Evolution 1, Creationism 0.

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

I believe its true for sure, but I never claimed it was true did I? I only asked for a better explanation of the said facts.

You might want to reword that.

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

I believe its true for sure, but I never claimed it was true did I? I only asked for a better explanation of the said facts.

So you believe it to be true. You state that you believe it to be true. You never claimed it was true? Gotcha.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if it is a fact that the disciples genuinely believed that they saw Christ alive and vital after His death, and that they genuinely believed that he was the Son of God and that the tomb was empty through no deception on their part then what else better explains these things than that He actually rose from the dead? That ONE explanation explains all the facts in one fell swoop. not so for any of the natural explanations. That is why I need just ONE natural explanations that explains all the facts so I can be done goign on about Christianity.

1. That they genuinely believed they saw christ after his death is not a fact
2. That he actually died is not a fact
3. That there was no deception on anyone's part is not a fact
4. That there was no wishful thinking (ie self deception) on anyone's part is not a fact

But if they were facts then resurrection probably would be the best explanation

Naz_st

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if it is a fact that the disciples genuinely believed that they saw Christ alive and vital after His death, and that they genuinely believed that he was the Son of God and that the tomb was empty through no deception on their part then what else better explains these things than that He actually rose from the dead? That ONE explanation explains all the facts in one fell swoop. not so for any of the natural explanations. That is why I need just ONE natural explanations that explains all the facts so I can be done goign on about Christianity.

From another thread a few weeks ago: how about tetrodotoxin poisoning

At some point before the day of the crucifixion, Jesus purchases some ground up powder made from a dead pufferfish from a market in Jerusalem (traded there from Africa and sold because of its euphoric effects if taken in the right dose). Then, on the day of the crucifixion, he takes the correct dose to induce a sufficiently severe (but not fatal) case of tetrodotoxin poisoning. This causes gradual numbness of the body, starting at the extremities (helping him not to feel the pain of all the torture) as well as a serious reduction of heart rate and blood pressure (helping him not to bleed to death from all the wounds), eventually resulting in a state of complete paralysis, coupled with no visible signs of breathing or pulse, along with cyanosis of the lips. Since such a condition would easily fool most modern doctors in the absence of very sensitive modern medical equipment, it would be more than sufficient for anyone at the time witnessing him to be sure he was dead. He's laid to rest in a tomb and a few days later the toxin is naturally flushed from his system and voila, he is risen from the dead!

After another 40 days, he's confident that his legend will live on forever and decides to head off into the sunset.

How is that a less plausible explanation than your "supernatural, all-powerful, not subject to the rules of the universe, God did it" one?

Soul Winner

BombSquad wrote: »

It is a basic settled fact that I genuinely believed in Santa Claus for a while. Unfortunately I was incorrect in my belief...

But the reason you believed in Santa was because your culture told you that he existed and brought presents at Christmas. As you got older though you found out that it was your parents who got the presents therefore destroying your belief in Santa. We just need that kind of thing for God. The implication of Jesus' resurrection is that there is a Supernatural God. If we could disprove that then the Christian faith claim as Paul said early on is vain.

BombSquad wrote: »

The fact that someone believes in something may be true but that does not make the "something" true.

Heck I know that, but saying that God does not exist doesn't mean that that's true either.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not making the claim though. I just believe the report. That might be stupid but the onus is on the person claiming that it is stupid to disprove that what I believe in is in fact stupid.

Semantics. A claim is being asserted and it is those who assert the claim who must substantiate it. It's not up to me to prove every crack pot with a claim wrong before we include his madness in a science book. The claim must be proven before it's included, otherwise we'd be including the flying spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot alongside god

pts

Naz_st wrote: »

From another thread a few weeks ago: how about tetrodotoxin poisoning

Impressive, you should have your own TV show!

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You might want to reword that.

Nope, a re-read might help though.

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

So you believe it to be true. You state that you believe it to be true. You never claimed it was true? Gotcha.

The disciples claimed that it was true and died for that testimony. I would also die for what I believe but even if I did die for my beliefs I still don't know that it is true because I never actually seen what the disciples claimed to have seen and therefore cannot claim that it is true.

Coriolanus

pts wrote: »

I keep pimping this video, but I think it makes several important points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

It covers some important concepts in a clearer way than I can. I'd love to hear your opinion on this video.

That's quite good. Thanks.

BombSquad

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the reason you believed in Santa was because your culture told you that he existed and brought presents at Christmas. As you got older though you found out that it was your parents who got the presents therefore destroying your belief in Santa. We just need that kind of thing for God. The implication of Jesus' resurrection is that there is a Supernatural God. If we could disprove that then the Christian faith claim as Paul said early on is vain.

