Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

It's pretty funny when superstitious religious people claim that logical, rational people "believe" in science. It shows the shallowness of their thinking. I don't have to "believe" in gravity to understand that it's real. It's a fact whether I believe it or not.

I'm getting itchy waiting for ff's expose on the false claims of the resurrection. He told us that it's been debunked. He offered to fill us in. I know that both isle and I at least, encouraged him to post it.

It's not like him to be so deliberate.

I hope he's okay.

Is the swine flu big in Europe these days?

Questions: If something is debunked it is exposed as being false. What is it if something is bunked?

alternate explanation-peer reviewed published study
1)The first article based the study, co-authored by Christopher Scheitle of Penn State, appears in the current issue of the journal Social Problems (Vol. 54, No. 2).

Ecklund and Scheitle concluded that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable.

Ecklund says, "It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions.

the highest percentage of believers is among astronomers. other "scientists" like M.D.'s and similar professions, generally mirror the rest of their society.

Sorry pb I've been busy but I'll get to it.

Okay.

Take your time, ff. Glad to hear that you're just busy. It happens to all of us.

A claim that is absurd on its face doesn't need to be "debunked".

Well, absurdity is a faith judgment.

Nevertheless, linc, Thomas, the Disciple, thought that the claim of the resurrection was absurd but he was convinced that he was wrong. Perhaps you need to open your mind about what it and isn't absurd.

i dont think the story of doubting thomas appears in the gospel of thomas. i think it appears only in the gospel of john. even there it never directly says that thomas stuck his hand in jesus wounds. readers are supposed to infer that this happened without ever being directly told that it does.

so who wrote john? many scholars believe that it was not written by the apostle john but by someone else altogether or maybe by a few different people over a few decades.

whatever the truth is about that the reason that john, whoever he was or they were, wrote the gospel john was to prove that jesus was a god. that was his clearly stated goal. he was not and never claimed to be a disinterested third party who was out to find out the truth about the resurrection.

when a biased witness gives testimony, the bias of the witness is always a huge factor in determining the veracity of the witness account of events. when a biased witness gives testimony of a supernatural nature that also just so happens to corroborate the witness version of events the testimony can be safely disregarded without further examination.

this is because everyone wants to be believed. and because people want to be believed sometimes they embellish the details of events to make their own version of events more believable. this is what john, whoever he or they were, does in his doubting thomas story in the bible.

Nevertheless, linc, Thomas, the Disciple, thought that the claim of the resurrection was absurd but he was convinced that he was wrong.-pb

you dont know that, pb. this is only what john, whoever john was, says about thomas. it is not what thomas says.

you also know that john, whoever he was, was extremely biased to the claim that jesus was a god.

see directly above.

pb writes,

Quote
Thomas, the Disciple, thought that the claim of the resurrection was absurd but he was convinced that he was wrong

Thomas would have been right to at least stick his fingers in the spear-hole before pronouncing the resurrection story a fact, but since the story of doubting Thomas is just a story it doesn't prove anything, especially since the metaphorical nature of the tale is obvious, and the motives behind pb's claims are equally obvious.

“As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities”. Voltaire

indy,

Re: Your Thomas Posts

You make valid observations regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John. It is not clear who the author is, though there seems to be a very powerful yet subtle assertion that the author is the Disciple John. Actually, it seems to me that the authorship of John is more likely genuine than the other Gospels. There is earlier manuscript evidence for the Gospel of John than any other New Testament book, even those that were written much earlier.

That being said, what you can't deny no matter who the author was nor when it was written is that this account of Thomas' sciencism is evidence that the early church was not a bunch of whacked out superstitionalists but was composed of people who were very well aware of the absurdity of the essential claim of their faith. The early Christians knew that a resurrection is naturally impossible and that the community of early believers in Jesus had thought through the issues that close your mind. Those issues did not close their minds nor stunt their faith.

And, as has been observed, many died rather than recant their belief in Jesus.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2010 04:50PM by pb.

pb, there is a reason that biased testimony is discounted in a court of law. the reason is is that it is so often unreliable. this goes doubly if the testimony is from an anonymous biased source. it goes right out the window if the testimony is from an anonymous biased source about a supernatural event. this is about as weak as evidence can get. you can probably figure out why.

none of us believe stories that we hear from anonymous biased sources that are about supernatural events unless the story corroborates something we already want to believe for other usually psychological reasons.

mothers generally love their children. a mother whose son is convicted of some crime will sometimes believe against all evidence that her son is innocent of the crime he is convicted of. she believes this not because of her impartial evaluation of the evidence. she believes it for psychological reasons. she believes it because 'my boy would never do such a thing. thats not the way he was raised.'

