Moderator: Moderators
I'll go ahead and add that I think rational cases can be made both for the resurrection and against it. However, my opinion is definitely the minority view among atheists. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the majority of atheists (unless they are ex-Christians) don't even consider the issue. Most non-theists don't even consider the resurrection a serious proposition, they view it in the same way as Santa Claus, leprechauns, and magic pixies. They don't even get to assessing the evidence, they just handwavingly dismiss "magic zombie Jesus" as ridiculous and move on with their lives.Haven wrote:Hi Rosey,
In my opinion, this is a problematic issue from the atheist perspective. Most atheists simply appeal to naturalism, saying that "people don't normally rise from the dead, so Jesus cannot have come back from the dead." However, I feel this is circular reasoning, because it assumes the truth of naturalism in order to argue against a supernatural event, which is fallacious (I started a thread on this exact subject in the 'Christianity and Apologetics' forum a few days ago).
Another popular atheist theory is that Jesus never existed, and he was a mythical creation of Paul and the early Christians, who based the "Jesus" character on pagan parallels. This hypothesis is completely absurd and is almost universally rejected by historians and critical (secular) Bible scholars. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence that Jesus really existed. The "Jesus never existed" claim is absurd, ludicrous, ridiculous.
Other atheistic hypotheses include the stolen body view, which says that Jesus' disciples stole his body, the alternate stolen body view, which says that someone other than the apostles stole Jesus' body, the 'soma' view, which states that the empty tomb was not historical and the original Christian opinion was that Jesus' resurrection was spiritual. These are only a few of the views on what explains the resurrection evidence.
Personally, I think all these views have flaws and shortcomings, and I'm agnostic as to what actually happened surrounding the events of Jesus' alleged resurrection. The atheist views are, unfortunately, unsatisfying, and this is an often overlooked issue where the Christians really do have some good arguments and points against us. Still, I'm not ready to throw rationality out the window and conclude a man really did rise from the grave and fly away into the sky.
rosey wrote:I have never really given much thought if any unto the resurrection until recently... so I was wondering, what is the prevailing theory against the resurrection today from modern Atheists? Thanks.
(I realize that this might get put in random ramblings or something for lack of a clear debate topic, but it just wasn't getting a lot of traffic in the A room. So if the moderators could leave it up for like 24 hours (assuming it's against the rules to post this in here), that would be great.)
P.S. Haven, that was a great post.
Run on down to the cemetary there, and see how many folks you see clawing their way up out their graves.Resurrection. Proof against.
Just a few.Tired of the Nonsense wrote:This is currently posted on "The Alleged Resurrection of Jesus" thread, post #81. Since it directly pertains to your OP, and since it is my own original work, I will post it on this thread as well. If you have any quarrels or questions please let me know.
Hold hard there, buddy. You don't believe them on the resurrection, but you do believe them on Nicodemus and Joseph. If you believe them on one thing, why not another? And if you don't believe them on one thing, why on another? What if it's the other way around?! What if they're lying about them being followers of Jesus, but not about the resurrection? Just askin'.
Since the Gospels represent the main source of information on what constitutes your personal religious beliefs, lets examine them for what they tell us. They tell us that Jesus died, but then his corpse came back to life and ultimately flew away, off up into the sky. Is this a reasonable claim? No, of course not! It is in fact a perfectly absurd claim. A claim on a level with flying reindeer. So let's examine the sources themselves to see if a less preposterous and more natural and reasonable conclusion is possible, albeit a conclusion which will not serve to arouse the passions in you and your fellow Christians. Since the most obvious cause for an empty tomb and a missing corpse is that it was the result of actions taken by the living, rather than actions taken by the corpse, we need to first determine from the story whether there were individuals with the means, motive and opportunity to have taken the body.
Do the Gospels supply us with any candidates with a motive for moving the body? YES! In fact Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to do that very thing. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! Joseph of Arimathaea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple, is also depicted as being involved.
But wouldn't there have been quite a few people at the burial to witness him being put there? And the Pharisees probably would have had a few dudes there to check and make sure that it was Jesus, because they would have suspected the same thing you do.
The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, they had the body, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. Curiously, only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard being placed at the tomb. But Gospel Matthew also informs us that the guard wasn't placed at the tomb until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did the priests open the tomb at that time to verify that the body was in fact actually still there. The tomb was sealed, and a guard was set. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple assumption that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed. Which is what proved to be true the next day. The tomb was EMPTY.
Or enough to get them searched under suspicion of carrying a dead body around. I mean, maybe this is just me, but a bunch of ragtag disciples of a crucified leader carrying around something man sized that smelled heavily of EMBALMING SPICES just might attract some attention. But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe the pharisees couldn't smell.
John 19:41-42
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
Joseph's new and very expensive family crypt was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. It was simply a convenient "nigh at hand" place prepare the body. And the body was very well prepared indeed, according to John 19:39-40, heavily wrapped and coated with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic herbs and spices. Certainly enough to mask the scent of corruption on a journey of several days.
A journey to where? Well, where does one normally transport a body for it's final resting place? Usually that would be HOME. Which for Jesus of Nazareth meant Galilee. And where did the eleven remaining apostles go immediately following the crucifixion?
Matt. 28
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
This mountain would presumably be Mt. Tabor which dominates the southern Galilee region and which is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration of Jesus.
Notice also that Mary the mother of Jesus is nowhere mentioned as being at the empty tomb. Although various Marys are mentioned, Mary the mother of Jesus IS NOT. She IS clearly indicated in the Gospels as being at the crucifixion. Where do we pick her up again?
