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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 2383 by Danmark]

Those of us who were raised in the church have been fed the line so often that there was no motive or any reason for the writers of the NT to make any of this up, that I guess it never occurred to me that this argument is a crock of goose grease.

Speaking of goose grease, what's happened to our fowl friend? He's darned hard headed, but at least he is willing to make an argument, which is more then most Christians seem to be able or willing to do.

The Mark Twain avatar suits you best, by the way.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2383 by Danmark]

Those of us who were raised in the church have been fed the line so often that there was no motive or any reason for the writers of the NT to make any of this up, that I guess it never occurred to me that this argument is a crock of goose grease.

Speaking of goose grease, what's happened to our fowl friend? He's darned hard headed, but at least he is willing to make an argument, which is more then most Christians seem to be able or willing to do.

The Mark Twain avatar suits you best, by the way.

Thanks. It's a better look than W. C. Fields

Yes, don't know what's happened to him. Things have slowed in general. That's the down side to the banishment of certain incendiary types. No matter how they worked to get banned, they were at least provocative.

Which reminds me that Finley Peter Dunne's famous phrase should apply to preachers as well as newspapers. It's their duty to ". . . comfort th' afflicted, and afflict th' comfortable . . . ." If more preachers did that, we wouldn't have such a need to do it fer 'em.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Danmark]

Which reminds me that Finley Peter Dunne's famous phrase should apply to preachers as well as newspapers. It's their duty to ". . . comfort th' afflicted, and afflict th' comfortable . . . ." If more preachers did that, we wouldn't have such a need to do it fer 'em.

This new Pope seems to be taking this sentiment to heart, which has American conservatives all in an uproar. How dare the Pope stand with the poor against the wealthy and powerful. Who does he think he is, anyway?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 2383 by Danmark]

Those of us who were raised in the church have been fed the line so often that there was no motive or any reason for the writers of the NT to make any of this up, that I guess it never occurred to me that this argument is a crock of goose grease.

Speaking of goose grease, what's happened to our fowl friend? He's darned hard headed, but at least he is willing to make an argument, which is more then most Christians seem to be able or willing to do.

Yeah, and what happened to sonofason? He was the only one who finally admitted he didn't have evidence for his supernatural beliefs (though he then recanted that admission subsequently).

Well, it's inevitable. When you realize you've lost an argument, why would you linger?

Being an atheist when you were born in an atheist family is easy (my case), and abandoning your beliefs at an early age or when you were only casually theist is probably not too hard. But if you've been an entrenched, convinced, evangelical, and educated theist for all your life, it must be heart-wrenching to acknowledge that you've based your entire personality and indeed your very life, on a pack of absurd fairy tales. I'm sure most theists are honest and smart, but the honesty, mental flexibility and courage needed to admit you had been wrong in the fundamental way you relate yourself with the universe as a human being, is truly enormous. I don't blame these kinds of theists for shying away from this horrible truth, going back to watching TV, and holding on precariously to their cozy beliefs without lingering on the fatal flaw at their core.

That's what I believe on good days. But then sometimes I think about it again and say to myself "Flying corpses? Talking donkeys? Come on, man! Get real!"

Superstition is a fascinating human phenomenon.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 2384 by no evidence no belief]

John was the last Gospel written. What about Matthew and Mark? Average life expectancy does not mean some adults did not live much longer. For example Ceasar Augustus, the Roman ruler when Jesus was born died at the age of 75. Tiberius, The Roman in charge when Jesus died, died at the age of 77.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 2384 by no evidence no belief]


John the Apostle according to the Church Fathers, wrote the Gospel of John, three Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation. Some modern higher critical scholars have raised the possibility that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. But the fact is that some of the early Christians believed that this guy born somewhere near the year 6 AD died at age 94 in year 100AD. It is not valid for you to use the average life expectancy to support the assertion that The Gospels were written 30 to 90 years after Jesus's death by anonymous authors that never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2383 by Danmark]

Those of us who were raised in the church have been fed the line so often that there was no motive or any reason for the writers of the NT to make any of this up, that I guess it never occurred to me that this argument is a crock of goose grease.

Speaking of goose grease, what's happened to our fowl friend? He's darned hard headed, but at least he is willing to make an argument, which is more then most Christians seem to be able or willing to do.

Yeah, and what happened to sonofason? He was the only one who finally admitted he didn't have evidence for his supernatural beliefs (though he then recanted that admission subsequently).

Well, it's inevitable. When you realize you've lost an argument, why would you linger?

He was banned Nov. 23. The probation list frequently provides more humor than 'Daily Laugh.' All you have to do is read some of the posts "The Banned' wrote, even after their were on probation. When it comes to banning, I have to give a to the moderators for patience.

