Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Evolution 1, Creationism 0.
Options
Comments
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Eye witness testimony?
There are eye-witness for aliens and bigfoot. And those aren't recorded in a 2000 year old, translated book.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Eye witness testimony?
Don't be silly, you can find Eye witness reports for anything. That does not necessary prove anything. Especially after 2000 years of "Chinese whispers".
Q.E.D
EDIT: Beaten by Genghiz Cohen, but I've got a video0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »1) The Disciples' genuine believed that Jesus was the Son of God. 2) His tomb was empty. 3) The rise of early Christianity in a world totally and utterly apposed to it, who used torture and death to dissuade anyone from converting to it. If anyone can explain these three simple facts with ONE natural explanation then I can be done with Christianity
I can do this: People are gullible idiots.
Can I add your name to my little black book of people who's faith I have destroyed?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Eye witness testimony?
I know the bible claims that 500 saw the resurrection but we don't have the testimony of those people, just the claim. And as someone said:
"no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."0 -
Advertisement
-
If there was enough evidence to make a logical deduction that Jesus rose from the dead, it would be taught in history class, not religion class
Ah the innocence :pac:
Is there anything else in your life which you hold to this standard of evidence? And if a claim with extremely little supporting evidence must be absolutely disproven before you will reject it, do you really think that's logical?
No, but I have a natural inclination towards a belief in God and Jesus as His ultimate revelation so in order to believe in Him I must be convinced that He rose from the dead as reported. I have read enough on the subject to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true, so in order for me to abandon that then yes I need it to be totally disproven and I need more than "but what about evolution?" to seal the deal.
Those are not facts. They are claims made in a 2000 year old book
Surely the fact that they are 2000 year old claims doesn't make them wrong does it? For me to believe that they are wrong then it must be shown to me why they are wrong. I need more than the bias of an unbeliever sorry.
As for the rise of Christianity, how do you explain the rise of all the other religions?
None of the leaders of any of the major religions ever made the kinds of claims about themselves that Jesus made. They were great and respected leaders of men who's ideologies were followed and in some cases forced upon others. The early rise of Christianity was due to people genuinely believing in Jesus as the son of God and actually expecting Him to come back in their lifetime, a belief they forsook everything for and for which they paid the ultimate price of suffering hideous deaths. If they were deluded then their persecutions could have been easily avoided by simply producing the body of their dead leader.
And how do you explain how the followers of all the other religions genuinely believing in their leader?
Genuinely believing that they were God incarnate? What other major religion believes that about their leader? Or more importantly, what other leader of a major religion believed that about himself?
Thousands of religions have risen with totally devoted followers throughout history, that is quite a common occurrence but I've yet to see a resurrection. Before I explain how it could have happened then you must explain how it happened all those other times
What other times? Jesus is the only one who before He died thought that He was God and that He would rise from the dead after His death. And He is the only one who after dying is claimed to have risen by His followers who would die for that testimony. No other Historical figure ever claimed about themselves the things Jesus claimed about Himself and no other leader of any religion ever had their followers claim that He had risen from the dead and then die for that testimony.0 -
-
I know the bible claims that 500 saw the resurrection but we don't have the testimony of those people, just the claim."no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."0
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Surely the fact that they are 2000 year old claims doesn't make them wrong does it? For me to believe that they are wrong then it must be shown to me why they are wrong. I need more than the bias of an unbeliever sorry.
You have it exactly wrong there, for it to be right it must be proven right.
Why don't you go read the Koran with the same attitude?
The bias of an unbeliever is well founded, the bias of a believer however is not.0 -
Don't be silly, you can find Eye witness reports for anything. That does not necessary prove anything. Especially after 2000 years of "Chinese whispers".
