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

Apologetics Thread!!!

1…468910

Comments

  • #152
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    People willing to die for what they believe is no strange occurance. People willing to die for what they know is a lie though, thats a different kettle of fish.

    And yet it still happens.

    So again what exactly do you guys think this demonstrates?

    What do you think it demonstrates about the supernatural power of Jim Jones that 918 people, many who had followed Jones for years and moved to South America with him, decided to kill themselves within 5 minutes of Jones ordering them to?


  • #153
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And yet it still happens.

    So again what exactly do you guys think this demonstrates?

    What do you think it demonstrates about the supernatural power of Jim Jones that 918 people, many who had followed Jones for years and moved to South America with him, decided to kill themselves within 5 minutes of Jones ordering them to?

    How many times do we have to point out the differences between these two sets of believers before the penny will finally drop Wicknight? Dying because - someone you admire or you even think is a God - orders you to, and dying because you will not renege on what you claimed to have seen with your own eyes are completely different things altogether. What is it about these two that you have so much difficulty distinguishing between?


  • #154
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Dying because - someone you admire or you even think is a God - orders you to, and dying because you will not renege on what you claimed to have seen with your own eyes are completely different things altogether.
    They are? Completely different? Really?

    What do you think one demonstrates that the other doesn't? How does being executed by someone else show more conviction than killing yourself


  • #155
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And yet it still happens.

    So again what exactly do you guys think this demonstrates?

    What do you think it demonstrates about the supernatural power of Jim Jones that 918 people, many who had followed Jones for years and moved to South America with him, decided to kill themselves within 5 minutes of Jones ordering them to?

    :confused: Do you really not see the difference between dying for something you believe to be true, and dying for something you know to be a lie?

    You seem to have ignored the preceeding point in my post. I'll requote with emphasis.

    So when Lugha says, 'I'm sure they believed', well it was such an elaborate scenario, that it would have to be a lie, or true. The only reasonable stance, is that the apostles stories were true, or they were liars. The whole, 'they were decieved' just does not add up. That is where their willing to die comes in. People willing to die for what they believe is no strange occurance. People willing to die for what they know is a lie though, thats a different kettle of fish.


  • #156
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    They are? Completely different? Really?

    What do you think one demonstrates that the other doesn't? How does being executed by someone else show more conviction than killing yourself

    It doesn't show more conviction at all, that wasn't my point. My point is that there is a huge difference between somebody willing to die because they have been ordered to do so by a person that they are still in the presence of, whom they believe to be God, and surrounded by gun men should they be required to make the choice of poison more appealing than getting shot, and people dying horrific deaths because they professed to have witnessed postmortem appearances and the accession into heaven of Christ. And not only dying horrific deaths but doing so alone, where no other fellow believer was around to judge them for their apostasy should they be inclined to commit it.

    Now I'm not saying that that proves what they believed in to be true but to do something like this for a lie that as far as they knew would send them to the bad place anyway after death simply boggles the mind, especially when all they had to do was stop preaching that Jesus was raised from the dead. Jim Jone's followers didn't have that choice, survivors of that ordeal can testify of that today but the disciples of Jesus certainly did have that choice and yet were happy to die for what they professed as being true instead of recanting on it.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    :confused: Do you really not see the difference between dying for something you believe to be true, and dying for something you know to be a lie?
    I'm not quite sure why people keep asking me that ... perhaps I'm missing what point you guys think you are making, which is why I keep asking you to state plainly what you think this demonstrates.

    If I'm following the argument is

    The followers of Jesus were prepared to face death rather than renounce Jesus as the Son of God. People do not willingly die for something they don't believe is true. This demonstrates that the followers of Jesus at the very least believed in Jesus.

    This doesn't work because we know people do willing dying for something they don't believe is true, as the Jonestown suicides demonstrate.

    The second argument that follows on from that is that if they believed it then it must have happened because it would be too difficult to convince them all it was true without it actually being true.

    You can pretty much drag out any cult or other religion to demonstrate the fallacy of this assertion. People believe things that aren't true all the time. People believe they have seen things they haven't all the time. The fact that the followers of Jesus were with him for 3 years isn't actually that impressive compare to other cults and other leaders.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    The only reasonable stance, is that the apostles stories were true, or they were liars.
    And my point is that this isn't true, and you have been given examples why it isn't true.

    They can believe the stories happened when they didn't. They can die for false stories believing them to be true and they could also die for false stories knowing they were false. Both are possibilities far more likely than a resurrection since we have examples of other cult followers doing just that.

    At Jonestown both people who believed fulling in Jim Jones who had followed him for years and were utterly convinced of his divine power and people who knew he was a fake, knew he was lying, both committed suicide on his order.

    Do you think one or either of these facts proves the idea that Jim Jones had supernatural powers?


