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?

[Danmark]

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?

Do you by chance have any reason for suspecting that I have anything other than utter loathing for Stalin or Mao? Christians have great reverence for Saul and Jesus. What do Mao or Stalin have to do with the fact that I think Saul's followers do not have the right to impose their prejudices and superstitions onto the rest of us? I think Stalin's preachings are contemptible too. So what's your point?

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?

I'm not sure it makes sense for you to be demanding such evidence, Phil.
Here's the sequence of events from my POV.
Philbert makes an observation: people have been debating the existence of God for yonks, and have concluded precisely nothing verifiable.
Perfectly sound observation, Phil!
Philbert draws a conclusion from his observation: further debate about the existence of god is unlikely to produce verifiable conclusions in the future.
Perfectly sound conclusion, Phil.
Philbert discovers that there exists an internet site dedicated to precisely the sort of activity that Philbert considers a waste of time.
Phil joins this site, tries to explain that everyone is wasting their time, apparently with the expectation that anyone who realises this activity is a waste of time will stop debating Christianity and Religion, and therefore will presumably have no further reason for frequenting the site.
Phil himself does not leave the site.
Phil doesn't understand why people keep making points if there is no evidence that they have any effect.

Any chance of a rationalisation, Phil?

Philbert's central argument is that everyone else is wrong, no matter what side of the argument they are on; and shouldn't even be arguing; that is something reserved for Philbert. As an experiment, try agreeing with him. My guess is he'd take issue.

[Philbert]

Do you by chance have any reason for suspecting that I have anything other than utter loathing for Stalin or Mao?

Yes, I do. You never talk about Stalin and Mao, but you have plenty of time to post about much lesser offenses by theists. This reveals your concern is with promoting your ideology, not with violence etc.

So what's your point?

My point is that you're spinning up the same old tired atheist dogma chanting, and it's boring hearing it yet again.

Do you have evidence that posting here is somehow advancing the cause you are advocating?

I'm not sure it makes sense for you to be demanding such evidence, Phil.

Ah, I see, only atheists can demand evidence.

Phil joins this site, tries to explain that everyone is wasting their time, apparently with the expectation that anyone who realises this activity is a waste of time will stop debating Christianity and Religion, and therefore will presumably have no further reason for frequenting the site.

I've admitted repeatedly I'm not accomplishing with my posts either.

Do you notice how I'm admitting the fact of the matter, and neither of you guys are? Who's living in fantasy Jax? Who's being intellectually honest, and who is not?

Further, while it is a waste of time to continue a dialog that at least 3,000 years of evidence proves to be pointless, it's not a waste of time to finally face the evidence, and attempt to continue the inquiry by other means.

It is however most likely a waste of time trying to find anybody here who is actually willing to follow the evidence and act on it, all the grand speeches about reason notwithstanding. I do plead guilt to routinely ignoring this evidence myself.

Phil doesn't understand why people keep making points if there is no evidence that they have any effect.

Actually I do understand, and stated that understanding just a post or two back. We're all using each other as foils to jerk off our egos.

Any chance of a rationalisation, Phil?

Any chance you were once actually interested in understanding the need that drives religion and your resistance to it? Any chance you could be again?

[instantc]

Do you have evidence that posting here is somehow advancing the cause you are advocating?

I've personally heard of many believers who have come to doubt and abandon their doctrines after reading Dawkins's books.

If his words can do such a trick, I guess some people here stand a chance as well, don't they? Personally, I think some of the arguments here are more convincing than the ones in God Delusion.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Philbert]

My point is that you're spinning up the same old tired atheist dogma chanting, and it's boring hearing it yet again.

Do you have evidence that posting here is somehow advancing the cause you are advocating?