Q.E.D
EDIT: Beaten by Genghiz Cohen, but I've got a video
Hmmm?? I wonder how many of them would be willing to suffer a horrible death instead of reneging on their testimony even if they did see a cute little leprechaun. If they would, then I would be more inclined to believe that they at least believed what they saw was true. That wouldn't prove that leprechauns exist of course but it rules out them lying about what they believed they saw. So if that was the case for the disciples of Jesus then how do you explain the empty tomb? Did gullible fools steal the body? If so, then they weren’t gullible fools, they were liars and frauds but then liars and frauds would not suffer a hideous death for the truth never mind a lie that they knew was a lie. So if it wasn’t them, then who stole it? Not the Romans, they couldn't care less. Not the Jewish Leaders because they would have produced it in a second to disprove the preaching of the resurrection. So we are back to square one. The resurrection story still explains all the facts the best.0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »No, but I have a natural inclination towards a belief in God and Jesus as His ultimate revelation so in order to believe in Him I must be convinced that He rose from the dead as reported. I have read enough on the subject to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true, so in order for me to abandon that then yes I need it to be totally disproven
Handy that you've chosen criteria that can never be met until someone invents a time machine. As I already said, if there was enough evidence to convince someone beyond a reasonable doubt it would be taught in history class. Saying "Ah the innocence" doesn't stop that being true.
I would say it's more like your first statement "I have a natural inclination towards a belief in God and Jesus". Basically you want to believe so you don't need as much evidence as you otherwise would. Not logicalSoul Winner wrote: »Surely the fact that they are 2000 year old claims doesn't make them wrong does it? For me to believe that they are wrong then it must be shown to me why they are wrong. I need more than the bias of an unbeliever sorry.
The strength of the evidence required is proportional to the unlikeness of the claim. If a book was found claiming there was a man called Jesus who had some disciples, I'd be inclined to accept it because that fits with the known universe but if they want to claim that he walked on water and raised from the dead they're going to have to prove it. Before you can use history as evidence for Jesus you must first prove that supernatural events are possibleSoul Winner wrote: »None of the leaders of any of the major religions ever made the kinds of claims about themselves that Jesus made. They were great and respected leaders of men who's ideologies were followed and in some cases forced upon others. The early rise of Christianity was due to people genuinely believing in Jesus as the son of God and actually expecting Him to come back in their lifetime, a belief they forsook everything for and for which they paid the ultimate price of suffering hideous deaths. If they were deluded then their persecutions could have been easily avoided by simply producing the body of their dead leader.
Genuinely believing that they were God incarnate? What other [/font][/COLOR]major religion believes that about their leader? Or more importantly, what other leader of a major religion believed that about himself?
What other times? Jesus is the only one who before He died thought that He was God and that He would rise from the dead after His death. And He is the only one who after dying is claimed to have risen by His followers who would die for that testimony. No other Historical figure ever claimed about themselves the things Jesus claimed about Himself and no other leader of any religion ever had their followers claim that He had risen from the dead and then die for that testimony.
And if the evidence for Jesus is so compelling, how do you explain the fact that all the Jews of the day did not convert? If the evidence wasn't compelling enough for the people living in that time, why should I accept it after 2000 years of dilution?0 -
Quick Note Soul Winner.
I'm not on the stock skin, so for the porpuses of this thread could you skip the color tags please?
It's a pain in the arse having to highlight all your text.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Hmmm?? I wonder how many of them would be willing to suffer a horrible death instead of reneging on their testimony even if they did see a cute little leprechaun.Soul Winner wrote: »So if that was the case for the disciples of Jesus then how do you explain the empty tomb? Did gullible fools steal the body? If so, then they weren’t gullible fools, they were liars and frauds but then liars and frauds would not suffer a hideous death for the truth never mind a lie that they knew was a lie.
My position would be that they truly believed in the message of Jesus which is understandable because it is a very good message for how to live your life but they knew that no one would care what some carpenter's son from Nazareth had to say so they made it look like he fit the messianic prophecies and either got him crucified or hoaxed it somehow. So they believed strongly enough in the message to lie to help people to believe it
A modern day example would be how George Bush truly believed that Saddam was a threat but knew that no one would support a war so he told them that he had WMDs. He convinced people to allow him to do what he believed was right by a little white lie. The ends justify the means and all that
Reasonable? Possible?
edit: evidence to support this idea: One of the messianic prophecies required that the messiah be born in bethlehem. only two gospels mention how Jesus got there and the stories differ, only one mentioning the familiar story of the census and the manger. That says to me that they were trying to make it look like he fit the prophecies0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »You have it exactly wrong there, for it to be right it must be proven right.
Not true. If one believes it to be true then the onus is on the objector to prove it false.
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Why don't you go read the Koran with the same attitude?
When I get to the part that Jesus wasn't the Son of God and that He was never really crucified (which even non-Christian historians accept as true) then something tells me that something is not right. And when it blatantly quotes heretical Gnostic scriptures from the second century I start to back off somewhat. That a good enough reason?