she looks at the evidence with a jaundiced eye. she looks at it heavily predisposed to believe any of it that leans toward the exoneratoin of her son and to disbelieve any of it that leans toward proving his guilt.

this is the way that you are looking at the evidence for a physical resurrection of jesus. if you werent so psychologically predisposed to believe in a phsycial resurrection you would see the evidence about the resurrection for what it actually is. extremely weak bordering on the nonexistent.

theres about as much chance of convincing you that no one has ever come back from the dead after 3 days as there is of convincing some mother that her favorite son actually is guilty of doing something very very wrong. this will never be a matter of evidence for you.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pb, there is a reason that biased testimony is
> discounted in a court of law. the reason is is
> that it is so often unreliable. this goes doubly
> if the testimony is from an anonymous biased
> source. it goes right out the window if the
> testimony is from an anonymous biased source about
> a supernatural event. this is about as weak as
> evidence can get. you can probably figure out
> why.
>
> none of us believe stories that we hear from
> anonymous biased sources that are about
> supernatural events unless the story corroborates
> something we already want to believe for other
> usually psychological reasons.

indy,

Wrong. At least, wrong about what's going on in this case.

You are not accurately describing this situation.

The author of John, who is certainly the author of the books 1, 2 and 3 John in the New Testament--grab your Greek and check it out--is most likely either John or a disciple of John.

Part of his purpose in penning this account is to offer an explanation for the fact that the body of Jesus has never been produced by the opponents of the Christians when producing the body of Jesus would have destroyed the movement forever if they had.

This account doesn't corroborate facts I already believe. It corroborates historical facts. Facts which you have no alternate explanation for that is nearly as convincing as the explanation offered by the author of John.

It seems to me that you rejection of the account is build on the fact that you have already determined that you are not going to believe it no matter what.

>
> mothers generally love their children. a mother
> whose son is convicted of some crime will
> sometimes believe against all evidence that her
> son is innocent of the crime he is convicted of.
> she believes this not because of her impartial
> evaluation of the evidence. she believes it for
> psychological reasons. she believes it because 'my
> boy would never do such a thing. thats not the way
> he was raised.'

Right. As Kierkegaard said, 'Truth is subjectivity.' For you, too, indy.
>
> she looks at the evidence with a jaundiced eye.
> she looks at it heavily predisposed to believe any
> of it that leans toward the exoneratoin of her son
> and to disbelieve any of it that leans toward
> proving his guilt.

It seems to me that YOU are the one with the jaundiced eye in this case.
>
> this is the way that you are looking at the
> evidence for a physical resurrection of jesus.

Perhaps. But, certainly it is the way YOU are looking at it.


> if you werent so psychologically predisposed to
> believe in a phsycial resurrection you would see
> the evidence about the resurrection for what it
> actually is. extremely weak bordering on the
> nonexistent.

Same for you with your own subjectivity.

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge my own subjectivity. I understand my own leap of faith. I accept that I have made it. That leap takes courage. I understand that I've lept and have the courage to acknowledge it. As far as I can tell, you are unwilling or, perhaps, unable to muster that same courage or, at least, the wisdom and self-awareness from which that courage comes.
>
> theres about as much chance of convincing you that
> no one has ever come back from the dead after 3
> days as there is of convincing some mother that
> her favorite son actually is guilty of doing
> something very very wrong. this will never be a
> matter of evidence for you.

And, sadly, there is even less change of convincing you that what you've determined is impossible could be possible. And, that's because of what you believe and, even more than that, what you are incapable of believing. It is because of the decision you have made to close your mind.

And, that's what the Thomas pericope is about. It's about intellectual and spiritual courage. The kind that is willing to set aside every past conclusion a person makes and, if even for a moment, be openminded.

I hope that, someday, you will find that same courage that Thomas found.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2010 09:18PM by pb.

The author of John, who is certainly the author of the books 1, 2 and 3 John in the New Testament--grab your Greek and check it out--is most likely either John or a disciple of John.-pb

christians believe the author was john the disciple but then christians are heavily biased to believe that just as so many of them believe that matthew was the first gospel written instead of mark which actually was the first gospel written.

independent experts are somewhat split about this. some believe as you point out that it could be a disciple of john but others believe that it was a community of believers called the johanine community who wrote what we now call the book of john over a couple of decades. one thing everyone agrees about is that the writer or writers of john were writing with an agenda and this has to be taken into account when evaluating the veracity of claims found in john.

