say nowadays.

Author:	Cobalt [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:22 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Can you cite me any reason why I should not believe this? It seems to be a consistent theme throughout the Tanak, and is stated quite clearly in Hebrews 9:22 (yes, I know you do not acknowledge the New Testament - but if you expect me to take your denial seriously, you should back up what you say with some authoritative resource). Judaism never required blood sacrifices for forgiveness of sins across the board. first of all, the only sins that could be forgiven through use of sacrifices were unintentional sins; intentional sins did not require bringing an offering, and furthermore COULD NOT be forgiven through bringing an offering. besides which, poor people who couldn't afford to buy an animal to use for the offering were permitted to bring flour instead, and that was perfectly acceptable. flour, as you know, does not have blood. the way to receive forgiveness for sins is, and always has been, through repentance and prayer. these alone are enough, and there is plenty of evidence to prove it: Isaiah 1:11-18, Proverbs 16:6, Micah 6:7-8, Hoseah 6:6 and 14:2-3, 1 Kings 8:46-50, and most obviously the Book of Jonah where the city of Nineveh repents their sins and it says that God saw their DEEDS -- not their sacrifices, which are not mentioned anywhere -- and forgave them. not to mention the fact that the types of sacrifices that WERE permitted were extremely specific and Jesus didn't fit the criteria to be any sort of a sacrifice at all: he wasn't offered on the altar of the Temple, his throat wasn't cut, his blood wasn't sprinkled, his fat wasn't burnt, the non-burnt parts of his body weren't eaten by the priests, and above all he was a HUMAN and not any of the acceptable animals used for sacrifices. and he wasn't flour, either. if you actually read the Bible, God is extremely anal about these things and Aaron's sons even died because they offered a sacrifice incorrectly. when the Temple was destroyed and sacrifices could no longer be offered, the Jewish people didn't flip out because now there was no way to have their sins forgiven. they knew that the sacrifices were a secondary, symbolic means of outwardly expressing their regret for having unintentionally transgressed, not the exclusive means by which they could be forgiven. "For you do not desire a sacrifice, else I would give it; a burnt-offering you do not want. The sacrifices God desires are a broken spirit, a heart broken and humbled." -Psalm 51 Quote: Was his judgment unfair? Was he wrong in fulfilling the obligations of his office as judge by declaring her guilty and ordering the remission? Was he wrong in acting in kindness and love toward his daughter by paying the fines himself? Your charge of misconduct is a mere technicality; it does not address whether his final solution was right and just or a blatant violation of the law. it's impossible to tell whether his judgment was fair or unfair because he had a vested interest in the welfare of the defendant.

Author:	Mike D [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:57 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: 1. At least seven different witnesses wrote about the event, and their different accounts verify each other. As with witnesses in a trial, if their testimonies match, then they are to be considered reliable unless it can be proven that all of them are lying. If seven witnesses in a modern court separately took the stand and testified that they saw an executed man resurrect himself after three days in the crypt they would not be considered reliable. Implausibility eclipses corroborating testimony. Mike

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:
But the only reason you claim the event implausible is on account of your assumption that God does not exist, and therefore miracles cannot happen. That is circular reasoning on your part. Cobalt: 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. When God established his covenant with Abraham, was not that covenant sealed with the sacrifice of animals? 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. It is a universal principle: in order for one to receive, another must give. Sin brings with it the penalty of death; therefore, for one to receive forgiveness of sin, another must die. 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. And as for the temple: having fulfilled its purpose of revealing the ultimate sacrifice (namely Christ), it was no longer necessary for the shadow of things to come (the Old Covenant sacrifices) to remain. It's all there in the Book of Hebrews. As for my analogy, do you think that God himself is without vested interest in us? And yet, despite his compassion for us, still acts as our judge. So despite your overly critical analysis of the story, the point still holds: God's compassion and justice still place him in the same position, where he must act as our judge, and yet wishes to be compassionate. If he simply dismisses the charges, then he cannot rightly be called just. But if he enacts the judgment which is demanded, then who can stand?

Author:	The_Other_White_Meat [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:
But the term miracles in this case is circular. If God created the universe in his divine knowledge, then whatever he intended to happen IS in God's plan. The fact is, we see examples of God achieving things through natural laws in everyday life (for example, he created the rules of graviatation to keep the Earth orbiting the Sun and the Moon orbiting the Earth, bringing us our light sources.) So if God created these laws and works within these laws of nature he creatd to bring things about, then miracles don't exist. Why would God break his own laws? Hope that made sense, like I've said, I'm not very articulate.