  • #158
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    My point is that there is a huge difference between somebody willing to die because they have been ordered to do so by a person that they are still in the presence of ... and people dying horrific deaths because they professed to have witnessed postmortem appearances and the accession into heaven of Christ.

    That is some what of a semantic difference Soul Winner.

    The point was that people won't willingly die for something they know is false, therefore the followers of Jesus must have believed.

    Now your point is apparently they won't willingly die for something they know is false unless they are on a South American plantation with Jim Jones

    We have gone from a universal statement about humanity that can allow us to draw a solid conclusion from the story to if maybes and buts. Hardly convincing is it?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Now I'm not saying that that proves what they believed in to be true but to do something like this for a lie that as far as they knew would send them to the bad place anyway after death simply boggles the mind

    As does a human resurrection. Given that we have exampels of humans doing things as crazy if not more crazy than this it is still much more plausible than human resurrection


  • #159
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you think one or either of these facts proves the idea that Jim Jones had supernatural powers?

    No we don't, nor do we think the same for Jesus' disciples, but to say that it is more plausible that people would die for a lie that they knew was a lie that they were trying to pass of as true, is ridiculous. You think that the disciples dying because they would not renege on what they as eyewitnesses claimed to have seen with their own eyes even though they knew it was all a lie is better explained as A) People sometimes do that than B)Hey, maybe it was true after all. The reason you pick choice A) without hesitation is due to your own personal bias against the possibility of miracles going out the gate and you are simply incapable of recognizing that.


  • #160
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure why people keep asking me that ... perhaps I'm missing what point you guys think you are making, which is why I keep asking you to state plainly what you think this demonstrates.

    Have I not been plain enough? I thought I laid it out quite concisely:confused:
    If I'm following the argument is

    The followers of Jesus were prepared to face death rather than renounce Jesus as the Son of God.

    Ok
    People do not willingly die for something they don't believe is true. This demonstrates that the followers of Jesus at the very least believed in Jesus.

    I would say it is highly unlikely people would die for something they believe to be lies, rather than an absolute 'people do not'.
    This doesn't work because we know people do willing dying for something they don't believe is true, as the Jonestown suicides demonstrate.

    TBH, I know nothing about this. I'm not doubting you, but you wouldn't have a link to this fact would you?
    The second argument that follows on from that is that if they believed it then it must have happened because it would be too difficult to convince them all it was true without it actually being true.

    You can pretty much drag out any cult or other religion to demonstrate the fallacy of this assertion. People believe things that aren't true all the time. People believe they have seen things they haven't all the time. The fact that the followers of Jesus were with him for 3 years isn't actually that impressive compare to other cults and other leaders.

    Fair enough. Specifically speaking of the Christian acounts, I have added it up that it is highly unlikely there was such a deception. Of course you are free to reach a different conclusion. IMO, the 'they were decieved' conclusion is unreasonable leaving only two scenario's for me. They were Liars, or they told the truth. The fact that they went through torturous deaths adds more weight to them not being liars IMO.
    They can believe the stories happened when they didn't.

    Of course, but based on what we have, I find this most unlikely.
    They can die for false stories believing them to be true and they could also die for false stories knowing they were false.

    Of course, but I find this most unlikely too.
    Both are possibilities far more likely than a resurrection

    Only because you start off with a worldview that God does not exist. Which is where this conversation always goes. If you are convinced in your worldview, then of course its mad to think the resurrection occurred. Ludicrous even. This conversation, is really for establishing the truth of Christ with someone who already believes that God exists. Of course it can also act as a catalyst to a non-believer to look at why a group of people would seemingly allow themselves be tortured unto death for a lie and maybe lead to a change of heart. Essentially though, the discussion can't really go anywhere if the premise, 'god doesn't exist, and resurrections don't happen' is written in stone.
    At Jonestown both people who believed fulling in Jim Jones who had followed him for years and were utterly convinced of his divine power and people who knew he was a fake, knew he was lying, both committed suicide on his order.

    Again, not doubting you, but I don't suppose you have any links to this fact?
    Do you think one or either of these facts proves the idea that Jim Jones had supernatural powers?

    I need to look at the facts about this guy to comment really.


  • #161
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    No we don't, nor do we think the same for Jesus' disciples, but to say that it is more plausible that people would die for a lie that they knew was a lie that they were trying to pass of as true, is ridiculous.
    OK. I didn't say that, but ok.

    Given the choice I think it is much much much more plausible that the disciples believed totally in Jesus. What I can't do is rule out the idea that this isn't the case, and neither can you.

    My point is not to put forward the idea that they didn't believe, it is to counter the frankly ridiculous assertions you guys are making about how we can judge the accuracy of the disciples in the Bible by apply pop-psychology to it.