--------------------------------

Part of his purpose in penning this account is to offer an explanation for the fact that the body of Jesus has never been produced by the opponents of the Christians when producing the body of Jesus would have destroyed the movement forever if they had.-pb

ive never heard that anyone tried to find jesus' body after his execution. finding jesus body was never an issue since the story of his resurrection was never an issue. it was accepted as myth by all except ardent believers in the jesus movement. resurrection was a common theme among the various gods of the time.

-------------------------------

It seems to me that you rejection of the account is build on the fact that you have already determined that you are not going to believe it no matter what.-pb

that is true in this sense. my rejection of this story is built upon what ive decided to accept as valid evidence when it comes to any story. the thing is, you and i are probably very much alike in our standard for evidence when it comes to 99% of the stories we hear. about the only time we differ is when you decide to change your standard when it comes to stories related to your faith. i understand that. almost all people of faith do the same thing not just christians. thats why its called faith.

------------------------------

It seems to me that YOU are the one with the jaundiced eye in this case.-pb

certainly all of us have our prejudices so it could be me although i dont think it is. its just about impossible to be totally impartial about anything. fortunatly this isnt an issue if you recognize your bias and make every conscious effort to not change your standards for evidence in favor of your bias.

consistency is the key here. the standard that you use for valid evidence for one claim should be the same standard that you use when evaluating other claims as well. i reject the supernatural claims made by hinduism islam judaism the olympic gods the roman gods christianity etc by using the same standards i use to reject the improbable claims made by people who see witches flying saucers big foot the loch ness monster etc.

any of those claims may be true but for me to accept any of them as true i'd have to change my standard for evidence. im not willing to do that.

if you change your standard for evidence then you should be aware that you are probably doing so for psychological reasons. that is, you want something to be true so you dont hold the evidence for that something to the same standard that you do for almost every other claim that you hear.

---------------------------------

And, sadly, there is even less change of convincing you that what you've determined is impossible could be possible.-pb

i dont need to be convinced that a physical resurrection of a human body is possible. i already believe that it is possible. but thats a generality. like its possible that flying saucers have visited earth many times in the past. that too is entirely possible.

but what we are talking about is specifics, about particular cases. and what ive determined in this particular case is that the evidence that suggests jesus was physically resurrected falls woefully short of that necessary to convince me that it actually happened.

no one knows for sure what happened about any event that we did not observe. all any of us can do is to examine the evidence account for our biases (not eliminate them) try to be consistent in applying our standard for truth and to come to our best determination about what actually happened.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The author of John, who is certainly the author of
> the books 1, 2 and 3 John in the New
> Testament--grab your Greek and check it out--is
> most likely either John or a disciple of John.-pb
>
> christians believe the author was john the
> disciple but then christians are heavily biased to
> believe that just as so many of them believe that
> matthew was the first gospel written instead of
> mark which actually was the first gospel written.

indy,

You are just wrong about this.

I don't know a single Christian who thinks that Matthew was the first Gospel penned. And, tell me, bubba, how do you KNOW which Gospel was written first?

True, it is commonly believed, and for very good reason, that Mark was written first. But, the fact that it's commonly believed in itself means that you are in error.

The fact is, you share the BELIEF that Mark was written first but it's only a belief--a commonly held opinion. Not a single person knows for sure which of these Gospels was penned first.

But, note the error that you just made. You have demonstrated the error of thinking that what you believe is fact when the fact is that you are as human as the rest of us are and you are as finite as the rest of us.
>
>
> independent experts are somewhat split about this.
> some believe as you point out that it could be a
> disciple of john but others believe that it was a
> community of believers called the johanine
> community who wrote what we now call the book of
> john over a couple of decades. one thing everyone
> agrees about is that the writer or writers of john
> were writing with an agenda and this has to be
> taken into account when evaluating the veracity of
> claims found in john.

Yeah.

President Obama makes all of his campaign speeches with an agenda. That doesn't mean that he's wrong when he states facts. You have some very curious ideas about what can and cannot be truth.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Part of his purpose in penning this account is to
> offer an explanation for the fact that the body of
> Jesus has never been produced by the opponents of
> the Christians when producing the body of Jesus
> would have destroyed the movement forever if they
> had.-pb
>
> ive never heard that anyone tried to find jesus'
> body after his execution. finding jesus body was
> never an issue since the story of his resurrection
> was never an issue.

Please try to separate what you want to be true from what you consider to be an established fact. This is a very serious problem for you. Read the Book of Acts. Read the posts of ff! The resurrection certainly was an issue.

And, the fact that you want it not to have been an issue doesn't change reality.

> it was accepted as myth by all
> except ardent believers in the jesus movement.
> resurrection was a common theme among the various
> gods of the time.