How about we turn our attention from simple acts of "dogma chanting" and turn our attention to specifics? Specifically, that very cornerstone of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It is overwhelmingly more likely that a missing corpse and an empty grave are the results of actions taken by the living rather than actions taken by the corpse. Since this is simply an obvious fact, if the story at hand provides us with obvious living candidates who could have reasonably accomplished the act of moving the corpse, thereby leaving an empty grave, then the assertion that the corpse itself was responsible for it's own disappearance has NO probability for being true at all. And of course the story at hand DOES provide us with just such living suspects. The followers of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus from Joseph's new rock tomb to another location. It's pretty much, CASE CLOSED! If you cannot counter the obvious conclusion that the followers of Jesus were not only responsible for the missing corpse and empty tomb, but were also responsible for subsequently spreading the false rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead, then of course you and your claims are nonsense... because your beliefs and your claims are clearly nonsense. And if you won't even TRY to defend them, then of course the non believers on this board have every right to mock you, and continue to heap derision on you. Because if you can't be bothered to attempt to defend your own beliefs and your own claims, you have already established in the most conclusive manner possible and for all to see, that they were nothing but hot air to begin with. And I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that this inability of you and all the other Christians on this forum to make your case for the undeniable truth of the resurrection of Jesus, is massively advancing the case for dismissing your claims outright. The word is out, and unless you can find a way to put it back into the bottle, it will continue to spread.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Philbert]

My point is that you're spinning up the same old tired atheist dogma chanting, and it's boring hearing it yet again.

Do you have evidence that posting here is somehow advancing the cause you are advocating?

How about we turn our attention from simple acts of "dogma chanting" and turn our attention to specifics? Specifically, that very cornerstone of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It is overwhelmingly more likely that a missing corpse and an empty grave are the results of actions taken by the living rather than actions taken by the corpse. Since this is simply an obvious fact, if the story at hand provides us with obvious living candidates who could have reasonably accomplished the act of moving the corpse, thereby leaving an empty grave, then the assertion that the corpse itself was responsible for it's own disappearance has NO probability for being true at all. And of course the story at hand DOES provide us with just such living suspects. The followers of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus from Joseph's new rock tomb to another location. It's pretty much, CASE CLOSED!....

Correct. The fact that the tomb was sealed with a stone and had guards posted [altho' only Matthew mentions guards] shows the theft of the body was a concern. That Joseph of Arimathea donated his own private tomb makes theft of the body more likely. As you say, his followers had both motive and opportunity to steal the body. It is easy to see that from this one act of grave robbing, all of the rest of resurrection tales easily flow and are explained.

[no evidence no belief]

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.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Entropic principle and several other physical laws, are being observed at this moment as well, just like the roundness of the earth.

It is on the basis of these physical laws that we know that spontaneous reversal of denatured enzymes in a decomposing brain dead corpse is physically impossible.

With classic and quantum mechanics, just like with the roundness of the earth, it's not just that we infer conclusions from observation of certain regularities. It's that we fully understand the mechanism behind these regularities.

We don't just observe that the earth is round. We understand the shape of the earth really really really well. We know it's diameter, it's mass, it's mineral composition, its plate tectonics, the speed at which it moves around the sun, the degree of tilt on its own axis daily, the distance it is from the sun and all other solar system bodies at any given time, etc, etc, etc.

Similarly, we don't just observe that decomposing corpses don't come back to life. We have a profound and detailed understanding of the inner workings of the processes, from the macro level of an intimate medical understanding of organ functions and the irreversibility of processes, through to a full understanding of the biological and chemical impossibility of the reversal of basic chemical reactions, and all the way down to an understanding of physics so profound that we can split atoms, and which informs us conclusively that certain processes are irreversible on an energy level.

If you wish to have a debate on whether our understanding of classical thermodynamics is any less firm than our understanding of earth's shape, that's a debate I'd be delighted to have. Before we do, I'd require you to answer a few basic questions about biology, chemistry and physics to make sure you'd be able to keep up with the subject matter. I don't want the debate to transform into me giving you a free lecture on middle school level science.

Let me explain what you are doing wrong here, just to help you out a bit. You are correct that we thoroughly understand the mechanisms of the body and it's organs. Thorough understanding does nothing to answer the question whether organs work in accordance with these laws 100% of the time, or whether on a single occasion in the ancient history the laws have been suspended. The reason that it is very very unlikely is not because we understand how the mechanisms work, but because we have been around for quite some time and we have never observed them being suspended. That's why extraordinary evidence is required for the claim that a body was once brought back from the dead. Roundness of the earth is being observed at this moment, the claim that the earth is flat can be falsified at this instant, it's a whole different type of claim. You are making a horrible analogy, that's all, and that might be the reason why people here tend to stop replying to your posts after reading the first one.

