Self defeating religious arguments

Akrasia

What are your favourite self defeating arguments used by religious people in debates against atheists?

Here's a couple that I've heard a lot recently.

1. Without god, there is no objective morality

Reason why it's self defeating: There is no objective morality. Obviously!
Morality is highly subjective.

Some people think it is perfectly acceptable to hunt foxes with dogs, and to allow the dogs to rip the fox apart if it gets caught.
Other people think that this kind of animal treatment is disgusting. If morality was objective, then everyone would have the same feelings of disgust towards the same morally wrong behaviours.

Morality is far from objective. It is extremely subjective, to the point where people can do things that are extremely harmful and convince themselves that what they are doing is good. This is why some countries like Yemen allow elderly men 'marry' to 6 year old girls.


2. You can't know anything without god
Essentially this argument states that without god we can not trust our own perceptions and our own logic or thoughts.


Reason why it's self defeating: Because we Can't trust our own perceptions. Our own perceptions and thoughts are surprisingly unreliable. We make errors in perception and judgement all the time and our own memories are extremely unreliable.
The reason why science is such a successful discipline is because it recognises that human reason alone is insufficient and it needs to be accompanied by experiment and testing to make sure that our reasoning is valid.

We can claim to have knowledge when our theories match the results of experiments. We can say we have an understanding of orbital mechanics only because we can predict where the planets will be at any time successfully enough to launch space craft to intercept with them.

Scientists never just trust their own logic or reason, they are always trying to find ways to prove themselves wrong.

Religious people have nothing except their own 'reason' to support their position. If god exists then they can trust their own reasoning, but god doesn' exist, and this is why scientists need to do testing and experiments

Dades

"God moves in mysterious ways" (and all variations of same).

In other words: "I've been backed into a logical corner".

Brian Shanahan

"Everything must have a creator, therefore god made the universe!"

Well then what created god, it needs a creator?

"God is eternal, he doesn't need a creator."

So god isn't a constituent part of everything, and for all intents and purposes not real.


And it gets more silly from there.

PopePalpatine

A "perfect" god has no qualms torturing you for eternity, just because you didn't obey all of its rules or didn't even believe in it.

wretcheddomain

The creator of the Universe, in all his awe and majesty, takes personal offence if you choose to be a Protestant rather than a Catholic, so much so, you'll be punished for eternity. So what's the self-defeating religious argument here? That one can claim to be in better favour with God than the others and can even determine what punishments each other might receive.

pauldla

Dades wrote: »

"God moves in mysterious ways" (and all variations of same).
......

And one of its variants, that never fails to get my dander up: 'We must remember the mystery of faith'. :mad:

Ghost Buster

Dades wrote: »

"God moves in mysterious ways" (and all variations of same).

In other words: "I've been backed into a logical corner".

I've heard that as 'God works in Strangeways'.
Why there and not Mountjoy or Arbour Hill?
Or Castlerea even.

PopePalpatine

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I've heard that as 'God works in Strangeways'.
Why there and not Mountjoy or Arbour Hill?
Or Castlerea even.

Maybe that's why John Waters spent time in jail. :pac:

Piliger

When it comes down to it ... all religious arguments are self defeating

Lingua Franca

"I'm a Christian and I'm against homosexuality because of what the bible says about homosexuality in Leviticus. Oh, there's more stuff in Leviticus? Menstruating women and pork and prawns and tattoos and mixed fibres, you say? Well, I didn't know about all that but I'm sure Jesus made it all ok so it doesn't apply. Apart from the bit about gays, of course. What is a covenant, anyway?"

Lingua Franca

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The creator of the Universe, in all his awe and majesty, takes personal offence if you choose to be a Protestant rather than a Catholic, so much so, you'll be punished for eternity. So what's the self-defeating religious argument here? That one can claim to be in better favour with God than the others and can even determine what punishments each other might receive.

The Jehovah's Witlesses are worse!

They teach that:

There are only 144,000 spots in heaven (seating is limited there).

Only Jehovah's Witnesses can get a ticket.

Only the best Jehovah's Witnesses (Elders) are guaranteed a ticket.

But neglect to mention that:

There have already been more than 144,000 Jehovah's Witness Elders.

Women cannot be elders.



...They're trying to sell a heaven that you will not get into. Ever. No chance. Especially if you're a woman. But the tickets are all sold out anyway. Sorry. You can be a "sheep", though! And watch from the annihilated wasteground. It'll be really cool.

At least all the other religions can guarantee you a place if you do the right things!

Lingua Franca

"Medically necessary life saving abortion is more serious than paedophilia and child rape. Oh, and worse than a raped little 9 year old girl dying of a ruptured uterus, which is what Jesus would have wanted. Wouldn't want a dead child on our hands!... Apart from that one. It's for a good cause!"

Lingua Franca

I have an agnostic Jewish friend, the daughter of Holocaust survivors who lost most of their families (her dad had been married with kids and was the only survivor) who believes that if god does exist then he HATES the Jews and specially selected them ('chosen people') to suffer for his amusement.

postitnote

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The creator of the Universe, in all his awe and majesty, takes personal offence if you choose to be a Catholic rather than a Protestant, so much so, you'll be punished for eternity...

FYP as your statement was inherently wrong. According to everything I was taught as a child anyway

nozzferrahhtoo

The biggest self defeating argument from the religious that I can think of is the whole "Death bed conversions" or "Atheists in Foxholes" type rhetoric.

Basically these theists talk about how someone converted on their death bed, or turned to god in a foxhole in war etc etc etc.

They proudly trot out this argument as if it somehow lends credibility to theism.

Yet all they are doing is saying that when people reach a point in their life where.... due to pain, illness, sheer terror or some other factor.... their rational faculties are at an all time low and the person in question is basically desperate.... THEN they start believing in god.

Hardly paints their claims in a good life in a person has to reach a desperate state of irrationality in order to convert to believing them.

Brian Shanahan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The biggest self defeating argument from the religious that I can think of is the whole "Death bed conversions" or "Atheists in Foxholes" type rhetoric.