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:
Here's the problem: when we speak of natural "laws", the term "law" in this instance is something of a misnomer. What we call natural "laws" are really only patterns that we can observe within the created order. It is not as though God is legally bound by natural "laws," because in a very real sense, they are not legislated in the sense in which I use the term Law above. My suggestion is that, if we are going to use a definition of miracle that addresses observed patterns of creation, we should perhaps dispense with the use of the term "laws" to describe them. Instead, use the term "natural pattern" or "natural cycle," so as to clarify that we are not speaking of Law in the legislative sense. But then, if we do that, the definition of "miracle" is merely a change in the pattern, and not the breaking of a "law." In which case, it is entirely meet, right, and salutary that God in certain circumstances would shift that pattern as needed. I liken it to a mechanic who must sometimes dismantle an engine in order to make adjustments to keep it in good working order, or to correct problems in it.

Author:	Mike D [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: But the only reason you claim the event implausible is on account of your assumption that God does not exist, and therefore miracles cannot happen. I made no such claim. I said that in a modern court seven witnesses reporting something equivalent to the resurrection story would not be considered credible on the mere basis of corroborating testimony. The fact that a group of people say they saw a miracle does not mean a miracle occurred, after all. Mike

Page 4 of 6	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I made no such claim. I said that in a modern court seven witnesses reporting something equivalent to the resurrection story would not be considered credible on the mere basis of corroborating testimony. In that case, I stand corrected. It is not that your reasoning is circular, but rather instead that of those who would observe such testimony and reject it outright as entirely implausible. Quote: The fact that a group of people say they saw a miracle does not mean a miracle occurred, after all. That is true. However... 1. if the witnesses agreed in substance about such an event, 2. if the witnesses can be shown to be credible, in the sense that they are honest in their testimony, 3. no available accounts, evidence, etc., can be offered to contradict the witnesses (in the case of a claim of resurrection, for example, I would expect that there would be some evidence somewhere of a hidden body - call CSI), and 4. no other credible rational explanation can account for what the witnesses claim took place, then it would seem to me that a rational person should be willing to follow where the available accounts and evidence lead.

Author:	Ju Ju Master [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, it'd be pretty tricky to prove that it didn't happen now without some sort of currently unheard of technology. What we know is that it has never happened since and that biologically it shouldn't, so they're claims would, and in my opinion, should, be taken as false. 100 people might claim to have seen a UFO in the sky at a certain time, but it could have just been a grouping planes with their flashing lights on (or something more UFO-like). These people were not trying to deceive - they actually thought they saw a spaceship - but they were nonetheless wrong. Word of mouth is not a great source. While it's impossible to disprove his resurrection, there's less evidence proving it.

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:
If we were to adopt that strategy, then the reality is that we'd pretty much have to discount the vast majority of what we consider to be history. Let's face it: the only reason that this event is held in higher scrutiny than other historical events - such as, say, the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, or the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar - is because the central event is one of a miraculous nature. In short, we're right back to the circular reasoning again: the only reason people discount it is because they begin with the assumption that miracles cannot occur, and then proceed to discount any evidence for one.

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:48 am ]
Post subject:
DukeNuke wrote: Curious. What kind of data and how much would it take to disprove it? Does one need to disprove the entire bible, or just that event? Perhaps one can prove that people can't come back to life after X hours of death? Or after loosing a certain percentage of your blood? But since we're dealing with a supposedly supernatural event and a supernatural god, I guess natural data is not good enough? By 'supernatural' do you mean an event that defies the laws of physics? I think if all the chemicals in a dead body would align just perfectly, maybe the miracle could have taken place without breaking any scientific laws designed by God in the first place, which would be an event way to unlikely to occur by chance. So can it be proven untrue by science? No. Is it still miraculous? Yes. Quote: 100 people might claim to have seen a UFO in the sky at a certain time, but it could have just been a grouping planes with their flashing lights on (or something more UFO-like). In your case of a UFO, there is another rational explanation to replace those claims (like, it wasn't a UFO, just a bunch of planes). In the case of a guy being dead and a few days later being alive again, what other rational explanation can you possibly come up with?

Author:	DESTROY US ALL! [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:34 am ]
Post subject:
ed 'lim' smilde wrote: what other rational explanation can you possibly come up with? Solanum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zombie ... de#Solanum

Author:	The_Other_White_Meat [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:48 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: I seriously doubt that any religious person would ever think of their life as "wasted" as you so put it. I most certainly don't think of my life as "wasted." Would you say Mother Theresa "wasted" her life? No, but I would say that, if Christianity was wrong, someone who dedicated their life to "spreading the good news" rather than doing good deeds in God's name, such as Billy Graham, would have wasted much of their life, yes.