The point was that just because you believe something doesn't make it true. You described this as a basic settled fact:
"The Disciples' genuine believed that Jesus was the Son of God."
1. It's not a basic settled fact.
2. Even if it was... just because they believed it doesn't mean that it's true that Jesus was the Son of God... which is my point. Just because I believed in something doesn't make it true.

Heck I know that, but saying that God does not exist doesn't mean that that's true either.

I never said that God doesn't exist.

Using these 3 "basic settled facts" as a basis for a belief is wrong in my opinion...
1) Some people believed something.
2) A body went missing.
3) Some people could have been brainwashed.

I'd prefer something a little more substantial as proof of something as outlandlish....

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nope, a re-read might help though.

There isn't enough time in the universe to read that enough times for it to make sense.

You believe it's true, but you don't claim it to be true.
Not exactly the easiest concept to grasp

You claim that

The resurrection story still explains all the facts the best.

Maybe by proxy, but you state that the resurrection is truth.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the reason you believed in Santa was because your culture told you that he existed and brought presents at Christmas. As you got older though you found out that it was your parents who got the presents therefore destroying your belief in Santa. We just need that kind of thing for God. The implication of Jesus' resurrection is that there is a Supernatural God. If we could disprove that then the Christian faith claim as Paul said early on is vain.

Hey at least the claim about Santa is falsifiable. I'd have more respect for an 8 year old Santa believer than I would a faithful Christian (other qualities aside).

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the reason you believed in God was because your culture told you that he existed and created life. As you got older though you found out that it was evolution that created life therefore destroying your belief in God.

Derp!

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The claim must be proven before it's included, otherwise we'd be including the flying spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot alongside god

You forgot the Apostles of Khorne and the Dermotologists :mad:

Genghiz Cohen

Ping, God of the Internet is not pleased, we must sacrifice Ethernet adaptors (Gb only please)

Mickeroo

Zillah wrote: »

Hey at least the claim about Santa is falsifiable. I'd have more respect for an 8 year old Santa believer than I would a faithful Christian (other qualities aside).

Falsifiable eh? I can get written testimonies of hundreds of 5 to 10 year olds that Santa exists along with concrete evidence of presents actually under the tree on christmas morning!! This is more physical evidence than I've seen for God. :eek:

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. But the New Testament is not just one book, it is a collection writings handed down from generation to generation with a deviation of about 1% -5% in 2000 years of history. That is pretty remarkable.

Erm, you don't understand what I was saying at all (a quick read again might help!). In fact, you have completely misinterpreted it.

I'm not talking about whether or not people changed one religious text or another after they were written. I am talking about whether the texts accurately reported events to start with.

Much as it might surprise many people, not everybody tells the truth all fo teh time, and knowing that something hasn't changed doesn't mean that it was right to start with. Read something from the scientologists if you reckon that people do always write truthfully.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Erm, you don't understand what I was saying at all (a quick read again might help!). In fact, you have completely misinterpreted it.

I'm not talking about whether or not people changed one religious text or another after they were written. I am talking about whether the texts accurately reported events to start with.

Much as it might surprise many people, not everybody tells the truth all fo teh time, and knowing that something hasn't changed doesn't mean that it was right to start with. Read something from the scientologists if you reckon that people do always write truthfully.

This guys approach is very similar to my own but he explains it better than me though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgkqaZwlKVo

Zillah

Mickeroo wrote: »

Falsifiable eh? I can get written testimonies of hundreds of 5 to 10 year olds that Santa exists along with concrete evidence of presents actually under the tree on christmas morning!! This is more physical evidence than I've seen for God. :eek:

Falsifiability.

"Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. "

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

This guys approach is very similar to my own but he explains it better than me though:

don't have time to watch 15 mins of video -- what does he say?

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

don't have time to watch 15 mins of video -- what does he say?

Oh go on, I watched this one and thought it was very good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Plus I don't really have time to repeat everything he says, but I will say that he is very open minded even though he does sound like Principal Skinner, drop back when you get 15 mins

Naz_st

robindch wrote: »

don't have time to watch 15 mins of video -- what does he say?

Well, for example, here's a summary of his "logic" on miracles from the first video:

Believing that miracles are not possible is "intellectually illogical" and "closed-minded" because if God exists then miracles are possible.