The Lady Hope story is the worst, not only because she tries to have him recant his agnosticism and debunk his Theory of Evolution both at the same time, but that as Darwin's daughter Henrietta recounts, Charles never met the good fabulist.

It is so patently false that even answersingenesis doesn't give it credence.

SpaceTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The biggest self defeating argument from the religious that I can think of is the whole "Death bed conversions" or "Atheists in Foxholes" type rhetoric.

Basically these theists talk about how someone converted on their death bed, or turned to god in a foxhole in war etc etc etc.

They proudly trot out this argument as if it somehow lends credibility to theism.

Yet all they are doing is saying that when people reach a point in their life where.... due to pain, illness, sheer terror or some other factor.... their rational faculties are at an all time low and the person in question is basically desperate.... THEN they start believing in god.

Hardly paints their claims in a good life in a person has to reach a desperate state of irrationality in order to convert to believing them.

Or more likely: The annoying religion-pushing person won't just leave them alone while they're really in no mood to argue with anyone and just agree to get them to shut up / go away.

Bannasidhe

The human female body has an 'appendage' designed purely for sexual pleasure. It has no other purpose. It is a sin to play with it.

pauldla

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The human female body has an 'appendage' designed purely for sexual pleasure. It has no other purpose. It is a sin to play with it.

But...but....I like playing with it....

That god's a read card, isn't he?

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The human female body has an 'appendage' designed purely for sexual pleasure. It has no other purpose. It is a sin to play with it.

I believe only the wimmenfolk are banned from playing with it, it's fine for a man to play provided he:

a) can find it
b) wishes to play with it
c) is married to it

:rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

gaynorvader wrote: »

I believe only the wimmenfolk are banned from playing with it, it's fine for a man to play provided he:

a) can find it
b) wishes to play with it
c) is married to it

:rolleyes:

Well feck sake like.

Two of them in my house and no-one allowed to play with either of them. :mad:

iDave

God will always forgive you.....so theres no need to be worried about hell if that's the case.

Sarky

Yes, why does someone infinitely forgiving and merciful need infinite punishment?

goose2005

Lingua Franca wrote: »

"I'm a Christian and I'm against homosexuality because of what the bible says about homosexuality in Leviticus. Oh, there's more stuff in Leviticus? Menstruating women and pork and prawns and tattoos and mixed fibres, you say? Well, I didn't know about all that but I'm sure Jesus made it all ok so it doesn't apply. Apart from the bit about gays, of course. What is a covenant, anyway?"

In fairness it's also in St Paul, but even there it's part of a laundry list of bad stuff rather than any major statements

gaynorvader

goose2005 wrote: »

In fairness it's also in St Paul, but even there it's part of a laundry list of bad stuff rather than any major statements

Paul does recommend that they should be put to death there, which most Christians would disagree with. He also states that women should be silent in church. Not to mention that it's just some saint, not a commandment or one of Jesus' teachings.

Genghiz Cohen

God is infinitely Merciful.
God is infinitely Just.

Does not compute.

gaynorvader

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

God is infinitely Merciful.
God is infinitely Just.

Does not compute.

God is omniscient.
God is omnipresent.
God got angry at Adam and Eve for partaking of the forbidden fruit.

Conclusion? God's a bit of a sadist.

Soul Winner

I’m not sure about all the other theisms out there but in the case of "Christian" theism at least, the validity of it stands or falls on the truth or falsity of just one event i.e. the God of the Jews and Israelites raising Jesus from the dead according to their Holy Scriptures. It does not stand or fall based on whether any particular philosophical argument for God’s existence is logically valid and philosophically sound as far as our minds will concede to it today (or not). This event either happened as a fact of history as was originally claimed or it didn't happen at all. The people who reported that it did happen were either lying or they were not. If it didn't happen then anyone claiming that it did are liars. The Apostle Paul said as much in one of the most ancient known Christian documents, the first letter to the Corinthian Church. In it Paul says: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses (liars) of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” 1 Corinthians 15: 14-15. Word in brackets mine.

If this event did not happen as an actual fact of history then Christianity falls like a house of cards. It was never claimed in Christianity that this event was just some spiritual thing that had no basis in earthbound reality or flesh and blood, no, this is what was first claimed in the very first preachments of the very earliest apostles. The first recorded sermon of the Church given by Peter in Acts 2 states: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” Acts 2: 22-24

Anyone that says that this supernatural intrusion into history was something added on by the Church in later years are wrong. It was the foundation message of the Church. Everything in Christianity hinges on it. Christianity stands or falls on it as I’ve already said.

So if someone could come along and make a case against this earliest of claims of Christianity, then depending on how convincing that case would be, it could be catastrophic to the faith of many ordinary Christians out there, who, like me, base their faith on this event being true in the sense of an actual happening in history and not on some fable or imaginary tale made up by someone with nothing to gain at all from it. And I would add, such a case should be catastrophic to our faith.

Now even in the Christian sources for this event you will not find a bunch of gullible people just following Jesus around believing everything He said. On the contrary in fact. Time after time you will encounter Jesus rebuking His disciples because of their ‘lack’ of faith. Its only after this alleged resurrection event took place that you encounter another side to these disciples, a better side. Before the resurrection they are shown to be faithless, doubtful, unstable, cowardly, fearful, lazy, and on you can go, and this is from the Christian sources themselves. But after this alleged event they become compassionate, giving, courageous, fearless and faithful preachers of this alleged event, even to the point of ostracism from their community, beatings, imprisonments, ridicules, and horrific torturous and agonising deaths eventually.

If they were lying about this event, then they were the only people who knew for certain that they were. So if we assume that they were lying then ‘they’ also knew they were lying and in that knowledge willingly went to their horrendous deaths and also in the full knowledge that even if there was a God, they knew they were spreading lies about Him and knew that when they met Him that they would be going to the wrong place after death as well, because lying is a sin as far as the God they supposedly believed in was concerned.

Now if all this just happened to one person then I would assume that that person has simply lost the plot somehow. But for the same thing to happen to a group of people? The ‘losing the plot’ argument starts to fall on his face a bit. No, something else is up here.