    I'm not trying to put forward any version of what happened. I've no idea what actually happened. Neither do you. That is the point. And I'm happy with that.

    As with a lot of religions we have a version of events filtered through the eyes of followers years later, since in most small religions it is only the followers who bother to keep these records.

    It may be totally accurate but even if it is we can't tell if it is, and these attempt to try and demonstrate using this self asserting arguments (well if they were this then they would have that) are doomed to failure

    As I said earlier history does not owe us an explanation of what really happened. You don't have to know.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    A) People sometimes do that than B)Hey, maybe it was true after all. The reason you pick choice A) without hesitation is due to your own personal bias against the possibility of miracles

    Yes it is, I agree 100% with that.

    I have a very strong personal bias against introducing a supernatural god to explain something. I don't do that with any other religion and I would point out neither do you. The Viking creation myth is plausible if I believe the Earth is actually on the back of a seperpant but I don't start with that assumption and then read the Viking creation myths.

    The fact that you jump to introduce the Christian God into this before demonstrating that he actually is there speaks volumes about the approach you take to all this and the nonsense of Christian apologetics.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Only because you start off with a worldview that God does not exist. Which is where this conversation always goes.

    Of course it does.

    If you start of with the "worldview" that any religion is true it is hardly shocking you will then find the religious book where this position of said religion is stated to be true.

    If Zeus exists, and Hephaestus exists, and Prometheus exists and stole fire from the Gods, it is quite plausible that women originated when Hephaestus created them as punishment for man.

    But you have to assume the religion is true to conclude the religion is true. And you get into some what silly circular reasoning.

    The whole point of Christian apologetics is to defend the idea that there is a rational reason to believe in Christianity. That is you can get from non-belief (which is the default state) to belief through a set of rational conclusions.

    You guys are basically admitting that you can't do this without first accepting the Christian god is real. Which nullifies the whole process.

    Which is fair enough, if people want to believe that God must touch your sole or something, or reveal himself to you or what ever in order to believe this stuff that is fine.

    But then there is no point in Christian apologetics, which is the topic of this thread.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    If you are convinced in your worldview, then of course its mad to think the resurrection occurred. Ludicrous even. This conversation, is really for establishing the truth of Christ with someone who already believes that God exists.

    It is? What is the point of that?

    Who believes in the Christian God yet doesn't believe the truth of Christ? Jews?

    That isn't Christian apologetics as I understand it.


  • #163
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Of course it does.

    If you start of with the "worldview" that any religion is true it is hardly shocking you will then find the religious book where this position of said religion is stated to be true.

    If Zeus exists, and Hephaestus exists, and Prometheus exists and stole fire from the Gods, it is quite plausible that women originated when Hephaestus created them as punishment for man.

    But you have to assume the religion is true to conclude the religion is true. And you get into some what silly circular reasoning.

    The whole point of Christian apologetics is to defend the idea that there is a rational reason to believe in Christianity. That is you can get from non-belief (which is the default state) to belief through a set of rational conclusions.

    You guys are basically admitting that you can't do this without first accepting the Christian god is real. Which nullifies the whole process.

    Which is fair enough, if people want to believe that God must touch your sole or something, or reveal himself to you or what ever in order to believe this stuff that is fine.

    But then there is no point in Christian apologetics, which is the topic of this thread.

    Sorry Wicknight, I'm a bit confused:confused: How does my point about putting the cart before the horse mean that there is no point in Christian Apologetics?:confused:

    Maybe its my failure to be clear than any ineptitude on your part, so I'll try be concise again. Let me know if you still don't understand.

    Before one deals with whether Christ is the messiah, or the resurrection happened etc, it should first be established if one believes in God. I do not believe in the existance of God based on the Bible. I believe in the God of Israel and his Son Jesus Christ, The Living God, based on the bible accounts. Trying to convince an atheist of the truth of Christ, using the bible is putting the cart before the horse. One must first establish the existance of a creator. If this can't be achieved, then the rest is in vain IMO. The first step must be to establish Gods existence, I would have thought that was obvious. Only then should we delve into who he/she/it is.
    It is? What is the point of that?

    If someone believes the God idea is ridiculous and in turn the bible to be a steaming pile, then how would using it convince them of the truth?:confused: An atheist participation is absolutely useless in a discussion about the truth of Christ when its simply based on a naturalistic worldview. As your participation thus far demonstrates. 'But people don't rise from the dead', 'There is no such thing as the supernatural' etc are stands that make it a nonsense to discuss. If one cannot be convinced of the existance of a creator, then that IMO is where the conversation ends. Otherwise, its putting the cart before the horse. 'But these people said they saw this that or the other', will simply, and reasonably, be met with, 'Well they were wrong'. If there is no God, then all those NT accounts are bogus. So if I believe there is no God, using those accounts will make little odds.
    Who believes in the Christian God yet doesn't believe the truth of Christ? Jews?

