Why are you an atheist/Agnostic

[Pitchforkpat]

Why did the followers of Jesus of Nazareth claim that He had resurrected?

Why did people assure me that top gurus in the TM movement could levitate? They did this when I was a kid and was gullible like you, but I still didn’t believe them.

Why do the followers of Sai Baba claim he performs miracles?

Answer these questions and you’ll answer your own.

[Warcraft3]

No problem. I can make the connection for the insipid old moron in the back pew who smells like old socks.

Speculating?

Gold?

Get it?

I had to ask an atheist friend of mine at work what the joke was.....so now I finally get it.



I wonder if him being an atheist had anything to do with understanding your humor......

Oh I have waited a long time to say this....

You have just officially committed the Steadele Fallacy

And given who you are, either you exploded or you demonstrated a hole in the Fallacy.

I deliberately left out half of the comment to create such and illusion...and you fell for it...

The entire comment is....

"I could be wrong...if my name wasn't Steadele and you weren't a tool"

That and $1.95 will get you a cup of coffee

I don't usually drink much coffee anymore.....I have switched to hot tea...easier on the stomach......

Can't say I know the name.

Basically I accept an old earth and evolution. I also reject a global flood and believe the Noahic flood is likely the infilling of the Mediterranean Sea some 5 million years ago...The origin of man is a bit different though with a mixture of evolution and supernatural intervention.

Interesting. So we now have:

Against Resurrection

• nothing yet

Neutral

• nothing yet

For Resurrection

• Gospel accounts (Russ - weak) (Michel - weak)

Agreed.

[QUOTE=Carpedm9587;2158004]Another piece of evidence (and feel free to toss in your own here) I consider is the number of discredited parallel claims. I would put that on the against side. We have stories of resurrections going way back. None of them have been demonstrated to be factual, and many have been outright discredited or hoaxes. However, it is fairly weak evidence. It is tangential to the discussion at hand.[QUOTE]

I would see that as tangential to both this discussion specifically and to the Resurrection argument in general...so I would not list it as either for or against. I see this as neutral.

What I see as "strong" is the early church's existence....so I basically take the "Impossible Faith" position and believe that the best explanation for the spreading of early Christianity is the existence of real miracles and the belief in the Resurrection. I do not completely agree with all of Holdings arguments for the impossible faith, but in general I find it a strong argument.

The best explanation for the belief in the Resurrection that I have found is that it actually occurred. Those are probably the strongest things for me personally in the "for" category.




Russ

[the_eliot_one]

You threw the baby out with the bath water.

The universe came into being 13.9 billion years ago, earth about 4 billion years ago, life evolved including human, there was no global flood, Lot and Sodom are legends as are much of the first five books of the Bible and human beings wrote it not God.

Those facts explained; can you explain why early Christians claimed Jesus of Nazareth resurrected?

To tell you the truth it really doesn't matter. You can claim I was dead this time yesterday and even if I'd gotten 50 testimony's to back me up, I STILL wouldn't believe me. As it happens if all but impossible things, are written along side things like that, I'm going to take it that the all but impossible things probably didn't happen either.

[Carpedm9587]

Actually I suppose any such thing.

Really? Let's see...

I accept that without evidence it is irrational to claim knowledge of an event. I also know that it is equally irrational to dismiss evidence because it points in a direction that we don’t like. That people do this is undeniable. That is why we have holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories and Young Earth Creationism.

So far so good.

The fact is we have evidence that a group of Jews declared that their Rabbi was the Son of God and that he had resurrected from the dead.

Yes, we do. We call this collection of documents and claims the NT. This constitutes evidence for this claim. Good so far.

That in itself would not be so incredible if this group wandered off into the desert and disappeared from history. It would also not be so incredible if there were competing traditions that claimed no such thing for this Rabbi.

The claim would remain the claim in either of those cases.

But that is not what we have. What we do have is a group of Jews declaring that their crucified Rabbi resurrected from the dead, was seen by many, taught for 40 days and ascended to heaven.

Not exactly. What we have is a set of documents written by a community that existed 20-30 years after these events - and they are claiming that the group of Jews that lived 20-30 years earlier made these claims and preached these things.

This is a subtle - but important - distinction. Especially given that we cannot be sure who the authors of these documents actually were. We can only surmise a few things about them from the documents themselves, and we know the documents are consistently labeled Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

They then were able to convince a sizable portion of their fellow Jews of this idea, so many in fact that they had to be suppressed by the religious leadership – who had to change some fundamental beliefs and traditions to do so.

Based on the evidence we DO have, it seems their success within the Judaic community was somewhat mixed, which is one of the reasons they move out into the gentile community. But you are correct that they had some success, and apparently raised the ire of at least some elements within the Judaic community.

They then move out into the gentile communities, effectively cutting themselves off from their people and declaring that they were no longer Jews to preach this same message.

