Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

You are pulling, gently, at their security blanket. I have been brusquely grabbing and attempting to yank it away. But either way, the thought of life without their security blanket terrifies them. So like a small child whose "blankie" has been taken from him, they are furious with rage...and fear.

Try looking elsewhere than the mirror.

[Gary]

Chiefly in your standard of proof and your over-literal analysis of biblical passages. You have been rather more polite about it than Gary, which is why I distinguish between you.

For all of you Christians whining that I am so mean and nasty, I would encourage to look back at the beginning of this thread to see who started throwing the personal insults first. I insulted your belief system from the start, I readily admit. I insulted your belief system as ridiculous, silly, and nothing more than a superstition, but, I did not engage in personal attacks until I was repeatedly attacked by people whose leader left specific orders for them to turn the other cheek...and I think he meant the one on your face.

:)


Comment #13 by JP: Gary starts with the "I'm too lazy to look into all of these" card. I had figured that someone with a blog would have already graduated kindergarten.


Comment #31 by the ever-so-Christ-like "(Book) Wormy Christian": He's so fundy, he's making some fundy atheists look like they have a brain. I was expecting him to pull the Christ myth thing. Not play there are so many options game. How does he pick what to order at a restaurant! So many choices!

and this a few comments later from Wormy: Anyone that thinks Gary had any good points must be a fellow fundy! William and Gary fail historical studies forever!



Comment #55 by Sparko: All Gary basically did was use logical fallacies, like saying if stories about Buddha are not true, then that means reports about Jesus are not true either. Derp.



Comment #88. This is my (Gary's) first comment:

Ok, so the debate thread has been closed, so I assume that means I can now comment here on the comment thread.

I first want to say that I missed seeing that Nick had posted his final comment this morning (it was on the next page which I did not see). So, sorry if my statement about jumping ahead of Nick in making my final, final comment seemed strange.

Secondly, I do NOT believe that all Christians are stupid. However, very educated, very intelligent people can still believe some really stupid things. Sorry for my bluntness, but it is my personal opinion that believing in virgin-impregnating ghosts and reanimated dead Jewish prophets who crave broiled fish after three nights in the tomb, and, who at times travel by levitation into outer space, is really dumb. The sooner people realize that these claims and similar claims in other religions are nonsense, the better off we will all be. For example, it is reported that the shooter in Chattanooga committed his despicable act for the purpose of convincing his particular god to forgive him for doing drugs and driving under the influence. Ridiculous, tragic superstition.

Lastly, Nick assumes I have not investigated the Christians claims. I have. Maybe not to Nick's satisfaction, but I have. First, I read all 800+ pages of NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God", and I have read articles by the following Christian authors and apologists:

1. Gary Habermas
2. Larry Esposito
3. Peter Kreeft
4. Mike Licona
5. Josh McDowell
6. Matt Slick
7. Richard Swineburne

Why didn't I quote any of them in my debate? Answer: They all use the same, unconvincing, weak evidence: assumptions about the behavior of people twenty centuries ago, biased expert opinion on the behavior of peoples living twenty centuries ago, and second century hearsay.



Comment #172 by One Bad Piggy: How about you work on your reading comprehension? You are patently still a fundamentalist; you've simply changed sides



Comment #187 by Sparko: sheesh. How ignorant ARE you? And by the way, are you and William friends? You show up at the same time, both claim to be agnostics, both make the same arguments, and both show you don't have any background on the subject.



Comment #224 by Sparko: I agree with Pentecost, I like William and I hope he sticks around. Gary on the other hand is basically an smug idiot, much like Firstfloor.



Dear Christians: Must I go on?? I strongly and critically challenged your beliefs but I never called anyone an idiot or other personal insults as you see above used by Christians against me. So stop your whinin' and take back some of what you were giving.

[tabibito]

I am just discussing points and ideas that I have related to the bible. I do not claim to be more serious than anyone. If no one wants a discussion, then I can leave you all alone if you like.

Quite so - however, in Gary's case:

To Gary,

Please pull out of this debate. As you can see, I'm also an atheist, and I'm by no means a friend of winger type Christians on this forum. But you're not making a good case against what Nick is saying at all. You're using a lot of vagueness and red-herrings in this discussion that do you no favors. In case you didn't know, Nick is a NT scholar and professional theologian, so he's a got a good education on this topic. I've got my opinions on him but the man is no idiot and he knows a lot more than you or I on this issue, so you've got know the dance really well before you make a go of a debate with him. All you can do at this point is just be his little punching bag for several posts and then the Christian clan on this forum will get a good laugh.

Not only Christians, and Sea of Red is not the only atheist to have complained about Gary's ... style.
And I think that you will be able to see from this that there is a problem, not one of theists' making.

[Gary]

Quite so - however, in Gary's case:


Not only Christians, and Sea of Red is not the only atheist to have complained about Gary's ... style.
And I think that you will be able to see from this that there is a problem, not one of theists' making.

So because Red doesn't like my debate style I did something wrong??

Again, the goal of my debate style was to show that you don't need a degree in theology, philosophy or even a high school diploma to not believe in the reanimation of dead bodies. Use your Creator-given-brain and good ol' common sense. The likelihood of a dead body being reanimated is no greater than catching a leprechaun in your clothes closet.