    Yes, that would be one group. Dr. Michael Brown does alot of debating in this area. Also, one does not need to believe in the Christian God, but rather a creator. Once they do, then its a matter of directing them to the apologetics for the truth of Christ. If someone believes that we are a cosmic accident, and are convinced that no designer is necessary for our existence, and they cannot be convinced otherwise, then no further apologetics should be engaged in IMO. We must first establish that this stance is fallacious, before we move on from there. If that can't be established, then a line must be drawn IMO.


  • #164
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Really? What was all this about then

    "Furthermore, I think it rather disingenuous to reduce the biblical accounts - and all the background historicity, psychology and whatever else - to consisting of "dubious eyewitness accounts" etc. It seems like nothing more than a biased personal proclamation, rather than a historical claim."

    "It seems to me that it's not necessarily the evidence (or lack of) that is the problem. Presumably some people just don't believe that resurrection is possible - no matter what evidence is presented"

    if not to suggest that "some people" are closed off to the possibility of a resurrection no matter what evidence is presented?

    Yes, well done!

    "Some people" refers to any number of non-believers in resurrection (specifically the bodily resurrection of Jesus) - Muslims, Sikhs, atheists, agnostics and even some Christians who believe that the resurrection was actually some form of spiritual resurrection. As for the second quote (and I'm quite flattered that you take took the time to dissect my words), I was thinking of a thread over in the A&A forum started by Jimi a number of months back (you and I have discussed it before, I believe) where "some people" (presumably they just so happened to be atheists) stated they would reject the notion of miracles happening (no matter the miracle) because they emphatically believe such things don't ever happen.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    See where I'm going with that ... :pac:

    I'm going to guess and say down another rabbit hole.


  • #165
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    The thread is indeed going down the usual rabbit holes, and for the usual reasons, and taken there by the usual suspects (from both sides of the religious - nonreligious divide). That is inevitable because it is built into the very nature of apologetics.

    Apologetics, if used as a means to try to reason people into becoming Christians, does not work. People rarely, if ever, become Christians (or atheists) purely for reasons of logic. We are, for the most part, pragmatic creatures and we make choices based on what we think will work best for us. People are generally more interested in what works rather than what is true.

    Now, of course nobody actually wants to base their lives on what is untrue, so we then rationalise our decisions, and examine our beliefs, and try to fit them into a coherent and consistent worldview.

    For example, my wife has suffered from migrane headaches for years. Some years ago she found a product in the United States. It's a patch that you put on your forehead, and it works to relieve her migranes better than anything else. The funniest thing about this patch is the TV adverts - they aren't allowed to mention the fact it can help headaches, because there is not yet any scientific evidence that it does so - nobody has even figured out why the patch should work. So the ads just keep repeating the name of the product without even saying what it does or making any claims.

    My wife tried the migrane patch because other people told her it worked for them. She is well aware that, from a scientific standpoint, that there is no evidence of its effectiveness. Nevertheless she keeps using the product. Why? Because it works! It gets rid of her headaches.

    But she wouldn't have tried absolutely anything. She would not, for example, have tried using 'Pixie Dust' that's been blessed by a wizard. Why? Because that is so outside her worldview that she 'knows' it would be nonsense.

    So it is that for the most part people become Christians on the recommendation of a friend or family member. They "taste and see that the Lord is good". They discover it works for them. It can make their lives happier, more meaningful, and more successful. It can make them nicer people so they are more likely to build healthy relationships.

    Does this mean that apologetics is a waste of time? Not at all! Apologetics serves to reassure the believer that the decision they have made does actually make sense. It is like working out the scientific rationale behind the migrane patch so the believer can say, "Ah! I knew I was right to put this thing on my forehead." It demonstrates to them that their belief system is consistent, coherent, and is not the theological equivalent of Pixie Dust.

    But to try to convince an atheist by means of apologetics is a doomed project - that person's worldview and presuppositions of what is possible (also chosen because it suits them, not by pure logic) will always lead them to other conclusions. It's a waste of time - which is why it was inevitable that this thread has gone the way it has.

    I've certainly no intention of interfering in this thread. Certain people on both sides of the fence seem to enjoy banging their heads off brick walls, and the rest of us can find it mildly amusing providing it doesn't spill crap into the rest of the forum, so happy headbanging everyone!


  • #166
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    PDN wrote: »
    But to try to convince an atheist by means of apologetics is a doomed project - that person's worldview and presuppositions of what is possible (also chosen because it suits them, not by pure logic) will always lead them to other conclusions. It's a waste of time - which is why it was inevitable that this thread has gone the way it has.