[Danmark]

Being an atheist when you were born in an atheist family is easy (my case), and abandoning your beliefs at an early age or when you were only casually theist is probably not too hard. But if you've been an entrenched, convinced, evangelical, and educated theist for all your life, it must be heart-wrenching to acknowledge that you've based your entire personality and indeed your very life, on a pack of absurd fairy tales. I'm sure most theists are honest and smart, but the honesty, mental flexibility and courage needed to admit you had been wrong in the fundamental way you relate yourself with the universe as a human being, is truly enormous. I don't blame these kinds of theists for shying away from this horrible truth, going back to watching TV, and holding on precariously to their cozy beliefs without lingering on the fatal flaw at their core.

That's what I believe on good days. But then sometimes I think about it again and say to myself "Flying corpses? Talking donkeys? Come on, man! Get real!"

Superstition is a fascinating human phenomenon.

Reminds me of a story. One of the things a lot of motorcyclists love to debate is the efficacy of 'deer whistles'. Deer whistles are small, cheap devices a cyclist can attach to a bike. These things, at speed, supposedly emit a sound that is undetectable to humans, butt can be heard by deers. The idea is that the sound startles or scares a deer so the deer is less likely to cross the cyclist's path and cause injury to man, beast and bike.

A am a deer whistle skeptic. I've argued there is no evidence the deer can hear the whistle and even if he does there is no evidence to suggest it bothers him, and even if he hears it and it bothers him, there's no reason to believe it will make the animal more likely to avoid a collision course.

My brother, a deer whistle advocate does not disagree with my analysis, but says "For a couple a bucks [no pun intended] it can't hurt."

He got mad at me when I argued that if we don't have any data on the effectiveness of deer whistles, then it is just as likely that the whistles attract deer as that they repel them; that it is just as likely that the whistles startle deer into crossing the road to escape the noise and thus make a collision course with the bike as it is to startle them into running the other direction.

[My brother was so angry with me that when we were parked at a campsite and a deer approached his deer whistle bearing bike and I claimed this was 'proof' they actually attract deer, he did not laugh. He did not even smile.

But I digress. The deer whistle argument reminds me of Pascal's wager. If the non theist position is correct, then believing in something false does impact one's life negatively, in part for the reasons you suggested.

[WinePusher]

There are bad atheist arguments and bad theist arguments. I think the argument that miracles are impossible is a bad one. I don't think most intelligent atheists say such things. What i think they say, is something more like this:
(a) We've never had reliable reports of a dead person come back to life in such a manner or similar manner
(b) the resurrection contradicts our understanding of how the world works
(c) therefore the resurrection is not a reasonable conclusion to make based on ancient documents.

Fair enough. This is certainly a reasonable argument but it has some major flaws in it.

a) The infrequency of miracle claims does nothing to increase or decrease the probability of the resurrection.
b) Our understanding of how the world works is not concrete
c) Therefore, the resurrection is a reasonable conclusion to make if and only if the background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it (which it does).

The fact that we don't have many reliable reports of dead people coming back to life means nothing. Christianity claims that one person rose from the dead, not many people. And yes, the resurrection absolutely does contradict our understanding of how the world works. This is probably the best argument against the resurrection, but like I said our understanding of how the world works is not set in stone. The philosopher David Hume suggested that even though we may observe something over and over and it occurs the exact same way (such as the sun rising everyday) we cannot say with absolutely certainty that the even will continue to repeat itself. This makes room for the idea that suspensions in the natural order are possible.

I would see the ascension of Jesus into heaven as a logical consequence of the resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the dead and his claim to be the son of God was vindicated, the ascension necessarily follows along with the other miracle claim in the New Testament.

That does not follow.

If i make miraculous predictions of the future or perform magical feats in front of you, would you become credulous to ANYTHING i say or tell you? Even if Jesus magically rose from the dead or performed magic healings, that doesn't logically necessitate that anything he says is true. His claims don't suddenly become more credible or reasonable. His claims, every one of them, stand on their own merits. To believe his claims because his previous claims have been shown as true is gullibility and to engage in fallacious thinking. Not that i think Jesus is a conman, but this sounds a lot like confidence tricks which are used by conmen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

I suggest you go back and study what the implications of the resurrection are. The resurrection is the event that vindicated Jesus' claim to be the son of God. If the resurrection is true then Jesus is indeed God incarnate and all of the other miracles attributed to him, such as the ascension, come naturally. How would they not?

The reason why I am bringing up the fact that it can't be disproven is to show that the resurrection isn't some far fetched, unbelievable fantasy that nonbelievers are making it out to be. And yes, I've already had many debates on this site regarding the historical evidence for the resurrection.

A man performing SUPERNATURAL healings, walking on water, and MAGICALLY rising from the dead and subsequently FLYING into the sky is not "far-fetched"? If that isn't an extraordinary tale, I don't know what is! Surely you can sympathize that such tales, to those who don't already believe they are true, are extraordinary.

Yes, I have no problem admitting that this is a difficult story to accept for nonbelievers. But, the basic point that underlies this entire story is has to do with the possibility of miracles. Everything you mentioned above is a miracle. My argument has been that miracles are possible and we should believe a miracle has occurred if our background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it. The resurrection is an event that was claimed to have occurred in the ancient world, so what other means of discernment are we going to use other than ancient historical textual criterions?