So what could make a group of people willing (happy even) to suffer so much for a lie (that they ‘knew’ was a lie) that went against everything that they had been brought up as Jews to believe in? To be ostracised by their families, friends and their community at large, including their religious leaders? (And remember there is no Christianity at this point yet). What event could be powerful enough to have this sort of negative affect on a group of people, who according to the Christian record itself, had every predisposition to the contrary? What changed their minds?

If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead by the God they believed in is not the explanation, then I would love to know the real one so that even I could be done with Christianity for good. I don’t need it unless this truth claim IS in fact true. As for the other truth claims of Christianity, they are irrelevant unless this 'the Big One' happened. And once you’re convinced of that one, the others fall into their right perspective, i.e. Jesus walking on water, big deal, Jesus raising Lazarus form the dead, big deal, but Jesus paying the price for my sins (and everyone else’s), a price accepted by God as forever adequate to atone for sins and testified by Him to it by His raising of Jesus from the dead, vindicating Him and His earlier claims of divinity as being true. That's kind of a big deal, if it happened. This is what Christianity is at its core. Everything else is irrelevant if this did not happen. And if it did happen, then it is the single most important event in human history.

So yes, fallacious arguments abound for theism but the ‘rubber meets the road’ Christian theism doesn't need any of them. Thanks for reading.

eyescreamcone

Original Sin! - I just don't get it.

Everybody still stained by Adam and Eve's misdemeanour?
First off - Adam and Eve and all their incestous children - meh!
And then this sin is transgenerational? (No other sins are transgenerational - not even murder/genocide)
Even after you get your child "cleansed" the sin shows up in the next generation? Really!

Scores high on the bullsh1t-ometer for me.

gaynorvader

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m not sure about all the other theisms out there but in the case of "Christian" theism at least, the validity of it stands or falls on the truth or falsity of just one event i.e. the God of the Jews and Israelites raising Jesus from the dead according to their Holy Scriptures. It does not stand or fall based on whether any particular philosophical argument for God’s existence is logically valid and philosophically sound as far as our minds will concede to it today (or not). This event either happened as a fact of history as was originally claimed or it didn't happen at all. The people who reported that it did happen were either lying or they were not. If it didn't happen then anyone claiming that it did are liars. The Apostle Paul said as much in one of the most ancient known Christian documents, the first letter to the Corinthian Church. In it Paul says: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses (liars) of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” 1 Corinthians 15: 14-15. Word in brackets mine.

If this event did not happen as an actual fact of history then Christianity falls like a house of cards. It was never claimed in Christianity that this event was just some spiritual thing that had no basis in earthbound reality or flesh and blood, no, this is what was first claimed in the very first preachments of the very earliest apostles. The first recorded sermon of the Church given by Peter in Acts 2 states: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” Acts 2: 22-24

Anyone that says that this supernatural intrusion into history was something added on by the Church in later years are wrong. It was the foundation message of the Church. Everything in Christianity hinges on it. Christianity stands or falls on it as I’ve already said.

So if someone could come along and make a case against this earliest of claims of Christianity, then depending on how convincing that case would be, it could be catastrophic to the faith of many ordinary Christians out there, who, like me, base their faith on this event being true in the sense of an actual happening in history and not on some fable or imaginary tale made up by someone with nothing to gain at all from it. And I would add, such a case should be catastrophic to our faith.

Now even in the Christian sources for this event you will not find a bunch of gullible people just following Jesus around believing everything He said. On the contrary in fact. Time after time you will encounter Jesus rebuking His disciples because of their ‘lack’ of faith. Its only after this alleged resurrection event took place that you encounter another side to these disciples, a better side. Before the resurrection they are shown to be faithless, doubtful, unstable, cowardly, fearful, lazy, and on you can go, and this is from the Christian sources themselves. But after this alleged event they become compassionate, giving, courageous, fearless and faithful preachers of this alleged event, even to the point of ostracism from their community, beatings, imprisonments, ridicules, and horrific torturous and agonising deaths eventually.

If they were lying about this event, then they were the only people who knew for certain that they were. So if we assume that they were lying then ‘they’ also knew they were lying and in that knowledge willingly went to their horrendous deaths and also in the full knowledge that even if there was a God, they knew they were spreading lies about Him and knew that when they met Him that they would be going to the wrong place after death as well, because lying is a sin as far as the God they supposedly believed in was concerned.

Now if all this just happened to one person then I would assume that that person has simply lost the plot somehow. But for the same thing to happen to a group of people? The ‘losing the plot’ argument starts to fall on his face a bit. No, something else is up here.

So what could make a group of people willing (happy even) to suffer so much for a lie (that they ‘knew’ was a lie) that went against everything that they had been brought up as Jews to believe in? To be ostracised by their families, friends and their community at large, including their religious leaders? (And remember there is no Christianity at this point yet). What event could be powerful enough to have this sort of negative affect on a group of people, who according to the Christian record itself, had every predisposition to the contrary? What changed their minds?

If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead by the God they believed in is not the explanation, then I would love to know the real one so that even I could be done with Christianity for good. I don’t need it unless this truth claim IS in fact true. As for the other truth claims of Christianity, they are irrelevant unless this 'the Big One' happened. And once you’re convinced of that one, the others fall into their right perspective, i.e. Jesus walking on water, big deal, Jesus raising Lazarus form the dead, big deal, but Jesus paying the price for my sins (and everyone else’s), a price accepted by God as forever adequate to atone for sins and testified by Him to it by His raising of Jesus from the dead, vindicating Him and His earlier claims of divinity as being true. That's kind of a big deal, if it happened. This is what Christianity is at its core. Everything else is irrelevant if this did not happen. And if it did happen, then it is the single most important event in human history.

So yes, fallacious arguments abound for theism but the ‘rubber meets the road’ Christian theism doesn't need any of them. Thanks for reading.

Just curious, but how do you know that Jesus' disciples were 'better people' after his resurrection?

It seems like you're throwing out the holy trinity with your claim that only Jesus' resurrection matters in whether or not Christianity is the "One True Religion TM".

nozzferrahhtoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

It does not stand or fall based on whether any particular philosophical argument for God’s existence is logically valid and philosophically sound as far as our minds will concede to it today (or not).