    Please explain how non-belief in Christianity (or a deity) is not logical ?

    I don't choose non-belief because it 'suits me', I don't believe because there is no reason to believe.

    There is not a single shred of evidence that a deity exists or not, there isn't a single reason to believe.

    With the headache patch your wife used it because it worked, what possible reason would I have for religion ?

    Actually let me answer my own question, my religious interests are entirely historical and cultural. I go to Buddhist temples, I bow before the various statues and hurt my knees off the floor, I light incense and I admire the beauty of the paintings and the building.

    I read some Buddhist literature and I think there are a lot of useful things there that I can use in my everyday life.

    Do I believe theres any supernatural element ? No, because any supernatural element real or not is of no benefit to me.


  • #167
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    monosharp wrote: »
    Please explain how non-belief in Christianity (or a deity) is not logical ?

    I don't choose non-belief because it 'suits me', I don't believe because there is no reason to believe.

    There is not a single shred of evidence that a deity exists or not, there isn't a single reason to believe.

    With the headache patch your wife used it because it worked, what possible reason would I have for religion ?

    Actually let me answer my own question, my religious interests are entirely historical and cultural. I go to Buddhist temples, I bow before the various statues and hurt my knees off the floor, I light incense and I admire the beauty of the paintings and the building.

    I read some Buddhist literature and I think there are a lot of useful things there that I can use in my everyday life.

    Do I believe theres any supernatural element ? No, because any supernatural element real or not is of no benefit to me.

    I didn't say it wasn't logical. Just as I didn't say Christianity wasn't logical. What I said was that people make those choices on grounds other than the purely logical.

    If you can't understand the difference between those two positions then I suspect any discussion of logic between us is going to be a waste of time.


  • #168
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    monosharp wrote: »

    There is not a single shred of evidence that a deity exists or not, there isn't a single reason to believe.

    "Not a single shred of evidence that a deity exists or not"? If there is no evidence for God(s) or not, it doesn't then follow that the only logical choice is non-belief. I would have thought that the logical choice would be agnosticism, not atheism or theism. Still, we needn't be forced to this point because there is evidence for God(s) existence, much like there is evidence against. That you happen to think the evidence for and against to be tosh doesn't magic it away.


  • #169
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Yes, well done!

    "Some people" refers to any number of non-believers in resurrection (specifically the bodily resurrection of Jesus) - Muslims, Sikhs, atheists, agnostics and even some Christians who believe that the resurrection was actually some form of spiritual resurrection.

    As for the second quote (and I'm quite flattered that you take took the time to dissect my words), I was thinking of a thread over in the A&A forum started by Jimi a number of months back (you and I have discussed it before, I believe) where "some people" (presumably they just so happened to be atheists) stated they would reject the notion of miracles happening (no matter the miracle) because they emphatically believe such things don't ever happen.

    So what, you have gone from saying you weren't saying anyone was close minded to saying you were but they are and look at this thread Jimi started from months ago which shows I'm right? :confused:

    What you were thinking of when you wrote your post is not really my concern. I was only interested in the little straw man you were setting up, that some people (not anyone on this thread obviously, natch!) will reject things ad-hoc without considering the evidence. It would be a lot easier Fanny if you just dropped this straw man, given that I and others have explained to you why it is grossly inaccurate, at least as far as our position is concerned.

    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm going to guess and say down another rabbit hole.

    It is pretty silly to start digging a "rabbit hole" and then start complaining that people follow you down it. :rolleyes:


  • #170
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Yes, that would be one group. Dr. Michael Brown does alot of debating in this area. Also, one does not need to believe in the Christian God, but rather a creator.

    Ah right, I see now where you are going with all this. When you say it is necessary to believe in God you mean a god, rather than the Christian god.

    The issue with that, as I discussed earlier in the thread, is that as far as I can see a creator, a general "god", doesn't actually make Christianity any more rational that before.

    I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the universe was created. We can't tell but there is certainly no reason to say strongly that it wasn't (which is a different argument all together with my atheism, the rejection of the idea that you guys have any idea if it was and by what)

    But you need to get from that, the idea of a general creator, to accepting the creation by the Abrahamic god in the way described by the Bible. Otherwise you get no increase in plausibility of Jesus' resurrection. In other words you need Adam and Eve and the Old Testament and then you need the messiah and jesus being the messiah etc etc.

    So it is not simply the case that you need a creator. Zeus doesn't make Jesus' resurrection any more plausible than simply having no god at all (in fact it probably makes it less likely since why would Zeus resurrect Jesus). You need the Christian God, ie a God that would have a reason to resurrect Jesus, and that is something that we are trying to find a rational reason for so using it as the starting point becomes circular.

