Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Goose]

No one has a problem with both Caesar's murder and Jesus's resurrection being called "extraordinary".

The problem is that you seem don't seem to realize that one is far more extraordinary than the other.

If I may be so bold as to correct you, it's not that one event is "more" extraordinary than the other. That's not the important part.

To say that the a resurrection is more extraordinary than an assassination is like saying that a 300 pound bachelor's wife is heavier than a 15 pound chihuahua dog.

Sure, it's true that 300 is a bigger number than 15, but that's not the point.

The difference between a bachelor's wife and a chihuahua is that a bachelor's wife is physically impossible. Who cares about how much they weigh!

Let's not get mired into the silliness that Goose is trying to drag us into in an effort to avoid the issue that he truly cannot answer.

It's strange to hear a warning about becoming mired after writing a mere two sentences. I guess I'll validate by writing more.

A bachelor's wife is logically impossible. Resurrection isn't. That's a category error. Science isn't absolute; we don't know that resurrection is physically impossible.

But the difference is not 300 to 15. It's more like 1000000 to 1.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1174 by Goose]

Goose, would you define "dead", please? This is important when it comes to how "extraordinary" resurrection is or isn't.

[no evidence no belief]

accidental double post

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to Goose]

No one has a problem with both Caesar's murder and Jesus's resurrection being called "extraordinary".

The problem is that you seem don't seem to realize that one is far more extraordinary than the other.

If I may be so bold as to correct you, it's not that one event is "more" extraordinary than the other. That's not the important part.

To say that the a resurrection is more extraordinary than an assassination is like saying that a 300 pound bachelor's wife is heavier than a 15 pound chihuahua dog.

Sure, it's true that 300 is a bigger number than 15, but that's not the point.

The difference between a bachelor's wife and a chihuahua is that a bachelor's wife is physically impossible. Who cares about how much they weigh!

Let's not get mired into the silliness that Goose is trying to drag us into in an effort to avoid the issue that he truly cannot answer.

It's strange to hear a warning about becoming mired after writing a mere two sentences. I guess I'll validate by writing more.

A bachelor's wife is logically impossible. Resurrection isn't. That's a category error. Science isn't absolute; we don't know that resurrection is physically impossible.

But the difference is not 300 to 15. It's more like 1000000 to 1.

You're absolutely right that to imply equivalency between logical impossibility and physical impossibility was an error on my part.

What I should have said is something like "To say that the a resurrection is more extraordinary than an assassination is like saying that a 300 pound flying unicorn is heavier than a 15 pound chihuahua dog".

I should have made it more clear that by citing the example of a logically impossible entity I intended to imply analogy - not equivalency - with a physically impossible notion like a resurrection.

You are right that we don't know that resurrection is physically impossible. We also don't know that the earth is a globe, we don't know that water is made of one part oxygen and two parts hydrogen, we don't know the earth orbits around the sun.

We don't know in the sense that we aren't 100% sure. We are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure the earth isn't flat.

And we are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% that resurrections are impossible.

In short, we are as sure that the resurrection CAN'T happen as is physically possible for humanity to be sure about any given empirical event.

By contrast, we are as sure that assassinations CAN happen as is physically possible for humanity to be sure about any given empirical event.

Therefore to compare the strength of the evidence for something that almost certainly CAN'T have happened with the strength of the evidence for something that almost certainly CAN have happened, is like comparing the weights of flying unicorns with the weight of chihuahuas.

[instantc]

We don't know in the sense that we aren't 100% sure. We are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure the earth isn't flat.

And we are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% that resurrections are impossible.

The analogy between the resurrection 2000 years ago and flat earth is quite as inapt as the analogy between the resurrection and Ceasar's assassination. This is an awful argument, the impossibility of resurrection is inferred through a consistent observation of certain regularities, and roundness of the earth is being directly observed at this moment. If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments.

[JohnA]

We don't know in the sense that we aren't 100% sure. We are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure the earth isn't flat.

And we are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% that resurrections are impossible.

The analogy between the resurrection 2000 years ago and flat earth is quite as inapt as the analogy between the resurrection and Ceasar's assassination. This is an awful argument, the impossibility of resurrection is inferred through a consistent observation of certain regularities, and roundness of the earth is being directly observed at this moment. If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments.

You clearly did either not read or maybe not understand his post. Since you convinced us you have a very layman understanding of science, philosophy and mathematics, your ignorance seems quote obvious.

His logic is clear. What do you not get? And please, no more sebaceous insults, the poster applied the cure.

But nice try at a fallacious add hominem.
Seems like Goose is moping the floor with you.

[Philbert]

It's not just about demonstrating that it's all just a fairy tale, for me. It's also about demonstrating that it's a horrible fairy tale.

Can you help us understand why you find it logical to invest so much time in to a horrible fairy tale?