The thread is about the arguments that are trotted out but are bad. Not about which ones you think are good. You are off topic. It would be like going into a thread specifically about "What mistakes have humans made in history that we can learn from" and declaring "It is not about our mistakes but should be about what is good about humanity". Right point, wrong thread, perhaps.

That said however, if all the arguments for a gods existence fail.... and they do... spectacularly so sometimes.... then it does not really matter WHICH theism you subscribe to.... the fact is you are subscribing to unsubstantiated fantasy.

Self defeating religious arguments is the topic? Declaring your whole religion falls if the Resurrection did not happen is pretty self defeating if you have not a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that such an event DID occur.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if someone could come along and make a case against this earliest of claims of Christianity,

You have the onus of evidence exactly backwards. It is not up to us to prove the event did happen. The onus is on you to even BEGIN to substantiate the claim that it did. You do not get to pull a claim out of your rear.... or present a claim second hand from someone else who extracted it from said orifice.... and act like by mere virtue of assertion you place the onus of evidence on the mark.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now even in the Christian sources for this event you will not find a bunch of gullible people just following Jesus around believing everything He said.

Your errors are threefold here. At least.

It would probably be more plausible if you did actually see such groups of gullibility. How you describe it smacks more of how one WOULD write it if one was SPECIFICALLY trying to make it convincing. Just artificial. Unreal. When you look at people like Sathya Sai Baba you always have skeptics but you also ALWAYS have a crowd of guillible unquestioning followers.

That said you are engaged in the effort of using the Bible to prove the Bible which is pretty poor form. Or have you other "Christian Sources" you wish to cite to substantiate the claims outside biblical reference?

And even if we were to lend any credibility to these sources, all you are "proving" is that these disciples believed the claims. Proving X number of people believe claim Y in no way whatsoever substantiates claim Y.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now if all this just this happened to one person then I would assume that that person has simply lost the plot somehow. But for the same thing to happen to a group of people? The ‘losing the plot’ argument starts to fall on his face a bit.

No. It does not. 1000s upon 1000s of people attest to the miracles and powers of Sathya Sai Baba for example. Funny that you would subscribe to "Argumentum Ad Populum" when it suits your own agenda.... but I assume you dismiss it as readily as I when it does not. I assume, for example, you do not and never have worshipped the powers of Sathya Sai Baba.

"Argumentum Ad Populum" is a fallacy for a reason. Look it up, learn it, and stop presenting it as if it makes a good point.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What event could be powerful enough to have this sort of negative affect on a group of people, who according to the Christian record itself, had every predisposition to the contrary? What changed their minds?

Who knows, could be anything really. Zealots and extremists and the just plain gullible exist everywhere, throughout history. In the present day as well as a more superstitious and relatively ignorant time as the realm of bronze aged peasantry.

Why was there not even a film recently about a guy who did little more than dress up in guru like clothes and simply WALK and he obtained a long line of dedicated followers.

Too many people are all too ready to believe any nonsense fed to them it seems.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if it did happen, then it is the single most important event in human history.

I 100% agree. 200% for the less pedantic. A shame therefore that you have not presented even an iota of a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to even lend a modicum of credence to the claim it did happen, huh?

pauldla

AFAWK, Acts could have been written as late as the middle of the second century. Fifty to one hundred years can be enough time for a good yarn to pick up a following. Isn't 221B Baker Street said to be a frequent request of visitors to London?

Zillah

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The biggest self defeating argument from the religious that I can think of is the whole "Death bed conversions" or "Atheists in Foxholes" type rhetoric.

Basically these theists talk about how someone converted on their death bed, or turned to god in a foxhole in war etc etc etc.

They proudly trot out this argument as if it somehow lends credibility to theism.

Yet all they are doing is saying that when people reach a point in their life where.... due to pain, illness, sheer terror or some other factor.... their rational faculties are at an all time low and the person in question is basically desperate.... THEN they start believing in god.

Hardly paints their claims in a good life in a person has to reach a desperate state of irrationality in order to convert to believing them.

You have to look at it from the point of view of their warped theology. Everyone was made with a deep, inner craving for God. Secretly we know God exists, but reject him because of our pride. When we cower in fear or despair in death we forget our pride and accept him as our Lord.

It's idiotic, of course, but it is internally consistent with their worldview. They also revel in the condescending nature of it; demonising your opponent as conceited, pretentious and ultimately humbled must feel very nice.

Soft Falling Rain

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hardly paints their claims in a good life in a person has to reach a desperate state of irrationality in order to convert to believing them.

Absolutely, but I can't help but point out the irony of such people turning to such "desperation", when they probably spent most of their lives complaining about how they "can't begin to fathom why anyone would be religious or believe any of it."

eyescreamcone

Why don't Xtians or other religionists, on their deathbed, turn and say "Damn you god for giving me cancer etc?"

Or "there must be no god as nobody would let me suffer this much" ???

Just as relevant a remark as the atheists in foxholes bullsh1t.

robindch

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why don't Xtians or other religionists, on their deathbed, turn and say "Damn you god for giving me cancer etc?"

Probably because they don't want to be making enemies when things are about to turn real.

MrPudding

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m not sure about all the other theisms out there but in the case of "Christian" theism at least, the validity of it stands or falls on the truth or falsity of just one event i.e. the God of the Jews and Israelites raising Jesus from the dead according to their Holy Scriptures. It does not stand or fall based on whether any particular philosophical argument for God’s existence is logically valid and philosophically sound as far as our minds will concede to it today (or not). This event either happened as a fact of history as was originally claimed or it didn't happen at all. The people who reported that it did happen were either lying or they were not. If it didn't happen then anyone claiming that it did are liars. The Apostle Paul said as much in one of the most ancient known Christian documents, the first letter to the Corinthian Church. In it Paul says: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses (liars) of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” 1 Corinthians 15: 14-15. Word in brackets mine.

If this event did not happen as an actual fact of history then Christianity falls like a house of cards. It was never claimed in Christianity that this event was just some spiritual thing that had no basis in earthbound reality or flesh and blood, no, this is what was first claimed in the very first preachments of the very earliest apostles. The first recorded sermon of the Church given by Peter in Acts 2 states: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” Acts 2: 22-24

Anyone that says that this supernatural intrusion into history was something added on by the Church in later years are wrong. It was the foundation message of the Church. Everything in Christianity hinges on it. Christianity stands or falls on it as I’ve already said.

