Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

2 1/2 billion chrsitians does not equal 2 1/2 billion fundamentalist christians.

fundamentalists like pb and jeurgen - who like most other fundamentalists probably hate the term fundamentalist- sometime seem to believe that all christians believe things like a physical bodily resurrection but thats not close to being true.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 1/2 billion chrsitians does not equal 2 1/2
> billion fundamentalist christians.
>
> fundamentalists like pb and jeurgen - who like
> most other fundamentalists probably hate the term
> fundamentalist- sometime seem to believe that all
> christians believe things like a physical bodily
> resurrection but thats not close to being true.

indy,

Fundamentalism is a theological movement that surfaced in the late 19th century--from Princeton. I'd be curious: Tell me what your definition of the term fundamentalist is and how many Christians you suppose share and don't share in that theological belief system.

fundamentalist xtians hold literal beliefs about the supernatural claims of there religion. many of them r unable to distinguish metaphor from fact.
such beliefs include:

The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

u qualify. but like many fundamentalist xtians u probably run from the label like democrats run from the liberal label. i dont blame you.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fundamentalist xtians hold literal beliefs about
> the supernatural claims of there religion. many of
> them r unable to distinguish metaphor from fact.
> such beliefs include:
>
> The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit
> and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of
> this.
> The virgin birth of Christ.
> The belief that Christ's death was the atonement
> for sin.
> The bodily resurrection of Christ.
> The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
>
> u qualify. but like many fundamentalist xtians u
> probably run from the label like democrats run
> from the liberal label. i dont blame you.

Interesting list. And, your suggestion is that only a small minority of people identified as Christians believe these things? Am I correct?

Are you sure you're not sam? She used to abreviate Christian as Xtian. Why not just Xn? And, why not Christianity as Xy?

If you're going to abreviate, then abreviate!

ok

Gang,

Anyone know where ff is?

He promised to debunk the tales of the resurrection and both isle and I encouraged him to do so. Since then, he been nearly mute.

FF has already debunked the resurrection tale from many different angles, and now he's tired of playing with pb, since pb considers philosophy no more than a tennis match where he's free to make up the rules as he goes along so that he always "wins".

Pb is engaging in Conspiracy Theory Syndrome, where one adopts an absurd position and then challenges all comers to disprove one's assertions on one's own absurd terms. The point is to make one's opinions the center of attention, not to find truth.

There are many brand name conspiracy theories to choose from for those who need to play games like this.

Here is one of the latest and most popular:

[www.davidicke.com]

As an atheist, why should I try to explain something for which there is not yet a scientific explanation? After all, some of Jesus' feats, if they are literally true and not just abstract parables, would be beyond our immediate comprehension, and although I wouldn't choose to call them miracles, I would certainly categorize them with the unsolved mysteries of the universe.

BTW, after I went through my disillusionment with and hartred of religion, I realized that Jesus, whether divine or not (please don't argue this point, the scope of this message is much broader), was a person of extraordinary values which every human should emulate. My opinion is that you needn't be religious or a Bible adherent to believe that Jesus was a rebel ahead of his time, who taught love and compassion to his fellow humans, and he still influences even non-believers like myself today.

Well stated, Karen.

Welcome to the forum! I hope you stick around.

Anonymous User Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As an atheist, why should I try to explain
> something for which there is not yet a scientific
> explanation?

Duh, Karen, by definition, a miracle is a supernatural event. Science deals solely with nature and not all of nature but only that part of nature that human senses can encounter. You are advocating the worldview known on this board as "Science-ism," i.e., the unjustifiable belief that the scientific method is the ultimate foundation of all knowledge. While that belief is insupportable, it is commonly held here. You will find, and please excuse the sexist terminology, much FELLOWship here among those who share your unjustiable beliefs.

> After all, some of Jesus' feats, if
> they are literally true and not just abstract
> parables, would be beyond our immediate
> comprehension, ...

Comprehension? No. Only to those whose view of reality is so stifled that it can only acknowledge what human senses can encounter and what the human intellect can analyze. I can fully comprehend the miracles because I don't limit my understanding of potential by your very narrow belief system.