    I made all these point earlier in the thread. I do not reject the idea of a resurrection as utterly impossible. Anything is possible, and quantum physics contains a lot weirder things than a resurrection. It is entirely possible that the universe was created. But that doesn't get us any closer to the resurrection being a plausible explanation, let alone the most plausible explanation. The resurrection was always theoretically possible if the requirements for the resurrection are in place but that is just something we are supposed to assuming.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    If someone believes that we are a cosmic accident, and are convinced that no designer is necessary for our existence, and they cannot be convinced otherwise, then no further apologetics should be engaged in IMO.

    Depends on what you mean by cannot be convinced otherwise.

    There is a huge difference to someone refusing to believe something and someone saying that they have not been convinced because the arguments are weak and poor.

    If anyone here is arguing that they are certain there is no creator I would be arguing along with you guys that this is an unsupported position. But that does not seem to be the issue, at least not as far as I'm reading.


  • #171
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    But to try to convince an atheist by means of apologetics is a doomed project - that person's worldview and presuppositions of what is possible (also chosen because it suits them, not by pure logic) will always lead them to other conclusions. It's a waste of time - which is why it was inevitable that this thread has gone the way it has.

    Once again with this position that atheist believe a resurrection is impossible, which I find very odd considering you have spent some time on the A&A forum and thus should know how often things like the philosophy of science are discussed and how important such principles are to the regular atheists such as myself, Robin etc etc

    Between this and the Wilson thread I'm starting to think that an atheist apologetics thread is needed rather than a Christian apologetics thread :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ah right, I see now where you are going with all this. When you say it is necessary to believe in God you mean a god, rather than the Christian god.

    A creator basically.
    The issue with that, as I discussed earlier in the thread, is that as far as I can see a creator, a general "god", doesn't actually make Christianity any more rational that before.

    All that is, is a starting point. If someone has arrived at the conclusion, 'We were created', then there are still other steps to climb before we get to Christ. Such as, What kind of a being would create us, the world etc. So still, we are not at Yahweh.
    I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the universe was created.
    We can't tell but there is certainly no reason to say strongly that it wasn't (which is a different argument all together with my atheism, the rejection of the idea that you guys have any idea if it was and by what)

    But you need to get from that, the idea of a general creator, to accepting the creation by the Abrahamic god in the way described by the Bible. Otherwise you get no increase in plausibility of Jesus' resurrection. In other words you need Adam and Eve and the Old Testament and then you need the messiah and jesus being the messiah etc etc.

    I agree, which is why I say there are other steps to climb before we reach Jesus.
    So it is not simply the case that you need a creator. Zeus doesn't make Jesus' resurrection any more plausible than simply having no god at all (in fact it probably makes it less likely since why would Zeus resurrect Jesus).

    Again I agree. There are other steps to be taken after the establishment of a belief in a creator. I would have thought that this went without saying.
    You need the Christian God, ie a God that would have a reason to resurrect Jesus,

    Again, I agree. After establishing the creators existence, we must then establish who this creator is.
    I made all these point earlier in the thread. I do not reject the idea of a resurrection as utterly impossible. Anything is possible,

    You have said, 'People don't come back from the dead'. You also have said in the past, that any explaination is more plausible than this event happening as people don't come back from the dead. So for all intents and purposes, you do reject it.
    It is entirely possible that the universe was created. But that doesn't get us any closer to the resurrection being a plausible explanation, let alone the most plausible explanation.

    It does not naturally follow, I would say. However, it does bring us closer, if only slightly. As I've said though, there are other steps, like, what kind of being is the creator etc before we get to the resurrection.
    Depends on what you mean by cannot be convinced otherwise.

    There is a huge difference to someone refusing to believe something and someone saying that they have not been convinced because the arguments are weak and poor.

    Indeed. Either/or. Whatever it is, if they cannot be convinced, then its game over IMO. That first step must be breached, then onward we go to the next steps.


  • #173
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again I agree. There are other steps to be taken after the establishment of a belief in a creator. I would have thought that this went without saying.

    So would I, but pinning down these "other steps" seems to be some what of an issue

    If the rational argument for Christianity starts at the rational arguments for a creator god I don't particularly mind, in fact it makes more sense that you go back to that point rather than assume stuff going into Christianity, which isn't particularly logical way to approach it.

    Is there a rational argument to be made for a creator god?

    I don't really care where you guys start but what I was hoping would come out of this thread was actual meat on the bone, actual rational argument that can be discussed and debated properly rather than stuff ending as so often it does with the wall doing up and people just saying defensively Well that is what I believe and I don't need to justify it to the likes of you
    JimiTime wrote: »
    You have said, 'People don't come back from the dead'. You also have said in the past, that any explaination is more plausible than this event happening as people don't come back from the dead. So for all intents and purposes, you do reject it.