So if someone could come along and make a case against this earliest of claims of Christianity, then depending on how convincing that case would be, it could be catastrophic to the faith of many ordinary Christians out there, who, like me, base their faith on this event being true in the sense of an actual happening in history and not on some fable or imaginary tale made up by someone with nothing to gain at all from it. And I would add, such a case should be catastrophic to our faith.

Now even in the Christian sources for this event you will not find a bunch of gullible people just following Jesus around believing everything He said. On the contrary in fact. Time after time you will encounter Jesus rebuking His disciples because of their ‘lack’ of faith. Its only after this alleged resurrection event took place that you encounter another side to these disciples, a better side. Before the resurrection they are shown to be faithless, doubtful, unstable, cowardly, fearful, lazy, and on you can go, and this is from the Christian sources themselves. But after this alleged event they become compassionate, giving, courageous, fearless and faithful preachers of this alleged event, even to the point of ostracism from their community, beatings, imprisonments, ridicules, and horrific torturous and agonising deaths eventually.

If they were lying about this event, then they were the only people who knew for certain that they were. So if we assume that they were lying then ‘they’ also knew they were lying and in that knowledge willingly went to their horrendous deaths and also in the full knowledge that even if there was a God, they knew they were spreading lies about Him and knew that when they met Him that they would be going to the wrong place after death as well, because lying is a sin as far as the God they supposedly believed in was concerned.

Now if all this just happened to one person then I would assume that that person has simply lost the plot somehow. But for the same thing to happen to a group of people? The ‘losing the plot’ argument starts to fall on his face a bit. No, something else is up here.

So what could make a group of people willing (happy even) to suffer so much for a lie (that they ‘knew’ was a lie) that went against everything that they had been brought up as Jews to believe in? To be ostracised by their families, friends and their community at large, including their religious leaders? (And remember there is no Christianity at this point yet). What event could be powerful enough to have this sort of negative affect on a group of people, who according to the Christian record itself, had every predisposition to the contrary? What changed their minds?

If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead by the God they believed in is not the explanation, then I would love to know the real one so that even I could be done with Christianity for good. I don’t need it unless this truth claim IS in fact true. As for the other truth claims of Christianity, they are irrelevant unless this 'the Big One' happened. And once you’re convinced of that one, the others fall into their right perspective, i.e. Jesus walking on water, big deal, Jesus raising Lazarus form the dead, big deal, but Jesus paying the price for my sins (and everyone else’s), a price accepted by God as forever adequate to atone for sins and testified by Him to it by His raising of Jesus from the dead, vindicating Him and His earlier claims of divinity as being true. That's kind of a big deal, if it happened. This is what Christianity is at its core. Everything else is irrelevant if this did not happen. And if it did happen, then it is the single most important event in human history.

So yes, fallacious arguments abound for theism but the ‘rubber meets the road’ Christian theism doesn't need any of them. Thanks for reading.

Meh. This has been addressed loads of times, but anything resembling a realistic argument against your (and I don't just mean you here) "evidence" is simply ignored. It is all very well saying that disproving the resurecction means I would no longer be a christian, but if you refuse to question your belief of the resurecction then youu words, like so many uttered by the religious, are worthless.

MrP

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if someone could come along and make a case against this earliest of claims of Christianity, then depending on how convincing that case would be, it could be catastrophic to the faith of many ordinary Christians out there, who, like me, base their faith on this event being true in the sense of an actual happening in history and not on some fable or imaginary tale made up by someone with nothing to gain at all from it. And I would add, such a case should be catastrophic to our faith.

People believe that the book of mormon is absolutely true too, despite comprehensive, easily-accessible evidence that it was makey-uppey'd by a convicted conman around 170 years ago.

If people can't accept that something as obviously fake as the book of mormon was made up, what hope is there that people can see through the much better-executed conjob done by the bible?

As MrPud says, if you're not going to question the foundations of your religious belief or compare them to many, many similar belief systems around the world, well, I suppose it's all a bit pointless.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

People believe that the book of mormon is absolutely true too, despite comprehensive, easily-accessible evidence that it was makey-uppey'd by a convicted conman around 170 years ago.

If people can't accept that something as obviously fake as the book of mormon was made up, what hope is there that people can see through the much better-executed conjob done by the bible?

As MrPud says, if you're not going to question the foundations of your religious belief or compare them to many, many similar belief systems around the world, well, I suppose it's all a bit pointless.

In addition to this, the whole, "well they would not have allowed themselve to be put to death for their faith" is also rubbish. I seem to recall in a previous thread about this topic someone posting something about people in a cult who had communicated that they no longer believed in the leader still drank the cool aid knowing it would kill them.

People be crazy, yo.

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

In addition to this, the whole, "well they would not have allowed themselve to be put to death for their faith" is also rubbish.

Well, if people dying for an idea means that the idea is true, then I'd be interested to here where that leaves the truth claims of fundamentalist islam with its suicide bombers, or the Tamil Tigers (now defunct) with their, Aum Shinrikyo, Jim Jones and so on and on.

A few years back, if memory serves me right, somebody did take jakkass/phil o'logos to bits on the same idea as well, since the bible documents few, if any, cases of people dying rather than denying some resonant truth. Turns out it's basically just another religious fiction sold by preachers to people who don't read the bible very carefully.

Candida Moss' The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom looks like a worthwhile read on the topic for anybody interested.

oldrnwisr

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m not sure about all the other theisms out there but in the case of "Christian" theism at least, the validity of it stands or falls on the truth or falsity of just one event i.e. the God of the Jews and Israelites raising Jesus from the dead according to their Holy Scriptures. It does not stand or fall based on whether any particular philosophical argument for God’s existence is logically valid and philosophically sound as far as our minds will concede to it today (or not). This event either happened as a fact of history as was originally claimed or it didn't happen at all. The people who reported that it did happen were either lying or they were not. If it didn't happen then anyone claiming that it did are liars. The Apostle Paul said as much in one of the most ancient known Christian documents, the first letter to the Corinthian Church. In it Paul says: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses (liars) of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” 1 Corinthians 15: 14-15. Word in brackets mine.