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:14 am ]
Post subject:
1. I fail to understand your distinction between "spreading the good news" and "doing good deeds in God's name." Perhaps you should clarify. 2. I seriously doubt that Billy Graham would see it that way. 3. And, when you get right down to it, since every human being on the face of the earth is going to die anyway, then wouldn't it be true that, regardless of what how a person lived, their life would be pretty much wasted anyway? On one hand, you could derive mindless pleasure from certain things, but when you're dead, you won't remember them anyway. On the other hand, you could find pleasure in great things, such as caring for the sick, or coming up with some great discovery. But since everyone who benefited from your discovery will end up dead in the end, wouldn't that make them pretty much meaningless as well? So what difference is it to you if Billy Graham enjoys his life by "spreading the good news" rather than through sex, drugs, or whatever else, when he's going to be just as happy when he'd dead anyway? All of this is a roundabout way of saying that, apart from some transcendent quality to life, you really have no criteria on which to base whether or not a life is wasted, now do you?

Author:	DukeNuke [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:17 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: So what difference is it to you if Billy Graham enjoys his life by "spreading the good news" rather than through sex, drugs, or whatever else, when he's going to be just as happy when he'd dead anyway? So you're basicly saying a finite life is pointless and it doesn't matter what you do unless you live forever? Ok, I'm exaggerating, but you see my point? Yes, we will die and be forgotten and perhaps eventually our entire universe will be no more, but why not enjoy life while you have it? Wasted or not, enjoy the ride and do what you want as long as you don't ruin it for other people. And I think it would actually be better if you enjoyed your life by sitting at home and minding your own buisness, be that drugs or games or whatever, rather than walking around and bothering people, who just try to mind their own buisness.

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:
DukeNuke wrote: And I think it would actually be better if you enjoyed your life by sitting at home and minding your own buisness, be that drugs or games or whatever, rather than walking around and bothering people, who just try to mind their own buisness. If that is the case, Duke, then why are you bothering to post here at all? If minding your own business is the epitome of the good life, you haven't been doing a very good job of it. Isn't it Mother Theresa's business if she wanted to help the sick? Isn't it Rev. Graham's business if he wishes to spread his faith, or the business of the people who actually wanted to hear his message? Isn't it my business if I want to preach, teach, and administer the Sacraments to my congregation, and their business if they want to receive it? That being the case, why are you sticking your nose in people's business and trying to ruin it for them? The Other White Meat wrote: The things that Mother Theresa did were undoubtedly good, productive things that helped the world, whether the God she did it in then ame of exists or not. Billy Graham, on the other hand, committed his life to telling others about Jesus. SO, if Christianity si right, he's one of them ost influential people to ever exist, but if its wrong, his life doesn't amount to much. Either way, Mother Theresa matters, but Billy Graham gets polarized. See the difference? I think I understand where you're coming from, but here's the problem: you do remember that Mother Theresa basically spent her life caring for the sick and dying. Now considering that the people she cared for eventually died anyway, and if we (and they) are merely animals that are all going to die, then what real difference did her life really make? But here's the other point: what motivated Mother Theresa to live the kind of life she lived was the love of Christ anyway, so in a very real sense, the kind of life she lived had the exact same foundation that Graham's did. As for historical significance, if the criteria we are to apply is whether or not the person left a lasting impression on history, then it cannot be argued that Graham's was any less significant than Mother Theresa's, even if God doesn't exist. Why? Because history - if it is to be true history - cannot impose any particular ideology on the events of a person's life. If God exists, then Theresa and Graham both served him and their lives had purpose on account of that. If not, then in both cases, while it may be said that a few benefited from them, neither life matters in any ultimate sense. I would also point out that your doctrine of historical significance is something of an appeal to a transcendent ideal, something which scholars call "social immortality." The idea is that, if someone can make a name for themselves and be remembered historically, then their life really mattered. But there are reasons why it is inappropriate for you to appeal to this: (1) considering that all human beings - and even humanity itself one day - are going to die, then ultimately there can be no meaning to any historical event or person; (2) it doesn't address the nature of the deeds in question - in theory, Charles Manson could claim to have equal historical significance with Mother Theresa, even though their ideologies concerning human dignity are polar opposite. And as for your final point: it still does not address the question as to whether life beyond the grave is real or not. If it is, then what we do here does ultimately matter. If not, then it doesn't. The problem I have is that there seems to be this supposed idea that if you actually do live as though God and the afterlife exist, it means your life will be sucky, but if you don't, then it will be a fun ride the whole way. There doesn't seem to be any real reason I should believe that at all. I know plenty of Christians who enjoy life as much if not more than any Epicurean (I went to seminary with most of them), and I've known atheists who were sour and somber as Ebenezer Scrooge. So I still fail to see this connection of "Religious Life = Sucks / Atheist LIfe = Rocks!" It also fails to take into account the reality that life isn't always what we make it to be. Do you think an atheist resident of New Orleans had more fun after his house was destroyed than a Christian who endured the same tragedy? What it all comes down to is this: a faulty belief that an atheistic life automatically means more fun. And there's no evidence, empirical or rational, to support that claim.