My lack of belief was so shaken by this rigorously thought out and irrefutable piece of Christian logic that I couldn't bring myself to continue watching... :rolleyes:

toiletduck

Soul Winner wrote: »

This guys approach is very similar to my own but he explains it better than me though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgkqaZwlKVo

I just watched this. It boils down to him first of all lobbying for miracles (which he doesn't define) as a prerequisite before laying out the case for the resurrection which he says is the only thing that matters if Jesus was who he claimed. In a sentence: an omnipotent creature could do supernatural stuff if it wanted. Wow, amazing.

toiletduck

And due to a real miracle, my code somehow mysteriously compiling, I got a chance to watch the second half. Disciples weren't lying because they got killed for their beliefs. That's pretty much the point.

In the first part I wonder where he got the stats for this gem

"there is more evidence to support the historic integrity of the new testament than for any other book in history by a factor of ten"

Kai

Reading through this thread im struck by the idea that all of this proof for evolution and the reducing place for the belief in God in modern life is great but unfortunately there are people who will never be convinced. All the pointless discussion of the same facts with people who will never understand reduces the amount of valuable discussion we have. We constantly see the same arguments dragged out despite the evidence against it. When is enough enough?

When will we stop feeding these pathetic faith based arguments with the one thing the require, discussion.

Surely theres some eveidence in evolutionary history that species without the neccessary intelligence/skill to survive died off rather quickly. Surely we can take a similar approach and ignore them until nature thakes its course.

It was fun to bash the faithies in the beginning but now its just tiring seeing the same waffle and sleights used over and over. Fun and all as it is to bait them i feel we could acheive more by doing less.

CerebralCortex

toiletduck wrote: »

I just watched this. It boils down to him first of all lobbying for miracles (which he doesn't define) as a prerequisite before laying out the case for the resurrection which he says is the only thing that matters if Jesus was who he claimed. In a sentence: an omnipotent creature could do supernatural stuff if it wanted. Wow, amazing.

As Soul Winner said its pretty much the same thing he says every single time he comes in here and we all know where thats got him.

pts

Since SW did watch the video I suggested I returned the favour.
My executive summary of the two videos are:

Premise: Christianity Should make sense logically, not just emotionally.

Point 1: Miracles are a problem to logic. However if you believe in a God it makes perfect sense. It is illogical and close minded to not believe in the possibility of miracles.

Point 2: Jesus Existed. I'm not going to lay out any good arguments other than saying that he did

Point 3: The Bible hasn't been altered. There are over 9000 4000 old manuscripts that are all the same [citation needed], so it can't have been altered

Point 4: Irrefutable proof that Jesus died. The Bible said so. Examples cited;

• Piercing of the side of Jesus[1]
• There was a big stone sealing Jesus's grave, and it was guarded by the Roman equivalent of King Leonidas Spartan's[1]
• The disciples were to cowardly to steal the body[1]

Point 5:The early Christians died for their beliefs [1]

Closing Argument:Christians can be a$$holes (his words not mine), don't look to them, look to Christ instead.

[1] The Bible

RHRN

pts wrote: »

I keep pimping this video, but I think it makes several important points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

It covers some important concepts in a clearer way than I can. I'd love to hear your opinion on this video.
Thanked by: Jakkass, Nevore, Toiletduck

Oh, Jakkass, how lovely for you to join us once more.
Now, where were we.........
Oh yes. Overblood (and many others) were waiting for an explanation:

Overblood wrote: »

Well the mystery of life was your proof of a god not too long ago:

Jakkass wrote:

I personally would love if atheists could answer me these things:

2. How does one explain life coming from non-life?

:pac:

We thought you were going to disappear for good Jakkass!

Sam Vimes

pts wrote: »

Since SW did watch the video I suggested I returned the favour.
My executive summary of the two videos are:

Premise: Christianity Should make sense logically, not just emotionally.

Point 1: Miracles are a problem to logic. However if you believe in a God it makes perfect sense. It is illogical and close minded to not believe in the possibility of miracles.

Point 2: Jesus Existed. I'm not going to lay out any good arguments other than saying that he did

Point 3: The Bible hasn't been altered. There are over 9000 4000 old manuscripts that are all the same [citation needed], so it can't have been altered

Point 4: Irrefutable proof that Jesus died. The Bible said so. Examples cited;

• Piercing of the side of Jesus[1]
• There was a big stone sealing Jesus's grave, and it was guarded by the Roman equivalent of King Leonidas Spartan's[1]
• The disciples were to cowardly to steal the body[1]

Point 5:The early Christians died for their beliefs [1]

Closing Argument:Christians can be a$$holes (his words not mine), don't look to them, look to Christ instead.

[1] The Bible

It boggles my mind how christians quote "facts" from the bible and act as if the only thing that's not proven is the resurrection itself. If we accepted the bible as fact we'd already be christians