    What I mean is people in general don't come back from the dead. I think we can both agree on that. It is not part of how biology is observed to work. It is not part of how physics is observed to work.

    I certainly did not mean to imply it could never ever happen, I would imagine within the next 500 years we will start bringing people back to life who have been dead for significant periods of time (longer than 3 days) using purely natural means, so it isn't even something I think is impossible using natural means (ie not requiring a god)

    But to get people coming back from the dead in the context of the resurrection story you have to do something like introduce the Christian God to enable this to happen. Which is fine if you can support the introduction of him. But until you do people don't come back from the dead but people are easily tricked into think they do, and as such you have a plausibility issue.

    This is the point that I think is being missed. It is not really about possible and impossible, it is about plausible and implausible. You guys have to introduce a supernatural deity to make resurrection rise in plausibility. Can I do that? Can I introduce the Viking god Loki who may have resurrected Jesus to play a prank of humanity?

    You guys would probably ask for the reason for introducing such a situation and without a good reason would not consider it particularly highly as a probably alternative. The rest of us are just doing the same with the Christian god. It is some what of a straw man for people to imply that we would never accept the resurrection no matter what reasons is presented because there has been little to no reasons presented yet.

    JimiTime wrote: »
    It does not naturally follow, I would say. However, it does bring us closer, if only slightly.
    Well no, it could in fact bring us further, like I said if we assume Zeus is the creator it becomes even less likely that Jesus was resurrected than if we assume no god at all.

    It only brings us closer if the Creator is the Abrahamic deity. And we are getting closer and closer to circular reasoning, since how do you determine the deity is the Abrahamic deity without using the Bible as a basis, since we are trying to show the Bible itself is rational
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Indeed. Either/or. Whatever it is, if they cannot be convinced, then its game over IMO. That first step must be breached, then onward we go to the next steps.

    That is fine, but what is the first step?

    It seems to me we are a long way away from supporting the resurrection if we haven't even established there is a creator god and he is the Abrahamic god of the Old Testament (ie a god that would actually send his son to die for our sins and then have him resurrected)

    How would you demonstrate that there is a creator god and then how would you demonstrate that said creator is the Jewish god? (thus building support for at least the Old Testament)


  • #174
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    JimiTime wrote: »
    If someone believes <snip> that no designer is necessary for our existence, and they cannot be convinced otherwise, then no further apologetics should be engaged in IMO. We must first establish that this stance is fallacious, before we move on from there. If that can't be established, then a line must be drawn IMO.

    yup


  • #175
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    PDN wrote: »
    I didn't say it wasn't logical. Just as I didn't say Christianity wasn't logical. What I said was that people make those choices on grounds other than the purely logical.

    And what grounds are those exactly ?

    I don't think believing in the existence of the supernatural is logical.

    How else am I deciding not to be a theist ?


  • #176
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    How would you demonstrate that there is a creator god and then how would you demonstrate that said creator is the Jewish god? (thus building support for at least the Old Testament)

    Not intending to offend, but I'm not really willing to enter such an epic battle at the moment.


  • #177
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    "Not a single shred of evidence that a deity exists or not"? If there is no evidence for God(s) or not, it doesn't then follow that the only logical choice is non-belief. I would have thought that the logical choice would be agnosticism, not atheism or theism.

    Atheism is a lack of belief, I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't 'know' there is no fairies or no gods but I don't have a belief in them.

    Its semantics.
    Still, we needn't be forced to this point because there is evidence for God(s) existence, much like there is evidence against. That you happen to think the evidence for and against to be tosh doesn't magic it away.

    Please point it out.


  • #178
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So what, you have gone from saying you weren't saying anyone was close minded to saying you were but they are and look at this thread Jimi started from months ago which shows I'm right? :confused:

    Oh Dear! The example that sprang to mind... Yes, it did involve atheists. *Shock and horror!* That can only mean I was have been talking exclusively about atheists all along. Foiled!

    Or maybe it's that...

    You and I interact on two fora - here and the A&A forum - and I felt it was a perfectly reasonable example to pop into my head of how some people reject miracles without having to be subject to your childish attempts to put words like "atheists are closed minded" into my mouth. That it was a thread from the A&A forum is incidental to my point that some people reject miracles - specifically resurrection - irrespective of the evidence (see my first post). I have denied your accusations from the outset. How many times is that now? Twice? Maybe 3 times?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    What you were thinking of when you wrote your post is not really my concern. I was only interested in the little straw man you were setting up, that some people (not anyone on this thread obviously, natch!) will reject things ad-hoc without considering the evidence. It would be a lot easier Fanny if you just dropped this straw man, given that I and others have explained to you why it is grossly inaccurate, at least as far as our position is concerned.

    Quite! You clearly aren't interested in what I have said, and that's why I have to again respond to your tedious, and growing, list of accusations.