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:
The_Other_White_Meat wrote: The things that Mother Theresa did were undoubtedly good, productive things that helped the world, whether the God she did it in then ame of exists or not. Billy Graham, on the other hand, committed his life to telling others about Jesus. SO, if Christianity si right, he's one of them ost influential people to ever exist, but if its wrong, his life doesn't amount to much. Either way, Mother Theresa matters, but Billy Graham gets polarized. See the difference? But to themselves, they were both happy with what they did and how they lived their lives. If Christianity turns out to be wrong, Billy Graham will be dead anyways, and he can't change his mind about how happy he is with his life if he's dead.

Author:	corrections [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:34 am ]
Post subject:
This topic exemplifies the reason Christianity (and all other religions) have lasted so long: because of fear. No one has all the answers, so a few people who were wise for their time decided to make some. Also, all religions have some sense of 'we're right, they're wrong' to it. So if the point of this thread is to get us unsaved nonbelievers to throw an occasional prayer to Jesus, how do you know that's the 'right' religion. Millions of ethnic groups have made their own explanation on who we are as life forms and where we are headed, so who is to say with authority which is right? To me, that shows the invalidity of all religion.

Author:	StrongRad [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:55 am ]
Post subject:
corrections wrote: This topic exemplifies the reason Christianity (and all other religions) have lasted so long: because of fear. No one has all the answers, so a few people who were wise for their time decided to make some. Also, all religions have some sense of 'we're right, they're wrong' to it. So if the point of this thread is to get us unsaved nonbelievers to throw an occasional prayer to Jesus, how do you know that's the 'right' religion. Millions of ethnic groups have made their own explanation on who we are as life forms and where we are headed, so who is to say with authority which is right? To me, that shows the invalidity of all religion. Spare us this tripe. We've all heard that "fear" argument. It shows a lack of understanding of the point. Anyone who belongs to a religion because of "fear" is (at least with Christianity) in it for the wrong reason (and is probably not REALLY a member of that religion). People who belong to religion do it because they know that there's more to the universe than the blatantly obvious. Does this make them better than others? No. Does it somehow degrade the nonbelievers? No. As for the "we're right, they're wrong" thing, everyone has that at some level. Your post contained that, too. There's nothing wrong with that. It's human nature. Upon re-reading this, it seems like this post was a little more jerky (jerkish?) than I intend.

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:57 am ]
Post subject:
Well, if you had read the entire thread, you'd know what my answer to that question would be: the objective reality of the cross and the empty grave.

Author:	Mike D [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:08 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: It is not that your reasoning is circular, but rather instead that of those who would observe such testimony and reject it outright as entirely implausible. It is certainly reasonable to cast doubt, however, and search for a more likely explanation than miracles. Let's say we have a court case in which a small group of people is accused of stealing a dead body (the body of someone who was killed in a very convincing fashion...for the sake of this example let's say the victim was definitely 100% dead before they put him in the tomb). The accused say they didn't take the body; instead, after three days it got up on its own and ascended into the sky. Their stories match up and there's no sign of the body itself. If you're on that jury are you going to assume they're telling the truth just because nobody's around who can contradict them? Wouldn't it be reasonable to ask for more proof than just their word? Mike

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:28 am ]
Post subject:
Except that there's far more to it than just that. You really have to take the totality of the events of that time, as well as the events of the lives of those who made that proclamation. It really goes back to what I stated before: you have several men whose stories match, whose lives demonstrated that they placed a very high value on truth, and the fact that, for whatever reasons, this incredible message spread rapidly despite the opposition it faced wherever it went. And before we get into all this, "But dem anchint peepils wuz dum en sooprstishis," you must also remember that the ancient world was ripe with all sorts of skepticism and various competing philosophies, in much the same way our modern culture is. The most interesting case to me is that of Saul of Tarsus, who was a highly educated man and a staunch opponent of the Christian faith, until something happened to him on the way to Damascus, and then suddenly, he is one of the most vocal proponents of this religion, even to the point of defying the religious authorities who once commissioned his work, and being sent to Rome to stand trial for his faith. According to his own testimony, it was because this Jesus of Nazareth appeared to him on the road. I suppose it's possible that it could have been an isolated incident that drove him insane, but then one would have to wonder, how is it that he became known as one of the wisest among the followers of Jesus? Ever read any of St. Paul's epistles? Do they strike you as the insane ramblings of a madman? or a conspirator? But it's not just that their own testimonies matched, but that those of their opponents tended to contradict each other, meaning that those who opposed them were not themselves trustworthy, and their testimonies usually based on lies (which, in a court of law, would constitute perjury). But once again, we are still speaking of the same issue: this event is considered implausible ONLY because it involves a miracle for which there is no rational explanation. 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. Such an approach is entirely circular reasoning. 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.