Correct - they apparently didn't succeed so well within the Judaic community - which is apparently one of the reasons that Paul and his crew took their story on the road to the gentiles, resulting in some significant stress between the Judaic elements of the community and the non-Judaic elements of the community, as is reflected by some of the situations Paul refers to in his letters.

So, if we accept that this was just some people acting erratically the question remains; why?

Umm... who said they had to be acting erratically? And the answer to your question is "we have no clue." The motivations for their actions could be quite varied and include everything from "it was true" to "they were liars."

Why did it happen and more importantly why did they succeed?

Again - why they succeeded could be for any number of reasons. Why did Mormonism succeed? Why did the Egyptian polytheism succeed? Why does ANY belief system succeed? It succeeds because it finds people willing to say "I believe that." Their motivations for saying "I believe that" can be as varied as you can imagine.

Even if we accept that this group was so obsessed with their crucified Rabbi that they would invent – either as part of a delusion, deliberate scheme or gross misunderstanding – a story of a resurrection, why didn’t they feel his actual life and words were important enough to preserve?

This question I don't get.

Why do we have writings that, as you claim, do not relate accurate information?

Boy - there are times, FS, when I think you guys are intentionally obtuse. Once again, and with feeling - my position (in this context) is not that the gospels contain inaccurate information - it is that you cannot substantiate that they contain ACCURATE information.

"You cannot show what you are saying is true" is not the same as "what you are saying is false."

I do indeed believe that the supernatural claims of the Christian bible are false. But my reasons for so thinking are not based on the content (or lack of content) of the bible alone. So a better characterization of my position is this:

- A wide array of evidence leads me to believe that supernatural claims are invariably untrue.

- The bible makes supernatural claims, and does not provide sufficient evidence to overcome that belief.

- Ergo - I believe the bible's supernatural claims to be inaccurate.

This is what MM dubs "anti-supernatural bias." He speaks of it as if someone OUGHT to approach the bible from a neutral position. He fails to note that a bias that is grounded in evidence is perfectly acceptable. I have a bias, for example, that the authors of the bible were human beings. I have that bias because my experience is that books are written by humans. I have no experience of a book written by a giraffe. I know a bit about giraffe's and consider them incapable of writing books. MM doesn't object to THAT bias because he agrees with it.

Likewise I have a lifetime of experience and evidence that "supernatural things don't occur." He hates THAT position because he doesn't want me to have it. The problem is, I do - and it is based on a wealth of extra-biblical evidence. His biblical evidence is nowhere near strong enough to overcome that body of pre-existing evidence. So instead he wants me to just abandon the bias because he says so - so that his weak evidence can convince.

It doesn't work that way. Our beliefs are not based on a single source. They are based on a lifetime of experience and evidence. If you want to convince that a new belief (or different belief) is actually correct, your evidence has to be stronger than the pre-existing evidence - or you have to show how the pre-existing evidence is untrue or misapplied.

So do I have an anti-supernatural bias? Yep - I do. A justified one.

Now I could do as you have chosen to do; that is just ignore the question and assume that there must be answer somewhere and really what difference does it make, but that is faith and not reason.

I have ignored no questions. I have noted that we do not have a basis for answering your question. I'm sorry if that is the case, FS, but I do not set out and adopt beliefs when I do not have a solid basis for HAVING those beliefs. And I don't force interpretations on evidence that is equivocal at best so that I can say "OK - now I believe that." When the evidence is equivocal - I say "the evidence is equivocal."

If I am to come to a conclusion about anything, I need some basic questions answered.

And when you can't answer the questions... ?

If Christianity is false, this question is the one that must be adequately answered first. That means the answer must meet all or most of the objections, agree with all or most of the evidence, be culturally, socially and logically plausible and have the support of some evidence of its own. Guessing and suppositions – “might have beens” - don’t cut it. With those you end up with YEC and 9/11 fantasies.

So you end up with making assumptions, suppositions, and a faith system grounded on nothing. Sorry, FS. I prefer "that information is lost to history."

You are still exactly where you were in our last discussion. Your argument reduces to: we can make definitive statements about the motivations of people based on the actions they choose. You can't. You can speculate. You can guess. But you are doing so for people 2,000 years removed, from a different culture, with different knowledge, in a different language, and minimal evidence. You don't even get MY motivations correct most of the time - and I'm right here and can be questioned and can speak your language.

But you want me to believe you can know with any degree of certainty the motivation of these long dead people you never knew with all of the other constraints?

It boggles the mind that you even think to suggest this argument.

Michel

[whizler]

According to Dinesh D'Souza, I'm an atheist because I want to participate in a pelvic revolt against God. And maybe there are a few other reasons, but they pale in comparison.

[wattsr1]

Well reread the replies and if you can find a alternative that answers all of the evidence (or more of the evidence than the original claim) and is backed by some documentary evidence of its own please flag it for me.

What evidence are you talking about?