If this event did not happen as an actual fact of history then Christianity falls like a house of cards. It was never claimed in Christianity that this event was just some spiritual thing that had no basis in earthbound reality or flesh and blood, no, this is what was first claimed in the very first preachments of the very earliest apostles. The first recorded sermon of the Church given by Peter in Acts 2 states: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” Acts 2: 22-24

Anyone that says that this supernatural intrusion into history was something added on by the Church in later years are wrong. It was the foundation message of the Church. Everything in Christianity hinges on it. Christianity stands or falls on it as I’ve already said.

So if someone could come along and make a case against this earliest of claims of Christianity, then depending on how convincing that case would be, it could be catastrophic to the faith of many ordinary Christians out there, who, like me, base their faith on this event being true in the sense of an actual happening in history and not on some fable or imaginary tale made up by someone with nothing to gain at all from it. And I would add, such a case should be catastrophic to our faith.

Now even in the Christian sources for this event you will not find a bunch of gullible people just following Jesus around believing everything He said. On the contrary in fact. Time after time you will encounter Jesus rebuking His disciples because of their ‘lack’ of faith. Its only after this alleged resurrection event took place that you encounter another side to these disciples, a better side. Before the resurrection they are shown to be faithless, doubtful, unstable, cowardly, fearful, lazy, and on you can go, and this is from the Christian sources themselves. But after this alleged event they become compassionate, giving, courageous, fearless and faithful preachers of this alleged event, even to the point of ostracism from their community, beatings, imprisonments, ridicules, and horrific torturous and agonising deaths eventually.

If they were lying about this event, then they were the only people who knew for certain that they were. So if we assume that they were lying then ‘they’ also knew they were lying and in that knowledge willingly went to their horrendous deaths and also in the full knowledge that even if there was a God, they knew they were spreading lies about Him and knew that when they met Him that they would be going to the wrong place after death as well, because lying is a sin as far as the God they supposedly believed in was concerned.

Now if all this just happened to one person then I would assume that that person has simply lost the plot somehow. But for the same thing to happen to a group of people? The ‘losing the plot’ argument starts to fall on his face a bit. No, something else is up here.

So what could make a group of people willing (happy even) to suffer so much for a lie (that they ‘knew’ was a lie) that went against everything that they had been brought up as Jews to believe in? To be ostracised by their families, friends and their community at large, including their religious leaders? (And remember there is no Christianity at this point yet). What event could be powerful enough to have this sort of negative affect on a group of people, who according to the Christian record itself, had every predisposition to the contrary? What changed their minds?

If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead by the God they believed in is not the explanation, then I would love to know the real one so that even I could be done with Christianity for good. I don’t need it unless this truth claim IS in fact true. As for the other truth claims of Christianity, they are irrelevant unless this 'the Big One' happened. And once you’re convinced of that one, the others fall into their right perspective, i.e. Jesus walking on water, big deal, Jesus raising Lazarus form the dead, big deal, but Jesus paying the price for my sins (and everyone else’s), a price accepted by God as forever adequate to atone for sins and testified by Him to it by His raising of Jesus from the dead, vindicating Him and His earlier claims of divinity as being true. That's kind of a big deal, if it happened. This is what Christianity is at its core. Everything else is irrelevant if this did not happen. And if it did happen, then it is the single most important event in human history.

So yes, fallacious arguments abound for theism but the ‘rubber meets the road’ Christian theism doesn't need any of them. Thanks for reading.

Ah christ not this again.

OK, there are two principal arguments wrapped up here in the apologetics of the resurrection so I'm going to deal with each in turn.


1. Did the disciples die for a lie?

I'm going to deal with this one first because it is pretty popular among Christian apologists both old and new (e.g. Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Avery Dulles etc.). However the inherently contradictory nature of the bible is something that none of these apologists seem to want to talk about. This is a real problem in attempting to determine the martyrdom of the apostles since the five biblical sources which ennumerate the apostles do not entirely agree.

List of disciples per biblical sources:

Mark/Matthew

1. Peter
2. James, son of Zebedee
3. John, brother of James
4. Andrew
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James, son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddeus
11. Simon
12. Judas Iscariot

Luke/Acts

1. Peter
2. James
3. John
4. Andrew
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James, son of Alphaeus
10. Judas, son of James
11. Simon
12. Judas Iscariot

John

1. Peter
2. the sons of Zebedee (e.g. John, James)
3. Andrew
4. Philip
5. Nathaniel
6. Thomas
7. Judas "not Iscariot"
8. Judas Iscariot

Because of these conflicts, and other people mentioned in the bible who are associated with the apostles this is the composite list I propose:

1. Peter (Simon Peter)
2. Andrew
3. James, son of Zebedee
4. John
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew/Nathanael, son of Talemai
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James (James the Less, James the Just), son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddeus/Lebbaeus/Jude
11. Simon the Zealot/Cananean (Simeon of Jerusalem)
12. Judas Iscariot (replaced by Matthias)

The real question, given this list, therefore, is whether these people actually died for their beliefs.

Peter
Peter according to tradition was crucified in Rome. He was also crucified upside-down so as not to die in the same manner of Jesus. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that prisoners were rarely, if ever, accorded the privelege of choosing their method of execution, let's examine the textual evidence. The bulk of the traditional account of the martyrdom of St. Peter comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, an account dismissed as unreliable by historian Eusebius. Other than that we have early Christian scholars such as Origen and Tertullian describing the method of Peter's death but not the origins. These accounts, however, are a century after the fact and not entirely reliable.

Andrew
According to tradition, Andrew was crucified on a saltire (an x-shaped cross) so as not to die in the same manner as Jesus. However, the source for this tradition is the Acts of Andrew. However, even early Biblical scholars such as Eusebius considered the Acts of Andrew to be unreliable. Modern Biblical scholars such as Francis Dvornik have also questioned the authenticity of Acts of Andrew. We, therefore, don't have any reliable information as to how Andrew died and cannot suggest that he was a martyr.