    As for my position - the so called straw man - you have done me a disservice by misrepresented it. I did not say that people will reject something like the resurrection without considering the evidence. I stated that people will reject it despite the evidence because they operate on the premise that miracles like bodily resurrection don't ever happen. Some of these people are atheists, some are Muslim, others are Deists and I'd warrant that there are even some Christians in there, too. I've never once said or implied that these people were closed minded. You brought those words to the discussion.

    Here is a crazy thought: maybe you shouldn't be throwing around accusations of gross inaccuracy when you neither accept my word nor

    That we have come from the position presented in my first and second post to accusations of big, bad me saying (or implying) nasty things about the limitations in the imaginations of atheists is testament to your ability to created discord.

    How about this, instead of pointing the finger and yelling until you are blue in the face, if you actually want to discuss this further, you can PM me. There you can continue to ignore all my previous denials and get down to the bones of your beef by calling me a liar. You wont even have to hide behind the niceties of accusations like "straw manning" and "gross inaccuracy"!

    I'll drop out of this thread for now.


  • #179
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    monosharp wrote: »
    Atheism is a lack of belief, I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't 'know' there is no fairies or no gods but I don't have a belief in them.

    Its semantics.
    Defining atheism doesn't really address my point. If you are to defend atheism (or attempt to convince people of it's correctness - something you obliquely seem to spend an awful lot of time doing by posting here) you surely must have reasons, especially since atheism has been, and remains, a marginal worldview held by our species. Those reasons - whether it's some philosophical argument like the "problem of evil" or whatever - are types of evidence.
    monosharp wrote: »
    Please point it out.
    OK, seems as this question has been answered umpteen times before, here is a little bit of homework for you. Irrespective of whether you consider them strong or laughably weak, why don't you try to think of the types of evidence for and against God! (I've given you a little clue above.)


    ======

    End Transmission

    ======


  • #180
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Not intending to offend, but I'm not really willing to enter such an epic battle at the moment.

    I WIN!! I WIN!! :p

    seriously though, that is fine. I think such a "battle" would be rather difficult to have on Boards anyway.

    My reason for being on this thread in the last little while is more to counter this idea running through the thread that the problem is some how with atheists and their closed off view of the world. This is the rabbit hole that is being dug by some while they give out to the rest of us for going down it (and I'm not referring to you)

    I don't think atheists (at least the regular ones around here) are closed off we just haven't been given a good reason to believe yet. I don't get why some have such issue with that.

    I would certainly consider some of the stuff I do believe in (zero point energy, time traveling photons, non-locality) to be far weirded than a creator god or even a resurrection. I believe these things are real because I have been given a good reason to believe in them despite them running counter to all notions of common sense.

    If and when you guys do want to have such an epic battle rest assured I and I think others would be more than happy to partake in it with the mentality that we will believe if we are given reason to. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Defining atheism doesn't really address my point. If you are to defend atheism (or attempt to convince people of it's correctness - something you obliquely seem to spend an awful lot of time doing by posting here)

    Although it is my position, I have never tried to convince anyone else of it's 'correctness' because I don't 'know' its correct.

    What I have done in this forum is question aspects of christian belief which I find extremely distasteful and illogical even taking faith into account.

    e.g > Paulism vs Early Christian belief, Old testament god vs new testament.

    I would advocate a lack of belief as the logical state but I don't push it on anyone (and I have never done so here) because as I already said, its impossible to know one way or the other and I have respect for peoples choices, to an extent.
    you surely must have reasons, especially since atheism has been, and remains, a marginal worldview held by our species.

    2000 years ago Christianity was a tiny cult in a sea of paganism, 10,000 years ago people likely worshiped the sun and animals, 2000 years later most people might be Scientologists.

    What is the most popular religion is much more to do with the power behind the religion then any actual 'truth' to the religion.

    Without the Roman Empire and a dictator like Constantine in place we all would probably have never heard of Christianity.
    Those reasons - whether it's some philosophical argument like the "problem of evil" or whatever - are types of evidence.

    If thats what you call evidence then I think you need to read a history book , an anthropology book or a psychology book.

    Evil is a human concept the same way hot and cold are human concepts.

    Things that were 'bad' for our ancestors (winter, death, disease etc) were labelled 'evil', things that were good for our ancestors (summer, good harvest, food) were labelled good. Its that simple.

    Your trying to say our perception of things (good, evil. hot, cold etc) is evidence for the supernatural when all of these things represent natural states. Thats nonsense.
    Irrespective of whether you consider them strong or laughably weak, why don't you try to think of the types of evidence for and against God! (I've given you a little clue above.)

    Thats not evidence in any shape or form for a deity or against. How you can possibly think it is, I don't know. Its frankly ridiculous.


Advertisement