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »The bias of an unbeliever is well founded, the bias of a believer however is not.
A totally ridiculous and stupid statement to make. And there's me thinking you were a real clever clogs.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Not true. If one believes it to be true then the onus is on the objector to prove it false0
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Hmmm?? I wonder how many of them would be willing to suffer a horrible death instead of reneging on their testimony even if they did see a cute little leprechaun. If they would, then I would be more inclined to believe that they at least believed what they saw was true. That wouldn't prove that leprechauns exist of course but it rules out them lying about what they believed they saw. So if that was the case for the disciples of Jesus then how do you explain the empty tomb? Did gullible fools steal the body? If so, then they weren’t gullible fools, they were liars and frauds but then liars and frauds would not suffer a hideous death for the truth never mind a lie that they knew was a lie. So if it wasn’t them, then who stole it? Not the Romans, they couldn't care less. Not the Jewish Leaders because they would have produced it in a second to disprove the preaching of the resurrection. So we are back to square one. The resurrection story still explains all the facts the best.
I was just making a point using a humorous video. I'm not claiming that it's the exact same as eye witness accounts in the Bible. I'd be very curious to your answer to my more serious point in my previous post though.Why does it have to be ONE natural explanation, that doesn't make much sense.
You could demand ONE natural explanation for thunder, rainbows and yearly harvest, for example the Norse Gods. HOWEVER just because you can explain them all with one explanation doesn't make that explanation superior to one explanation for each phenomenon.:rolleyes:0 -
No it's not. the onus is always and forever on the person making the claim
*prepares to utter his favourite stock phrase*
"Incredible claims call fall incredible evidence."
Saying a man came back to life three days after dying and then ascended up to heaven is a very incredible claim, so to prove such a thing would require a lot of evidence. A very old book and a few unverified eye-witness accounts don't really stack up to match the claim.
Saying a man did not come back to life in said circumstances is far more credible, so requires less evidence.
The burden of proof is on those making the incredible claim, not vice-versa.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »A totally ridiculous and stupid statement to make. And there's me thinking you were a real clever clogs.
Oi! :pac:
Well if there are unbelievers then there must be a reason, and with so many other religions claiming theirs is the truth and Atheism abound, you need to take a step back.
Take psychics for example, some people believe they work and fully convinced of it being true, like you are of Christianity.
Others don't think so, why?
According to Scientific Method the sceptic is in the right until he is proven wrong. So my stupid statement it pretty much the grounds for all scientific development ever. (Maybe not ever, but it sounds good, right?)0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »
But the supernatural resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the only ONE explanation that explains some basic settled facts. 1) The Disciples' genuine believed that Jesus was the Son of God.
It is a basic settled fact that I genuinely believed in Santa Claus for a while. Unfortunately I was incorrect in my belief...
The fact that someone believes in something may be true but that does not make the "something" true.0 -
the 9/11 bombers were willing to suffer a horrible death and they never witnessed a resurrection.
Will I tell you why? Because they believed in what they were doing. Same with the disciples of Jesus. They were not indoctrinated with an ideology, they were eye witnesses unto Him for which they paid with their lives. They knew that what they believed was either true or not. If they knew it to be false they would not have gave their lives for a lie that they knew was a lie. The 911 attackers didn't know either way, they were just indoctrinated and simply believed in a cause enough to die for it. There is a difference.My position would be that they truly believed in the message of Jesus which is understandable because it is a very good message for how to live your life but they knew that no one would care what some carpenter's son from Nazareth had to say so they made it look like he fit the messianic prophecies and either got him crucified or hoaxed it somehow. So they believed strongly enough in the message to lie to help people to believe it.
So you think that they cared so much about the truth of Jesus' teachings that they made up lies about Him so that people would believe His teachings? He was tried and convicted as a blasphemer and a criminal publicly ridiculed and put to an ignominious end. Who would want to believe in the teachings of someone to which that happened?