James, son of Zebedee
James is one of the few apostles who is listed as being killed in the Bible. According to Acts, Herod killed James with a sword. There is nothing in Acts to suggest that this death is anything other than a murder. Clement of Alexandria wrote that James was tried and executed as a martyr but since he was born 106 years after James' death, this account is unreliable.

John
John, even according to Catholic tradition, is not considered to be a martyr. He is reported to have died in 100CE of old age.

Philip
Like Andrew, the only suggestion of the martyrdom of Philip is in a later work called the Acts of Philip. However, like John, Catholic tradition holds that Philip was not martyred (or at least that his fate was unknown). The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Acts of Philip as a "tissue of fables".

Bartholomew
One of the more interesting apostle stories out there. There are many different stories surrounding Bartholomew's fate. One account suggests that he was crucified in Armenia, while another suggests he was beheaded in India. No writings of Bartholomew's fate exist prior to Eusebius and thus there is no reliable account of Bartholomew's death.

Matthew
The accounts of Matthew's fate are even more varied and unreliable than Bartholomew's. Most Christian scholars agree that the fate of Matthew is unknown. The Christian History Institute concludes that "we have nothing but legend about Matthew's death while Catholic Online states that "nothing definite is known about his later life". Some sources in fact suggest that Matthew died a natural death.

Thomas
Some accounts including the apocryphal Acts of Thomas describe Thomas as having preached in India where he was stabbed to death with a spear. However, Eusebius dismisses the Acts of Thomas as unreliable. Furthermore, modern Catholic consensus holds that "it is difficult to discover any adequate support" to support the death of Thomas in India.

James the Less
The question to answer here is which James are we talking about. James is mentioned differently in different texts. James is described by some sources as James, brother of Jesus a tradition not held by Eastern Orthodox churches. Some accounts place his death in Egypt as a result of crucifixion while Josephus mentions that James was stoned by Pharisees. There are numerous conflicting stories with no evidence to tip the balance in favour of any of them.

Thaddeus
Again it is difficult to know to what real person any of the stories refer. This apostle is named differently in Luke's Gospel than he is in Matthew's. Some accounts report that he was crucified in Armenia with Simon while others describe him being clubbed to death and others still say that he died of natural causes. However, none of these accounts have any corroborating textual evidence to support them and hence we know nothing of the fate of Thaddeus.

Simon the Zealot
No detail of the many conflicting reports of Simon's death seem to agree. His place of death has been reported as Persia, Edessa, Samria, Iberia, Colchis or even Britain. Some reports describe him being crucified while others say he was sawn in half. The source of this uncertainty is again an identity issue with Simon the Zealot being identified with other early Christian figures including Simeon of Jerusalem.

Judas Iscariot
It's nice to finish on an easy one. The story of Judas is well known and not attributable to martyrdom.


So as far as the apostles go, the only apostle that could even charitably be described as a martyr is Peter. The rest of the apostles were not deemed important enough to merit anything other than passing mentions in history. Even so, if we accept that Peter was crucified (and I'm not suggesting that we do) we only have descriptions of Peter's death. There are a multitude of questions remaining. In particular one question stands out: Did the authorities offer Peter a chance to recant? If Peter, or any of the other apostles for that matter died in circumstances where recanting would have saved them then that would speak to martyrdom but we have no evidence of any such incident.

In conclusion, we don't know how any of the apostles died, and as such cannot say that they died for their beliefs. Without martyrdom, we don't know how the apostles viewed their beliefs, false or otherwise.

The other question that this line of argument raises of course, is: would someone willingly die for a lie? Well, yes, as it happens.

On 23rd October 1947, Lieutenant Paul Hideo Katayama of the Imperial Japanese Navy was executed by firing squad by the Australian Army. He had been charged with war crimes, specifically that he had executed Allied airmen whose plane had been shot down. They were taken prisoner alive from the aircraft wreckage but were subsequently executed.
A subsequent investigation found that Katayama was scapegoated by members of the Japanese military senior command to protect those involved who included a member of the royal family. Katayama who was a language officer had no part in the execution.
In prison Katayama wrote a letter to his priest where his mood is sanguine to say the very least:

"Dear Rev. Young:
I am sorry that I could not have my funeral service conducted by you, so I asked Mr. Sato to do it. Mr. TAKAHAI, a member of church, will also be executed. We are very calm and have a great hope to see our Lord face to face. We are very happy that we can die as "Christians."
I wish you every success and happiness in His name.
Yours sincerely
Paul Hideo Katayama"


Don Ball, one of the Australian MPs who was part of the firing squad said that he refused a blindfold and said: "I am not afraid to die."

Narrative of the incident

http://www.tadmitsui.com/index.php/m...nt-commit.html


Entry in defence counsel resume, Donald Campbell QC

http://www.sclqld.org.au/schp/exhibi...ampbell_01.htm


Australian War Memorial Record

http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/MSS0743


Trial notes from the Australian International Law Journal

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6163643/pg_29/


The last component of this line of argument is this silly notion of "well how else do you explain it" It's quite simple really. It's called denial of failure. It is a quite common reaction for people in such situations and has been studied academically.

When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists


I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut it short there but later I'll deal with the problematic nature and general unreliability of the resurrection accounts in the bible.

Piliger

Soul Winner wrote: »

So yes, fallacious arguments abound for theism but the ‘rubber meets the road’ Christian theism doesn't need any of them.

Your idea of rubber meeting road is all your own Mr Soul.

Thanks for reading.

I didn't. It may be Comedy night where you are, but it's Reality night around here.

Piliger

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut it short there but later I'll deal with the problematic nature and general unreliability of the resurrection accounts in the bible.

Spoiler alert ...... they were all made up !! :eek:

Lingua Franca

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why don't Xtians or other religionists, on their deathbed, turn and say "Damn you god for giving me cancer etc?"

Or "there must be no god as nobody would let me suffer this much" ???

They do, though. I've spoken before on this site about how my grandfather lost his faith in his end days. It was pretty horrible, he questioned everything he'd believed in his whole life and didn't get to come to terms with it before he died.