The Authenticity of the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels
The criterion of dissimilarity states that the probability of an alleged event increases if the written content is dissimilar to the authors agenda. As in to say, I would not write down something that harms my credibility unless it actually happened. Within the Gospel narratives, we have two things that meet this criterion: the initial discovery of the tomb by women and the tomb being provided by a member of the Sanhedrin, the council that condemned Jesus to death.

I'm unaware of historians using the criterion of embarrassment in other works to establish the historicity of an account. It seems that only religious scholars who argue for jesus' existence put such heavy stock in the usefulness of the criterion of embarrassment. Is it just a coincidence that historians do not use the criterion of embarrassment as some major sticking point for historicity or is this an example of some Christian scholars trying to put lipstick on a pig? It seems to me its the latter.

Furthermore, the criterion of embarrassment sets up a false dichotomy. The only options aren't:
1) its probably true because its embarrassing
Or
2) someone made it up.

That's an argument from a lack of imagination.

A terribly weak rebuttal on your part. The criterion of embarrassment is legitimate despite your unfounded objections, and it can be applied to any ancient historical text. If the information in the text harms the credibility of the writer, if the content and the author are dissimilar, then the content within the text is authentic. And how is that a false dichotomy? Please, tell me what other options exist.

The Genuine Claim of the Disciples to have seen Jesus risen from the dead
After Jesus' death and burial something sparked a strong conviction in the disciples that lead to their strong evangelism despite persecution by both Jews and Romans. The persecution and marginalization of Christians confirms the genuiness and sincerity of their claim, and apart from the resurrection, it remains a mystery as to why the disciples decided to preach and spread their message in the face of persecution.

Plenty of people die for their beliefs. Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, Joseph Smith, and many Mormons. Arguing that people died or were persecuted for their beliefs therefore the beliefs MUST be true or are more likely true is very very poor reasoning. It does not follow.

It a little bit more complicated then that. Again, you have to take into consideration what the background knowledge is. Palestine was a backwater territory of the Roman Empire at the time, and by most accounts nearly every single Roman Emperor passionately hated and persecuted Christians. But regardless of all this, the disciples manage to spread their religion throughout the Roman Empire within a rapid period of time regardless of the widespread persecution against them. In addition, Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire by the time of Constantine and Jesus remains to this very day the most revered and well known person on the face of the planet. This all seems relatively impossible if Christianity was based upon a lie.

The Conversion of Paul to Christianity
First, let's present the facts. It's a fact that Paul was a persecutor of Christians,

Its a fact? Why? Because Paul says so?

Once again, you are assuming that the claims within a story are true or likely true because they are internally consistent or because the author says so. If you read another testimony, do you simply accept the word of the author on mere assertion?

No, not unless I have good reason to. Here's the problem with atheists like you. It seems that you reject much of what the Bible says simply because the Bible says so. If it's within the Bible then it must obviously be fake, fabricated and inauthentic. This faulty reasoning is the exact equivalent of what fundamentalist Christians do. According to them, if the Bible says so then it must obviously be 100% true. You are no better.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to WinePusher]

a) The infrequency of miracle claims does nothing to increase or decrease the probability of the resurrection.
b) Our understanding of how the world works is not concrete
c) Therefore, the resurrection is a reasonable conclusion to make if and only if the background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it (which it does)

a) The infrequency of miracle claims does nothing to increase or decrease the probability of the resurrection.

It's not the frequency of miracle claims that is the problem. It is the total lack of verifiable bonafide and totally undeniable supernaturally originated miracles that is the problem. We have not a single one to point to and examine. This fact certainly DOES affect the probability of the resurrection.

b) Our understanding of how the world works is not concrete.

True. Humans, being fallible, are unable to know things to a perfect degree of certainty. So anything COULD be true. Humans ARE able to know things to a very high degree of certainty however, and one of the things we can see very clearly is that while anything COULD be true, not everything IS true.

c) Therefore, the resurrection is a reasonable conclusion to make if and only if the background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it (which it does).

Let's see... no one at all recorded the resurrection at the time it was supposed to have occurred. That IS rather pertinent background information that needs to be considered. Beginning about a quarter of a century after the death of Jesus individuals who either can not be clearly identified, or who can be identified but who were also clearly not present to witness the "risen" Jesus, began recording the story. Given the magnitude of the claim, an event which if true only violates all of human experience, this is very "circumstantial" evidence indeed. Even within the pages of the Gospels it is easy to see that the entire tale can be easily dismissed as the result of actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse. As long as the most probable explanation remains the most obvious and likely explanation for the origin of the story, the disciples moved the body and spread a totally false rumor, the least likely explanation, that the corpse came back to life and ultimately flew away, remains unlikely up to and well beyond the point of absurdity. Because humans with personal agendas remain the most common of commodities to this very day. Flying reanimated corpses... like ALL claims of supernaturally originated miracles... remain in the realm of superstition, empty claims and wishful thinking. There is no hard evidence to support the claim, and certainly every real reason to doubt it.