If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments. You are making a horrible analogy, that's all, and that might be the reason why people here tend to stop replying to your posts after reading the first one. Let me explain what you are doing wrong here, just to help you out a bit.


Analogies are only illustrative. They are didactic tools. They are neither proof nor evidence. As such, they are not expected to be perfect. Goose's analogy of the assassination of Caesar to the resurrection of Christ is apt since both require historical evidence. He goes wrong when he ignores that one involves a special pleading of supernatural intervention and the other does not.

Granted, both analogies illustrate a valid point. However, both of these guys used their analogies as a justification, which validates my criticism, doesn't it?

Goose explicitly demands that if one grants Ceasar's assassination, he should also grant the resurrection, this is where my criticism steps in.

NENB at least seemed to implicitly suggest that the flat earth and the resurrection would be comparable in terms of standard of evidence. If it was offered just as an illustration, then I'll have to take back my criticism

NENB's analogy is apt in that a flat Earth and and the resurrection are both impossible without a suspension of what we know about scientific principles.

Except that the latter would just mean that the laws of nature are not as consistent as we thought they are, while the former can be falsified at this instant by a direct observation. There is no valid comparison here, is there?

The validity of the First Law of Thermodynamics can be falsified at this instant by direct observation as well, and we are extremely sure based on falsifiable empirical evidence that the First Law has been consistently applicable to the entire universe since the Big Bang.

To say that this fact notwithstanding, we don't know for sure that it didn't randomly stop applying for a few days 2000 years ago, because otherwise the Bible is wrong about resurrections, is absurd.

It's like saying that although we can falsify by direct observation that the earth is round right now, and we are extremely sure that it has been round for the last 5 billion years, we nonetheless cannot be sure that the earth didn't randomly become flat for a few days 4000 years ago, because otherwise the Bible is wrong about the earth being flat.

Can you test by direct observation whether the earth was round at the time that the Bible passages claiming it's flat were written? Oh, you can't? Should we therefore take the "earth-was-flat-for-a-few-days-in-2000BC" hypothesis seriously?

Can you test by direct observation whether the laws of physics applied at the time of Jesus's alleged resurrection? Should we therefore take the "laws-of-physics-didnt-apply-for-3-days-in-33AD" hypothesis seriously?

Why dude? Why? Why do you do this to yourself?

[Philbert]

I've personally heard of many believers who have come to doubt and abandon their doctrines after reading Dawkins's books.

If his words can do such a trick, I guess some people here stand a chance as well, don't they? Personally, I think some of the arguments here are more convincing than the ones in God Delusion.[

So then, I guess you're on record now as having NO EVIDENCE that your activities here are accomplishing anything. I'm in the same boat.

So, no evidence of accomplishing anything, and yet we both continue typing, typing, typing, day after day after day. Not just typing, but typing with great passion, as if we were saving the world or something.

Are you starting to get it that fantasy is part of the human condition, and not just the Christian condition?

[instantc]

It's like saying that although we can falsify by direct observation that the earth is round right now, and we are extremely sure that it has been round for the last 5 billion years, we nonetheless cannot be sure that the earth didn't randomly become flat for a few days 4000 years ago, because otherwise the Bible is wrong about the earth being flat.

Can you test by direct observation whether the earth was round at the time that the Bible passages claiming it's flat were written? Oh, you can't? Should we therefore take the "earth-was-flat-for-a-few-days-in-2000BC" hypothesis seriously?

Can you test by direct observation whether the laws of physics applied at the time of Jesus's alleged resurrection? Should we therefore take the "laws-of-physics-didnt-apply-for-3-days-in-33AD" hypothesis seriously?

