Forum Index            

SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share

This isn't complicated. 2020 is a referendum on Trump.

The job of the Biden campaign is simple, and Trump is helping.
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

Posted by PalinIsTheTruth 
Anonymous User
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 12, 2010 03:53AM
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.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 12, 2010 04:08PM
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?
Anonymous User
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 13, 2010 12:08AM
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.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 13, 2010 06:22AM
Sorry pb I've been busy but I'll get to it.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 13, 2010 03:54PM
Okay.

Take your time, ff. Glad to hear that you're just busy. It happens to all of us.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 17, 2010 01:23PM
A claim that is absurd on its face doesn't need to be "debunked".
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 17, 2010 02:00PM
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.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 17, 2010 10:14PM
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.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 17, 2010 10:18PM
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.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 18, 2010 04:15AM
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
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 18, 2010 01:33PM
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.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 18, 2010 08:53PM
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.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 18, 2010 09:12PM
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.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 18, 2010 10:39PM
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.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 18, 2010 11:11PM
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.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 19, 2010 02:26AM
Since "truth is subjective" (to liars, at least) does pb believe the claims of Latter-Day Saint Joseph Smith that the angel Moroni showed him where to dig up some golden plates on which were written heretofore unknown books of the Bible? Why not?

Oh, I forgot, pb is afraid to argue with anyone who demands straight answers.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 19, 2010 03:14AM
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?-pb

these statements are inconsistent. u imply that no christian thinks that matt was the first gospel written with one breath and then with the next u imply that no one knows which gospel was written first.

if it is tru as u imply it is that no one really knows which gospel was written first then would it not stand to reason that at least some christians would believe that matt was written first since matt is the first book of the new testament? but this is inconsistent with ur statement that no christian u know believes matt was the first book written.

it is very improbable that both of ur statements are true. given this, which of the two do u wish to revise?

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

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.-pb

its fairly well established that mark was the first nt book written. theres much evidence and scholarly consensus on this subject. its not and never will be absolutely certain but we are not talking about absolute certainty. we are only talking here about what we know.

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

President Obama makes all of his campaign speeches with an agenda. That doesn't mean that he's wrong when he states facts.-pb

i never said it did. what i said is that in the evaluation of evidence given by biased parties in regard to disputed claims the bias of the parties has to be accounted for. i expect rush l to say that the country is falling apart because it advances his agenda to say that. i would be surprised if obama didnt say that the country is on the right path because it advances his agenda to say that. if either guy says something contrary to what should be in his agenda's interest then we should pay attention because its a good sign that the guy really believes it is true and not just something he hopes is true.

u need to lose this idea that some magic bullet determines what is true. its a process. its a matter of evaluating evidence. a witness' objectivity or bias is just one part of the process. just as our own is.

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

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.-pb

i didnt mean to imply that the resurrection is not an issue today or that it wasnt an issure several decades after jesus execution. i meant to say that jesus execution was just a small blip on the screen at the time it happned. no one in rome took any notice at all of it. no nonjesus movement jewish author writing at the time of jesus executuion mentions anything about jesus.

after a few decades it was no wonder that no one could locate jesus body since no one even knew where the burial site was. even today no one knows where jesus was laid to rest. to find a dead buried body it is kind of important to know where the grave is.

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

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.-pb

the book of acts was written by a christian, pb. u know that. direct me to the writings of jewish leaders of circa 30AD in which they take the resurrection of jesus seriously even mention the resurrection of jesus.

u need to get away from this notion that biased sources are absolutely reliable. they often r not. if u can cite the same claims but claims made by independent sources or sources hostile to ur point of view ur argument will be much stronger. as a historian u should already know that.

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

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

for one thing u cite the christian bible as if it is a fair and objective inquiry into the truth rather than propaganda for the christian faith. u dont do the same thing for the koran. u dont do the same thing for other religions books of faith. u have a more realistic objective view of them which is the reason that u can reject so much of what they claim.

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

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.-pb

i didnt say that. for the record i dont believe that im morally superior to u. i believe that morals r relative. by ur standards ur probably a very moral man. heck even by my standards ur probably a very moral man. i seldom question anyones morals. sometimes i do question their view of the truth though.

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

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.-pb

yes we are believers and sometimes we are knowers as well.

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

What we believe IN is vastly different, but we are believers nonetheless.-pb

this is because im more consistent in my belief structure than u r. we both reject islam and belief in witches by using much the same reasoning process. this same process leads me to reject christianity as well. u draw the line at applying this process to christianity for what seems to be arbitrary reasons.