When I asked you about this way back at the start:-

I do not know. If you can tell me why, I shall look at your reasons and see if they make sense to me.

You simply brushed me off with a claim that I became an A/A because I wanted to. When I asked how you concluded that, you ignored me.

So, since you are now referring to the evidence, do you want to tell me about it?



Regards, Roland

[LGM]

And maybe there are a few other reasons, but they pale in comparison.

Whizler is that your site? Great stuff!

[wattsr1]

.... That means the answer must meet all or most of the objections, agree with all or most of the evidence, be culturally, socially and logically plausible and have the support of some evidence of its own. Guessing and suppositions – “might have beens” - don’t cut it. With those you end up with YEC and 9/11 fantasies.

So it is acceptable to argue that they did so for reason of (putting it very crudely) "fantasy"? (And this is, as far as I can see, what some people have argued. That is, the early Christians believed out of mistaken belief, for what ever reason).

After all, you have just admitted here, that large groups of people can witness an event and end up believing "fantasies" about it (9/11) or they may not have to witness an event (creation) but still end up believing "fantasies" about it (YEC).

What is more, I'll bet you cannot meet even your own standards of addressing most evidence, being culturally plausible etc., including satisfying our definitions of "plausibility" to explain how this can all come to be. Yet presumably you accept that they are indeed "fantasies" that are believed by various people.




Regards, Roland

[whizler]

Whizler is that your site? Great stuff!

Not right now, but who knows! Perhaps I'll get lucky and my name will be pseudonymously ascribed to it one day...

For now, it's just one of the better sites for presenting the case against Christianity, and it has a ton of great links.

[Carpedm9587]

I would see that as tangential to both this discussion specifically and to the Resurrection argument in general...so I would not list it as either for or against. I see this as neutral.

What I see as "strong" is the early church's existence....so I basically take the "Impossible Faith" position and believe that the best explanation for the spreading of early Christianity is the existence of real miracles and the belief in the Resurrection. I do not completely agree with all of Holdings arguments for the impossible faith, but in general I find it a strong argument.

The best explanation for the belief in the Resurrection that I have found is that it actually occurred. Those are probably the strongest things for me personally in the "for" category.

I would put the "Impossible Faith" argument in the neutral category. The argument is fatally flawed for all of the reasons I have already outlined in other posts - so I'll spare you here. But the flaws mean that the argument essentially fails to do what it tries to do - and ends up saying nothing about the truth/falseness of the propositions it defends.

So now we have:

Against Resurrection

• Parallel discredited claims (Michel - weak)

Neutral

• Parallel discredited claims (Russ)
• Impossible Faith argument (Michel)

For Resurrection

• Gospel accounts (Russ - weak) (Michel - weak)
• Impossible Faith argument (Russ - strong)

I would add the body of scientific evidence against human bodies rising from the dead to the list. We have a pretty extensive understanding of human physiology, natural law, and natural processes - and it stands four-square against "bodies rising from the dead." This one count against the claim resurrection claims, and I would give it a "strong."

Michel

[John Powell]

Nick:
I "believe" that 2 1/2 day old corpses stay dead......

POWELL:
What about 1 1/2 day (Friday sunset to Sunday sunrise) old corpses? Is that a little bit more believable?

John Powell

[LGM]

Let’s recap shall we?

1. FirstSunday claims that the bible is filled with all kinds of absurd supernatural myths and sacred folklore that he doesn’t believe.

2. Except it seems, the supernatural myth that a guy named Jesus somehow magically physically resurrected after being dead for three days, and then after allegedly appearing to a small band of his followers, had a quick fish snack, said his goodbyes, and then flew off into the clouds, in his reanimated physical body, to go to heaven, which everyone back then thought, was just above the clouds.

3. And the rest of us MUST believe this, because the ancient, superstitious people who allegedly did, would have to be crazy to believe something that absurd.

4.

[Carpedm9587]

According to Dinesh D'Souza, I'm an atheist because I want to participate in a pelvic revolt against God. And maybe there are a few other reasons, but they pale in comparison.

Based on this article alone, I'd have to say I find D'Souza about as impressive as I find Dawkins.

Which isn't saying a lot.

Michel

[LGM]

I gotta wonder…if humans are just another evolved species as FirstSunday claims he believes. If we’re just the result of eons of mindless genetic mutation and selection, and the last fortunate surviving species of the Homo genus...

…Then why did his god have to come to earth to sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he could forgive us, for just being an evolved species of primate?

It seems FS believes in certain resurrection stories, and in flying god-men who after they resurrect themselves, fly off into outerspace never to be seen again, but perhaps he hasn’t quite figured out how his particular brand of Christian salvation theology holds together?

Perhaps we should give him some time to work that out?

[LGM]

The Impossible Argument.

1. Some ancient people believed some really absurd, supernatural stuff.

2. Thus, it must be true, 'cause why else would they believe absurd stuff?