Acts 1
"[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."
There is Mary the mother of Jesus with the disciples, some six weeks or so (Acts 1:3) AFTER the crucifixion NEWLY RETURNED TO JERUSALEM. And it is at this point the disciples began to spread the rumor of the risen Jesus. But only after, according to them, the resurrected man flew off up into the sky. So FROM THE VERY BEGINNING the claim is an empty one, with no actual resurrected dead man on hand to verify the assertion.
Here is another important point. The earliest recorded mention of the resurrected Jesus EVER occurs in 1 Corinthians which was written by Paul circa 55 AD. According to the time frame established by the Gospels Jesus was executed circa 30 AD. In other words for the first quarter of a century, a full generation or so after the execution of Jesus, there is no record of large numbers of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus AT ALL. Only silence. In fact there is absolutely no indication that anything especially interesting or unusual occurred in Jerusalem circa 30 AD, stemming from the time the claimed events are supposed to have occurred. Paul, in 1 Corinthians, claimed that "above 500" of Jesus' disciples witnessed the risen Jesus on one particular occasion. None of the other Gospels mention this particular event however, and it was an "event" which Paul was not HIMSELF present to witness. Paul was not present for any of the events detailed in the Gospels and never personally met Jesus at all, except, perhaps, in his dreams. We have a story of 500 witnesses, but no actual testimonies from the supposed witnesses themselves, and no corroboration from any other source. Only a story of witnesses. A story with a preposterous claim provided by an individual who was not himself present at the time.
These are the facts? You didn't give me any facts! You gave me a theory, and an imperfect one at that. You have zip proof that they took the body before it was lain in the tomb, less proof they got it to Galilee, and then you end by saying
So the question is this: which is the more likely? That a group of men quietly took the body of their dead friend and journeyed, along with the dead man's mother, back to the deceased man's family home for burial, and then later returned to spread the false and rather preposterous rumor that the man had returned to life? Or is it more likely the corpse actually became reanimated and eventually flew away? The answer is obvious of course, since there is no likelihood at all of a corpse coming back to life, much less flying away.
And these ARE the facts!
It is VASTLY more likely that the story of the resurrected carpenter is the result of purely human actions based on purely human motivations. Exactly like all other human activities. But faith has nothing to do with the facts, reason or the obvious, does it? Faith is about accepting one's lifetime of religious programming without challenge no matter how absurd their claims and beliefs might be. You can believe them with all your heart, but you can't make them obviously true.
Well, I guess I have to give you good marks for boldness (if that's the right word).these ARE the facts!
). Let's assume that they smuggled the body back to Galilee, and then disposed of it and made up resurrection stories. Just what exactly did they gain from this? Oh right, they got beaten, tortured, and martyred in some of the most horrible ways imaginable. If it had been one person doing all of this, then maybe you could say he was insane and would die for something he knew was a lie. But we're looking at at least 20 people being in the loop. So you're arguing that they all went to terrible deaths, completely willing, for a lie that they knew was a lie, when just saying, "practical joke" would have saved them?!? Uhh, I think it's time for a new theory.Actually, that doesn't prove anything. If people were always rising from the dead, then Jesus' resurrection (if it happened) wouldn't be anything special. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the resurrection was kind of s'posed to stand out, as well as defy the laws of nature.JoeyKnothead wrote:From the OP:
Run on down to the cemetary there, and see how many folks you see clawing their way up out their graves.Resurrection. Proof against.
The alleged resurrection of Jesus goes against what we know, thus it is most reasonable to conclude the story is at best a myth, and at worst yet another example of a human lying to try to gain some sort of advantage.
I propose that tales of resurrection are an otherwise mundane occurrence in the history of mankind. How remarkable would it be to ancient, less scientifically literate folks for them to see someone they've given up for dead, suddenly stir "back" to life?
I contend that the most reasonable thing to conclude here is that resurrection tales should abound. They should be evident (as tales or claims) in our history. And they are. Not just for Jesus, but for others as well.
I agree, it is pure speculation with very little evidence to back it up. The rationale behind such a theory is the presumption of naturalism: one assumes that supernatural events (such as resurrections) cannot ever occur, and then one concludes that the resurrection is impossible and there must be an alternate theory. Although many of my fellow atheists will disagree with me, I think such logic constitutes the fallacy of begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). It's fallacious to use your conclusion as a premise in your argument, but that's exactly what many proponents of naturalism do when arguing against the possibility of supernatural events.rosey wrote:Well, I guess I have to give you good marks for boldness (if that's the right word).
Let's assume your right for a minute (hard, isn't it Laughing ). Let's assume that they smuggled the body back to Galilee, and then disposed of it and made up resurrection stories. Just what exactly did they gain from this? Oh right, they got beaten, tortured, and martyred in some of the most horrible ways imaginable. If it had been one person doing all of this, then maybe you could say he was insane and would die for something he knew was a lie. But we're looking at at least 20 people being in the loop. So you're arguing that they all went to terrible deaths, completely willing, for a lie that they knew was a lie, when just saying, "practical joke" would have saved them?!? Uhh, I think it's time for a new theory.
But what sort of extraordinary evidence would you require? A miracle?Haven wrote: Now, do I think the resurrection actually occurred? No, there isn't enough evidence for it, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, do I think the disciples deliberately concocted a conspiracy that ended up getting them all killed, often in torturous ways? Of course not. I think the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus had been resurrected, even though they were mistaken in their belief.