Certainly not. Check the sources I cited above. I'll gladly engage you in discussion about what is known to be true and what the two of us believe to be true, but I'm not going to allow you to remain separated from reality. As the Book of Acts makes clear, the claim of the resurrection was taken very seriously by the leaders of the Jews.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> It seems to me that you rejection of the account
> is build on the fact that you have already
> determined that you are not going to believe it no
> matter what.-pb
>
> that is true in this sense. my rejection of this
> story is built upon what ive decided to accept as
> valid evidence when it comes to any story. the
> thing is, you and i are probably very much alike
> in our standard for evidence when it comes to 99%
> of the stories we hear. about the only time we
> differ is when you decide to change your standard
> when it comes to stories related to your faith.

How have I changed my standard when it comes to stories related to my faith?


> i understand that. almost all people of faith do the
> same thing not just christians. thats why its
> called faith.

I love it when people slip into the, "I'm just morally superior to you and that's why I'm right and you are wrong" argument.

That's self-serving.

You, indy, are a very passionate believer in what you believe in. Your posts on this thread are proof of that. So, when you diminish people of faith, you are talking about yourself. Self-awareness, my friend. You and I are both believers. What we believe IN is vastly different, but we are believers nonetheless.

I'm open about it.

Perhaps some day you will be too.

"Subjectivity is truth." -- Soren Kierkegaard
>
> ------------------------------
>
> It seems to me that YOU are the one with the
> jaundiced eye in this case.-pb
>
> certainly all of us have our prejudices so it
> could be me although i dont think it is.

No kidding.


> its just about impossible to be totally impartial about
> anything. fortunatly this isnt an issue if you
> recognize your bias and make every conscious
> effort to not change your standards for evidence
> in favor of your bias.

My point exactly.

What you don't do, it acknowledge your own subjectivity.
>
> consistency is the key here.

I could not possibly agree more if you paid me $1 million.

> the standard that you
> use for valid evidence for one claim should be the
> same standard that you use when evaluating other
> claims as well. i reject the supernatural claims
> made by hinduism islam judaism the olympic gods
> the roman gods christianity etc by using the same
> standards i use to reject the improbable claims
> made by people who see witches flying saucers big
> foot the loch ness monster etc.

An important admission, my friend.

You BEGIN with faith.

Do you get that?

Do you see what you have admitted?

Faith is your standard. You, as a matter of faith, have determined by no other standard than what you believe that all supernatural claims are false. You dismiss without considering the remote possiblity of their truthfulness.

And, I believe at that point, at least, you are consistent.

However, consistent, shall I say, stubborn and consistent application of an unprovable premise is not a very wise path for someone who is actually interested in truth. And, it certainly is very closedminded.
>
> any of those claims may be true but for me to
> accept any of them as true i'd have to change my
> standard for evidence. im not willing to do that.

True, so long as you have the courage that you have chosen your standard of evidence from what you have determined a priori to be the truth that you will accept.

Again, closedminded but, indeed, consistent.
>
> if you change your standard for evidence then you
> should be aware that you are probably doing so for
> psychological reasons. that is, you want something
> to be true so you dont hold the evidence for that
> something to the same standard that you do for
> almost every other claim that you hear.

Ah, the old claims of omniscience.

Do you really think, having never met me that you can speculate on how I came to the manner in which I think? Based on what?

Are you really sam, writing under another moniker?

I'm not sure anyone here has made this particular claim to omniscience here--except Newton Joseph, Ph. D. who's been gone for years and was much more offensive in his condescension than you are.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> And, sadly, there is even less change of
> convincing you that what you've determined is
> impossible could be possible.-pb
>
> i dont need to be convinced that a physical
> resurrection of a human body is possible. i
> already believe that it is possible. but thats a
> generality. like its possible that flying saucers
> have visited earth many times in the past. that
> too is entirely possible.
>
> but what we are talking about is specifics, about
> particular cases. and what ive determined in this
> particular case is that the evidence that suggests
> jesus was physically resurrected falls woefully
> short of that necessary to convince me that it
> actually happened.

What in THIS particular case, is the evidence that convinces you that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? You've already stated that you dismissed it out of hand without considering it possible just as you do with all supernatural claims.

As I've studied the data, I've concluded that the explanation that best fits the actual data is that, as absurd as it seems, what the early Christians claimed was true.

What data convinces you otherwise?
>
> no one knows for sure what happened about any
> event that we did not observe. all any of us can
> do is to examine the evidence account for our
> biases (not eliminate them) try to be consistent
> in applying our standard for truth and to come to
> our best determination about what actually
> happened.

Well, indy, I'm not sure I agree. When you begin with a closed mind, as you have openly admitted you do as far as the supernatural is concerned, then you are not accepting all evidence. You certainly are consistent. But, you are not open to truth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2010 11:34PM by pb.