It seems that in order for your own involvement in this process to be logical and productive you would have to demonstrate that you are somehow persuading specific individuals to renounce the horrible fairy tale.

Could you provide evidence that such specific individuals exist please?

If you can not provide us with such evidence, a list of names of those persuaded, why should we believe in the fairy tale that what you are doing is in any way logical?

[otseng]

your ignorance seems quote obvious.

Moderator Warning


Please do not make any personal comments about another poster.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jax Agnesson]

It's not just about demonstrating that it's all just a fairy tale, for me. It's also about demonstrating that it's a horrible fairy tale.

Can you help us understand why you find it logical to invest so much time in to a horrible fairy tale?

It seems that in order for your own involvement in this process to be logical and productive you would have to demonstrate that you are somehow persuading specific individuals to renounce the horrible fairy tale.

Could you provide evidence that such specific individuals exist please?

If you can not provide us with such evidence, a list of names of those persuaded, why should we believe in the fairy tale that what you are doing is in any way logical?

Saul of Tarsus declared that women should be silent, that homosexuality is an abomination, that everyone should hand over a chunk of their hard-earned to him, and so on and on, page after tedious page. And his declarations supposedly derive authority from his being a disciple of Jesus, who supposedly gets his authority from being God.
These days there are very powerful economic/political forces at work, trying to legislate us all into obeying this primitive bile, trying to get claptrap taught to our children as science and history, trying to prevent women claiming the right to determine their control over their own bodies. This is social and moral poison, and it's being spread in the name of this ludicrous 'god'.
Questioning the logic behind the original stories is a fair way of challenging them.
It's not a method I adopt very often, knowing the slippery wilful ignorance that sustains religious dogmatism; usually I find it better to argue for human rights from a humanist perspective, and leave the superstitious to sing their own ditties to themselves.
But i do sympathise with the intentions and persistence of the more energetic atheists, who strive mightily to enlighten the terminally befuddled.

Look. It's like this.
Guys do not get up after being dead 36 hours, walk around preaching, and then fly away into the sky. Unless that guy actually is a magical being. Like a unicorn or a pixie.
So it is circular to argue that this guy resurrected, and therefore he must be god, and we can believe he was able to do this 'miracle' (churchspeak for 'impossiblething') because he was god, and we can believe he was god because he did an 'impossiblething'.. Round and round the befuddled make their circular claims, and round and round, for the best of humane motives, some of the self-appointed asylum staff feel a need to chase them.
I appreciate the efforts, and the moral value of volunteering in such an unrewarding sector, but personally I just like to watch!

[Philbert]

Saul of Tarsus declared that women should be silent, that homosexuality is an abomination, that everyone should hand over a chunk of their hard-earned to him, and so on and on, page after tedious page. And his declarations supposedly derive authority from his being a disciple of Jesus, who supposedly gets his authority from being God.

And Stalin and Mao, leaders of explicitly atheist regimes, slaughtered millions of their own citizens. And rather more recently than Saul of Tarsus did his thing. Do you by chance have evidence of leaders of explicitly Christian regimes slaughtering millions of their own citizens any time in recent memory, or any time at all?

These days there are very powerful economic/political forces at work, trying to legislate us all into obeying this primitive bile, trying to get claptrap taught to our children as science and history, trying to prevent women claiming the right to determine their control over their own bodies. This is social and moral poison, and it's being spread in the name of this ludicrous 'god'.

I don't disagree that there are conservative religion based political forces within western culture.

I do disagree that any poster here possesses the power to talk those people out of their beliefs, unless you can provide evidence of having done that. Could we have the list of converts please? Where is the evidence?

Questioning the logic behind the original stories is a fair way of challenging them.

Except that it doesn't work, which makes it rather illogical too, just like the Bible stories.

But i do sympathise with the intentions and persistence of the more energetic atheists, who strive mightily to enlighten the terminally befuddled.

Where is the evidence that they are accomplishing anything? I mean specific credible evidence of atheist posters on this forum converting Christian fundamentalists to the atheist point of view. Where is the list of names?

Look. It's like this.
Guys do not get up after being dead 36 hours, walk around preaching, and then fly away into the sky. Unless that guy actually is a magical being. Like a unicorn or a pixie.
So it is circular to argue that this guy resurrected, and therefore he must be god, and we can believe he was able to do this 'miracle' (churchspeak for 'impossiblething') because he was god, and we can believe he was god because he did an 'impossiblething'..

And then there are the atheist fundamentalists who post all day every day on forums, lost in the fantasy they are saving the world, when the truth is they usually can't list a single person whose mind they've changed.

In spite of this lack of evidence, they continue passionately day after day, blind to the obvious reality that all they are accomplishing is pumping up their own ego.

The point here is that fantasy is not an exclusively religious issue, but rather a human issue.