Just as relevant a remark as the atheists in foxholes bullsh1t.

True.

oldrnwisr

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut it short there but later I'll deal with the problematic nature and general unreliability of the resurrection accounts in the bible.

OK, allons-y!

2. The problematic nature of the gospels

OK, before we get to analysing the individual accounts which purport to witness the resurrection, let's get some basic facts sorted out.

Only two facts regarding the life of Jesus are supported by extrabiblical evidence: that he existed and that he was crucified. Specifically only that he was crucified and not the details of the how and why.

There are no extrabiblical contempraneous accounts of either the crucifixion or the resurrection. This is important since the gospels in places claim that a) Jesus' fame had spread far and wide by the time of his death and b) extraordinary events accompanied his death (i.e. the great zombie uprising of 33AD.

There are only five sources (actually less) sources which could possibly qualify as eyewitness accounts to the resurrection: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul.

Now, on to the accounts themselves.

The first point, given SoulWinner's use of Pauline writings in his post, is that Paul's work cannot be considered an eyewitness account. Firstly, Paul never met Jesus. He only claims to ever have met the resurrected Jesus. However, no-one who did know the real Jesus is in a position to substantiate Paul's claims. His contact with the apostles is minimal, he spends two weeks with Peter and meets James in passing. Also, both of the apostles he does meet he goes on to have massive blazing rows with. Many of Paul's epistles are given over to challenging James' soteriological arguments regarding the virtue of works while the rift between Paul and Peter is made obvious on several occasions. The only other noteworthy point in Pauline writings is an unsupported claim that 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

Now, as for the gospels, although they appear on the surface, to be four separate accounts, they are in fact one single account, repeated four times. Despite traditional church chronology, textual scholarship has taught us that the earliest gospel is Mark, followed by Matthew, Luke and finally John somewhere between 90 and 100 CE. Also, none of these accounts are considered to be authored by those who tradition claim they are. In fact all of the accounts are written anonymously.

So why is there only one account? Well, regardless of the existence of Q, both Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark. In fact, well over 90% of Matthew is lifted verbatim from Mark. Secondly, both Matthew and Luke use a literary technique popular at the time known as Dionysian imitatio. The idea behind this technique is that a story is retold but changed and embellished thus creating a new and better story. Thirdly, Matthew in particular makes changes to the text where Mark makes errors. A glaring example of this is Mark's geographical cock-up at the start of Chapter 5.

This just leaves John. John is the longest of the four gospels and also the furthest removed from the events. John, however differs significantly from the synoptics, sharing just 8% of its content with them. This makes the idea that the resurrection story in John is borrowed from the synoptics unlikely. However, there are key points that show that the passion & resurrection narrative in John is indeed borrowed from the synoptics. Firstly, John attempts to correct the glaring error made by Mark in his passion narrative. Mark has the Last Supper taking place on Passover Eve. However, this would make the trial of Jesus occurring during Pasover, something that would not have happened under Jewish law. John attempts to correct this by moving the Last Supper back by a day. Secondly, John who is much more familiar with Jewish law and customs changes the way Jesus is buried so that he is wrapped in single wrappings according to Jewish custom. The other major factor in believing that John borrowed from the synoptics is that John too uses Dionysian imitatio to a degree. The single young man who appeared to the women in Mark's gospel evolves with each retelling becoming two young man, one angel and finally in John, two angels in white.

OK, so it would seem so far that the resurrection accounts in the gospels are all retelling of Mark's original story, or are they? The problem is that there is no resurrection in Mark's gospel. The original ending of Mark stops at Chapter 16 Verse 8. The original ending of Mark features the women finding the empty tomb and running away frightened, a classic cliffhanger. The earliest copies of Mark that we have recovered all have this shorter ending. As we go forward in time, however, we begin to see copies of Mark with a new section added on (Verses 9-20). This seems to have happened only as the copies of the gospel began to spread eastward. So it seems that the portion of Mark's gospel which actually depicts the resurrection of Jesus is in itself a later embellishment.

Having said all that, without any external support for any of the claims the only thing we have to go on is the internal consistency and reliability of the accounts themselves. This creates its own set of problems, something which I have dealt with in detail here.

In summary, before we even get to talking about the evidence necessary to prove a supernatural event, we have very little reason to trust that the accounts which purport to witness the resurrection are trustworthy. Oh, and one last thing which I always find funny in these arguments. Christians constantly propose the gospels and Paul as eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, yet despite the fact the Book of Mormon contains actual notarised eyewitness testimony from people whose existence is verified, most Christians still discount this as evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Funny that.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

[...] account dismissed as unreliable by historian Eusebius [...]

And Eusebius had enough problems with reporting accurately himself, since he openly stated that not only was he not going to write anything bad about the church, but that he'd be prepared to lie upon its behalf too. Some very familiar-looking edits on Eusebius' wikipage document the primary sources for those claims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea#Assessment

• Edward Gibbon openly distrusted the writings of Eusebius concerning the number of martyrs, by noting a passage in the shorter text of the Martyrs of Palestine attached to the Ecclesiastical History (Book 8, Chapter 2) in which Eusebius introduces his description of the martyrs of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with: "Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. [...] We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." In the longer text of the same work, chapter 12, Eusebius states: "I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as [...] the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning."
• When his own honesty was challenged by his contemporaries, Gibbon appealed to a chapter heading in Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica (Book XII, Chapter 31) in which Eusebius discussed "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."
• Although Gibbon refers to Eusebius as the 'gravest' of the ecclesiastical historians, he also suggests that Eusebius was more concerned with the passing political concerns of his time than his duty as a reliable historian.

Brian Shanahan

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Absolutely, but I can't help but point out the irony of such people turning to such "desperation", when they probably spent most of their lives complaining about how they "can't begin to fathom why anyone would be religious or believe any of it."

How many actual death bed conversions of atheists and agnostics have there been exactly?

Because the only one I've heard of was a malicious falsehood (see my previous post above).

Piliger

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

How many actual death bed conversions of atheists and agnostics have there been exactly?

Indeed .... if ANY !!

And if there have been, then it is far more likely to be a reflection on the temporary insanity arising from a horrendous trauma.