I chose not to play Nick's game. He and Red didn't like it. Tough.

[tabibito]

So because Red doesn't like my debate style I did something wrong??

Again, the goal of my debate style was to show that you don't need a degree in theology, philosophy or even a high school diploma to not believe in the reanimation of dead bodies. Use your Creator-given-brain and good ol' common sense. The likelihood of a dead body being reanimated is no greater than catching a leprechaun in your clothes closet.

I chose not to play Nick's game. He and Red didn't like it. Tough.

The whole point of most miracles is that they ARE impossible in the natural order - otherwise, they wouldn't be miracles.
The exceptions usually involve background knowledge that couldn't have been acquired by natural means.

The only possible objection to the possibility of a miracle is the opinion (whether well founded or not) that a god doesn't exist, or that the knowledge of how to circumvent the natural order is not available to the god in question.

In short, the declaration - that something can't have happened because it is impossible - is an exercise in circular reasoning.

You start with the premise that there is no god. On the basis of that premise you declare that any claims of miracles are false (no matter how well attested). You then use the assertion (no matter how ill founded) that no miracles have occurred as the basis for declaring that there is no God.

[Gary]

The whole point of most miracles is that they ARE impossible in the natural order - otherwise, they wouldn't be miracles.
The exceptions usually involve background knowledge that couldn't have been acquired by natural means.

The only possible objection to the possibility of a miracle is the opinion (whether well founded or not) that a god doesn't exist, or that the knowledge of how to circumvent the natural order is not available to the god in question.

In short, the declaration - that something can't have happened because it is impossible - is an exercise in circular reasoning.



You start with the premise that there is no god. On the basis of that premise you declare that any claims of miracles are false (no matter how well attested). You then use the assertion (no matter how ill founded) that no miracles have occurred as the basis for declaring that there is no God.

Have you listened to anything I have said, Tabby???

I have NEVER said that miracles and supernatural events are IMPOSSIBLE. What I have consistently said is that miracles and other supernatural events are very, very, very IMPROBABLE based on collective human experience. That's it. I cannot prove that miracles don't happen. I can only demonstrate that you should not hold your breath waiting for one to happen.

[JonathanL]

I can only demonstrate that you should not hold your breath waiting for one to happen.

You're probably wasting your time in that case. From what I've read so far from tabibito I get the distinct expression that he's not exactly the kind of person that goes out looking for miracles.

[One Bad Pig]

Dear Christians: Must I go on?? I strongly and critically challenged your beliefs but I never called anyone an idiot or other personal insults as you see above used by Christians against me. So stop your whinin' and take back some of what you were giving.

Your passive-aggressive predilection is duly noted - and your whining, hypocrite.

[tabibito]

Have you listened to anything I have said, Tabby???

I have NEVER said that miracles and supernatural events are IMPOSSIBLE. What I have consistently said is that miracles and other supernatural events are very, very, very IMPROBABLE based on collective human experience. That's it. I cannot prove that miracles don't happen. I can only demonstrate that you should not hold your breath waiting for one to happen.

Given that I have witnessed a couple already - your comment is (I'm not sure what word applies). Of course - you now have the options of believing that I am deluded or that I am lying. Nothing you have said to date leads me to believe that you could accept the possibility that I am speaking the truth.

[tabibito]

You're probably wasting your time in that case. From what I've read so far from tabibito I get the distinct expression that he's not exactly the kind of person that goes out looking for miracles.

Quite so - life is usually so much more comfortable without them.

[psstein]

I'm not on or near my computer/references, so briefly:

1. The euhmerist approach to the resurrection doesn't work. Why not? The ancient creed in 1 Corinthians 15 a Greek verb that means "to rise from a lying to standing position." Paul may not know of the empty tomb, but the tradition does.

2. The Markan passion narrative dates from the late 30s or early 40s. It's not contemporary with Mark.

3. From ALL evidence we have, the earliest Christians believed Jesus had risen bodily from the dead. See Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ, which convicingly shows a very early high Christology.

4. If you have an inconsistency between*Acts and the undisputed Pauline epistles, go with Paul.

I'm far from an inerrantist, and 2-4 are pretty well supported in the scholarly literature. 3 is not without controversy. 1 was the subject of a recent scholarly article in the journal for NT studies.

[tabibito]

Why would Paul address elementary principles such as the empty tomb, in letters to churches that were already grounded in those principles?
It seems to me he would only do so if problems had arisen with regard to particular issues: if there was no dispute, basic issues would not (in the ordinary course) be addressed.

[Gary]

It's been a blast, guys, but time to leave.

Take care.

[Adrift]

If your position is that it is impossible for someone to be a Christian unless they believe like you, then by definition you are a fundamentalist.

My friend, you have been brainwashed to believe that "resurrection" is not the same thing as a reanimation. You cannot resuscitate a body that has been dead for 72 hours. Either the body of Jesus came back to life or his ghost came back and visited the disciples. There is no inbetween except in your fundamentalist imagination.

It's been a blast, guys, but time to leave.

Take care.

Aww.

[tabibito]

My friend, you have been brainwashed to believe that "resurrection" is not the same thing as a reanimation. You cannot resuscitate a body that has been dead for 72 hours.

Have you listened to anything I have said, Tabby???

I have NEVER said that miracles and supernatural events are IMPOSSIBLE.