> ...and although I wouldn't choose to
> call them miracles, I would certainly categorize
> them with the unsolved mysteries of the universe.

Just so you understand that your choice is based on a belief system that you can't justify.

>
> BTW, after I went through my disillusionment with
> and hartred of religion, I realized that Jesus,
> whether divine or not (please don't argue this
> point, the scope of this message is much broader),
> was a person of extraordinary values which every
> human should emulate.

Indeed He was all of that, at least.

> My opinion is that you
> needn't be religious or a Bible adherent to
> believe that Jesus was a rebel ahead of his time,
> who taught love and compassion to his fellow
> humans, and he still influences even non-believers
> like myself today.

What happened to His body, there, Karen? What flaws do you find with the Christian explanation? What better explanation can you offer, based on the facts available to us?

PB wrote: Science deals solely with nature and not all of nature but only that part of nature that human senses can encounter.

Peebs, you really ought to leave it at "Science deals with nature" since there is no evidence that there is anything but nature. This, BTW, isn't to say that there is nothing but nature (or the natural as opposed to the supernatural). It's only to say that we SEEM to have no way of knowing anything about the supernatural even if were the supernatural to exist.

Do you see my point here? We encounter the natural world through our perceptual organs just as you point out. Sometimes our perceptions lead us to error; that is to say, the reality we believe that we perceive is not necessarily the way reality is. A straight twig plunged partly into water is a good example of this. The twig, that we know is straight, appears to be bent at an angle at the waterline. Our perceptions, in this instance, are in error. Without anyway to detect and account for these kinds of error our perceptual senses would be of little value to us. Fortunately we have discovered methods by which we can verify the perceptions of our senses to determine whether those perceptions are accurate.

Unfortunately, we have discovered no such methods, that I know about, to determine whether our intimations about a possible supernatural world are correct.

For example, some take revelation to be a method of discovering or of learning some things about a world beyond the natural. However, since many revelations are contrary to other revelations and since we have no method by which to determine the accuracy of revelation, we have no way to determine which revelations may be true and which false.

The problem, then, is not as you see it to be. The problem is not one of believing that only a natural world exists. The problem is to discover some method of reliably knowing anything about a possibly existing supernatural world. In the absence of our finding such a method or methods, the existence or nonexistence of a supernatual world is pretty much beside the point.

To illustrate the point in a slightly different way . . . Some folks, like my friend Peter, are impressed by the fact that many, many people over the centuries have claimed to have had religious experiences. They take this to be at least some evidence that a world beyond the natural exists.

However, there is an alternative take on these same experiences that leads to quite a different conclusion. The alternative take is this: Yes, people undeniably have claimed to have had religious experiences over the centuries. However, many of these religious experiences run contrary to the religious experience claims made by other people.

What this tells us with absolute certainity is that some of these religious experiences are false.

When put in context with other information that we believe to be true about the world, what it also suggests is that ALL of these claims of religious experience are probably false, although it cannot rule out the possibility that some of them are true.

In short, the problem isn't in believing or disbelieving in the existence of a supernatural world. The problem is in finding a reliable method that will allow us to determine what is or is not probably true about that possibly existing realm.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2010 04:34PM by Henry M. Paulson.

Christians have yet to explain the miracles of Osiris, Zeus and countless other deities. HA!

What an incredibly STUPID post.

Peebs, you really ought to leave it at "Science deals with nature" since there is no evidence that there is anything but nature. -- go

Hank,

That may be the most epistemologically naive sentence I've ever read on this board. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that anything exists but the nature that science is capable of evincing.

If Curt hands out a Circular Reasoning Award, you should win it for all time!

Ant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians have yet to explain the miracles of
> Osiris, Zeus and countless other deities. HA!
>
> What an incredibly STUPID post.

My guess, ant, is that you are not much of a reader of Christian literature. How is it that you make this claim?

"There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that anything exists but the nature that science is capable of evincing." -pb

So what evidence of any kind is there that anything exists other than the nature that science is capable of evincing?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2010 05:06PM by Ponderer.