Heck you are entitled to that position I suppose, but what evidence do you have for it? I mean the fact that the all fled in fear the night He was being crucified speaks volumes as to their character so why would they then change from this postion to one of absolute dedication to a lie about someone who they knew was really dead?A modern day example would be how George Bush truly believed that Saddam was a threat but knew that no one would support a war so he told them that he had WMDs. He convinced people to allow him to do what he believed was right by a little white lie. The ends justify the means and all that
But what is the point in believing in someone who claimed the things Jesus claimed about Himself if the things He claimed were not true? You are dealing with a nut case or a fraud if what Jesus claimed about Himself was not true.Reasonable? Possible?
Oh yeah, very possible I suppose.0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »The resurrection story still explains all the facts the best.
Like, seriously, people do write nonsense from time to time. Just because it's in black and white and bound in calfskin does not mean it is 100% true.
Please tell me you understand that!
(*) and flew off up into the sky to return to his previous employment as one third of the entity that created the universe.
(**) who, in an unknown place and unknown time, wrote a book you cannot read in the original, of which we have no remaining fragments [SIZE]0 -
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Will I tell you why? Because they believed in what they were doing. Same with the disciples of Jesus. They were not indoctrinated with an ideology, they were eye witnesses unto Him for which they paid with their lives. They knew that what they believed was either true or not. If they knew it to be false they would not have gave their lives for a lie that they knew was a lie. The 911 attackers didn't know either way, they were just indoctrinated and simply believed in a cause enough to die for it. There is a difference.Soul Winner wrote: »So you think that they cared so much about the truth of Jesus' teachings that they made up lies about Him so that people would believe His teachings? He was tried and convicted as a blasphemer and a criminal publicly ridiculed and put to an ignominious end. Who would want to believe in the teachings of someone to which that happened?Soul Winner wrote: »Heck you are entitled to that position I suppose, but what evidence do you have for it? I mean the fact that the all fled in fear the night He was being crucified speaks volumes as to their character so why would they then change from this postion to one of absolute dedication to a lie about someone who they knew was really dead?Soul Winner wrote: »But what is the point in believing in someone who claimed the things Jesus claimed about Himself if the things He claimed were not true? You are dealing with a nut case or a fraud if what Jesus claimed about Himself was not true.Soul Winner wrote: »Oh yeah, very possible I suppose.Soul Winner wrote: »If anyone can explain these three simple facts with ONE natural explanation then I can be done with Christianity0
-
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.
Claim: A man was resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago.
Evidence: A Book.
Counter-Argument: Such an event has never occurred before and never occurred again to this day.0 -
I was just making a point using a humorous video. I'm not claiming that it's the exact same as eye witness accounts in the Bible.
OkI'd be very curious to your answer to my more serious point in my previous post though.Why does it have to be ONE natural explanation, that doesn't make much sense.
You could demand ONE natural explanation for thunder, rainbows and yearly harvest, for example the Norse Gods. HOWEVER just because you can explain them all with one explanation doesn't make that explanation superior to one explanation for each phenomenon.
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.0 -
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."The circle is complete"0
-
Seriously -- can you put your hand on your heart and say that it's more likely that a chap from first century Palestine died and came back to life(*) than that some unknown person(**) might have written a book that is not fully accurate?
Like, seriously, people do write nonsense from time to time. Just because it's in black and white and bound in calfskin does not mean it is 100% true.
Please tell me you understand that!
(*) and flew off up into the sky to return to his previous employment as one third of the entity that created the universe.
(**) who, in an unknown place and unknown time, wrote a book you cannot read in the original, of which we have no remaining fragments [SIZE]
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. Of the ancient writings nothing compares to the NT. There are more translations and copies of manuscripts dating back to within the first 40 years of the stories the account. The letters of Paul are the oldest and they go back even further. No other ancient text even comes close to that kind of attestation. There is not time enough for legendary embellishment (which you do get in the Gnostics text of the second century) to form before the originals have been copied and circulated to all the various churches. The belief that Jesus was the Son of God goes back to the oldest manuscripts so whatever the cause for that belief it wasn't due to later legendary embellishment.0 -
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.
I keep pimping this video, but I think it makes several important points:
It covers some important concepts in a clearer way than I can. I'd love to hear your opinion on this video.0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Claim: A man was resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago.
Evidence: A Book.
Counter-Argument: Such an event has never occurred before and never occurred again to this day.
And on one could go0 -
Advertisement
-
You are supporting the incredible claim despite it's lack of evidence. In fact you have been incredibly claiming taht it is true for a few pages now."The circle is complete"
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.0
Advertisement