Alright, now you have amended your point of comparison from 'earth is flat' to 'earth was flat in the ancient history', haven't you? It's still not even close to a useful analogy, the claim that the earth has changed its shape from flat to round in the past 2000 years is whole different level of crazy and would leave whole different kind of evidence behind. There is nothing to be achieved with these pointless comparisons of yours, other than that people who enjoy ridiculing religious dogmas probably find it appealing. This analogy is just as useful as the one with Ceasar's assassination.

Like it or not there I'm making a valid point here. These comparisons with Santa Claus and the flat earth may be funny, but to believers they are just mockery with no underlying point whatsoever. Not every supernatural belief is equally implausible, and not every claim that goes against scientific data is equally unlikely by default.

You first willingly enter into a conversation about the truth value of of these beliefs, and then immediately throw the whole conversation down the gutter by declaring that supernatural is impossible by default. This seems a bit pointless, doesn't it?

[no evidence no belief]

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.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Entropic principle and several other physical laws, are being observed at this moment as well, just like the roundness of the earth.

It is on the basis of these physical laws that we know that spontaneous reversal of denatured enzymes in a decomposing brain dead corpse is physically impossible.

With classic and quantum mechanics, just like with the roundness of the earth, it's not just that we infer conclusions from observation of certain regularities. It's that we fully understand the mechanism behind these regularities.

We don't just observe that the earth is round. We understand the shape of the earth really really really well. We know it's diameter, it's mass, it's mineral composition, its plate tectonics, the speed at which it moves around the sun, the degree of tilt on its own axis daily, the distance it is from the sun and all other solar system bodies at any given time, etc, etc, etc.

Similarly, we don't just observe that decomposing corpses don't come back to life. We have a profound and detailed understanding of the inner workings of the processes, from the macro level of an intimate medical understanding of organ functions and the irreversibility of processes, through to a full understanding of the biological and chemical impossibility of the reversal of basic chemical reactions, and all the way down to an understanding of physics so profound that we can split atoms, and which informs us conclusively that certain processes are irreversible on an energy level.

If you wish to have a debate on whether our understanding of classical thermodynamics is any less firm than our understanding of earth's shape, that's a debate I'd be delighted to have. Before we do, I'd require you to answer a few basic questions about biology, chemistry and physics to make sure you'd be able to keep up with the subject matter. I don't want the debate to transform into me giving you a free lecture on middle school level science.

Let me explain what you are doing wrong here, just to help you out a bit. Obviously we thoroughly understand the mechanisms of the body and it's organs. Thorough understanding does nothing to answer the question whether organs work in accordance with these laws 100% of the time, or whether on a single occasion in the ancient history the laws have been suspended.

How do you know the earth is round 100% of the time? How do you know that it didn't become flat for a few days right when the Bible passages about the earth being flat were being written, meaning that the Bible was indeed accurate about the earth being flat - at least at that time?

How do you know that's not the case? Have you been directly monitoring the shape of the earth consistently for the last 5000 years? Just because we have a through understanding of how the laws of physics make planets round, that doesn't mean that those same laws of physics weren't suspended for a little while in the past.

Hey, let's try this: Go in front of the mirror and say these words aloud "Laws of physics make planets the way they are. Thorough understanding does nothing to answer the question of whether planets work in accordance with these laws 100% of the time, or whether on a single occasion in the ancient history the laws have been suspended and the earth became flat for a few minutes"

Does that argument for the earth having been flat for a short period of time in ancient history sound absurd to you? It does, doesn't it?

Ok, so now go back to the mirror and say the exact same words, but substitute the word "planets" with the word "organs", and you will find that you just said the very words you wrote a few lines above.

Does that argument for decomposing brain-dead corpses coming back to life sound absurd to you? It does, doesn't it?

You are making a horrible analogy, that's all, and that might be the reason why people here tend to stop replying to your posts after reading the first one.

Riiiight. Because theist apologists are notorious for not jumping on the opportunity to prove you wrong when they sense that your arguments are horrible.

Seriously dude, why are you still writing to me?

[instantc]

Seriously dude, why are you still writing to me?

Because frankly you are the only one here who always gives me a reply within five minutes of my post at any time of the day. I can always count on getting something fun to read in just a few minutes delivery time. Keep on doing the good work buddy!