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

What you don't do, it acknowledge your own subjectivity.-pb

i have acknowledged my own subjectivity. ive acknowledged it in regard to islam judaism hinduism the greek pantheon belief in witches monsters demons aliens from other planets and all sorts of other lightly or non evidenced beliefs. any of them may be true. but all of them need more evidence to be rationally believed to be true.

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

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.-pb

if i had to use 1 word to describe my standard for determining what is true i would use the word evidence.

ironically u believe the same thing except when it comes to ur articles of faith. its most notably there where u make an exception.

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

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.-pb

we use similar standards of evidence. the only real difference is that i apply these standards in an area in which u r psychologically unable to do so.

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

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?-pb

based on the fact that u r an american who argues this kind of thing on an internet discussion board. few of us r actually as dissimilar in our thought processes etc to other people in our national and economic class as we might fancy ourselves being. ive read nothing from u that would lead me to believe that ur reasoning process is all that different from most other americans from ur same economic background. u believe the way most people believe. so do i. the difference in us is that u make exceptions in ur reasoning process for the outrageous claims made by ur faith. u do not make these same excptions for the outrageous claims made by other faiths.

that is inconsistent but totally predictable from a psychological standpoint.

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

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.-pb

thank u i think.

i hope i dont come across as condecsending at at all (see? i cant even spell the word). i certainly dont claim to be your moral or intellectual superiour. i just think i spot an inconsistency in ur beliefs. thats all. bfd. it happens. if u can live with that inconsistency then more power to you. most of us cant. usually what happens is that we just ignore it and pretend that it doesnt exist.

perhaps ur better off doing that to. it could be psychologically tramatic for u if u try to resolve it.

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

What in THIS particular case, is the evidence that convinces you that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?-pb

the same evidence that convinces me that those little statues of ganesha really didnt really drink the milk. iow, what convinces me that any extraordinary claim is probably false is that if it is not accompanied by extraordinary evidence. if it would be more extraordinary to disbelieve the claim than to believe it then i would believe it.

heres an extraordinary claim made by science. if one twin was shot off into space at near the speed of light and returned to earth years later his twin would be much older physiologically than the twin that was shot off into space. in my book thats an extraordinary claim. however if u understand what relativity says about the world in total then it actually becomes more extraordinary not to believe that claim than to believe it.

the same reasoning should apply to the resurrection or to the claim about the little ganesha statues. if evidence were presented which made it more extraordinary to not believe those claims than to believe them, then they should be beleived. it is plain as day that no such evidence has ever been presented.

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

You've already stated that you dismissed it out of hand without considering it possible just as you do with all supernatural claims.-pb

i dont think all the words in my posts are appearing on ur computer monitor. what u said i said is not what i actually said. what ive said is that supernatural claims like the resurrection of jesus ARE POSSIBLE but that they require extraordinary evidence to be believed to have actually happened.

u seem to be intent on offering everyday mundane evidence to document a supernatural event as if that everyday evidence is sufficient. u say an empty grave can have no other explantion except that the person who was in the grave came back to life and walked out of the grave! u say that because early promoters of christianity like paul say that they heard stories that jesus was a god we should believe them because u cant think of a good reason that they might be mistaken! u say that because someone none of us know says in a book promoting christianity that someone else might have stuck his hand into the wounds of jesus at some point that this somehow should be taken as evidence that jesus was resurrected!

its hard to believe anyone actually reads the above and objectively comes to the conclusion that jesus was physically resurrected.

and actually no one does. what happens is that some people become psychologically convinced that a god exists and then they begin to believe in the local diety. if u live in arabia that would be allah. if u live in india that would be the hindu pantheon. if u live in america that would be jesus (and an especially weird kind of jesus if you live in utah). you then put your critical reasoning process on hold and accept the myths surrounding that diety. once uve accepted those myths u then reactivate ur critical reasoning process to defend the belief that u first came to hold for psychological reasons.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 19, 2010 03:22AM
sorry i missed this one:

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.-pb

ive never said that i am not open to claims about the supernatural. i am open to them. what i am not open to is to give them a special break just because they are said to be supernatural claims.

i hold supernatural claims to the same standard of truth that i hold natural claims to. if they meet those standards then i believe them. if they dont meet them then i dont.

u seem to have no standards for truth when it comes to supernatural claims. if this is wrong and u do have one then what is it?
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 19, 2010 01:08PM
linc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since "truth is subjective" (to liars, at least)

No. For the gazillionth time, linc. "Subjectivity is truth."
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 19, 2010 04:22PM
Sorry. Somehow I lost a very detailed reply.

The bottom line, indy, is that you have created a strawman out of my beliefs and that your a priori rejection of the supernatural without seriously evaluating evidence for it is makes you a believer in what you believe in just like I'm a believer in what I believe in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2010 07:35PM by pb.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!