The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent fine tuning, and others, which has brought the worlds most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[Ooberman]

Not to sound presumputious, but all these 'con men' and 'barely functional morons' inspire many people and do enormous amounts of good for the world.

Sure they do, otherwise everyone would see them for what they are. They have to pay back into the system that supports them and find new marks. After all, it's very easy to do what they do.
All they have to do is give a few people some soup and they get a private jet. If they didn't play the game, they'd be out of a job.

Then they'd start flocking to internet forums.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to WinePusher]

You really are having a difficult time wrapping your mind around this.

True, I'm not really that great at understanding nonsense. And trust me, the way you're constantly shifting the goalposts and changing your positions doesn't make it any easier. One minute you're complaing about the truth of my facts and then another minute you're admitting that they are indeed facts. Make up your mind.

This is a particularly amusing charge, both to me personally, and I am certain, to the audience at hand, since I have been riding EXACTLY this same argument Ad nauseam for the entire four years that I have been a member of this forum. It's the same argument I have been using most of my adult life, in point of fact. Nothing that I have posted to you has wavered one jot from that argument. Your protests have the odd effect of making you appear almost shell shocked and experiencing some sort of a disconnect.

As you certainly should be, considering that it only contradicts your lifetime of programing.

You don't know anything about me (THANK GOD) so I think it'd be best for you to refrain from making these clueless, ignorant, uninformed statements. Since you seem to be so curious about my past (only God knows why) I'll give you a little synopsis. I used to be an atheist and my only tie to religion was through an exgirlfriend I once had who was Buddhist. And in order to cozy up to her I started doing the whole Buddhist thing too. I didn't believe in any God and had a particular problem with Christian doctrines regarding hell and struggled with the problem of evil. But overtime, through a combination of academic philosophical readings and personal experiences with my Lord, I became enlightened and converted to Catholicism, a decision I've never once regreted. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why atheists are so hostile to religion and religious believers? Christianity provides a unique type of hope and love that has transformed communities, nations and individual lives. Atheists cannot enjoy all these exclusive 'Christian' things, and I think this sufficiently explains why you guys are constantly railing against the religious.

Pleased to meet you... yet again! As I have already pointed out, we have butted heads before. So most of this is not new to me. Not that I was especially curious to begin with. If atheists appear to be "hostile" to religion, that is because religion seeks to impose it's outdated ancient superstitious will on the rest of us. By force, in the case of radical Islamists. And politically, in the case of American Christianity. If you folks had chosen to stay in your churches and keep your superstitious nonsense to yourselves, we probably would not be having this conversation. But instead the American religious right has chosen to impose it's superstitious beliefs and values on the rest of society. Of course they have every right to do in our society. But once that occurred those religious beliefs became fair game. The beliefs and claims which drives the political agenda of the religious right are nonsense, and they are being summarily and systematically discredited as such. Which those of us in opposition have every right to do as well.

As for the problem of evil, perhaps I can help you with that. Evil DOES NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD. There, feel better? Evil it is not a tangible force, like say, gravity. It is a concept which is rooted in the mean and horrible things that humans do to each other. It occurs because some individuals believe that it is their right to physically impose their will on others.

Think about it for a moment. You're spending a huge portion of your time, both physically and mentally, obsessing and arguing about a being you don't even believe exists. Do you see me arguing about unicorns? Do you see me arguing about bigfoot? Do you see me obsessing about mermaids?

The number of my posts on this forum in the little over four years that I have been a member average out to about one a day. A relatively modest total, compared to some. And about half of what you have compiled during less time on the forum. Presumably we all find this to be entertaining, since it clearly is not all about the money we make for doing it. We apparently all find this satisfying at some level.

It's hard to experience ones entire world-view being completely overturned, isn't it?

You really think you have the skill and knowledge to overturn an entire worldview that has impacted the world tremendously. LOLOL. The only thing you've 'completely overturned' is your own argument. How is anyone supposed to know what your position is when you keep changing it?

What I am presenting here is not exactly Christianity 101 as taught in Sunday School, or Catechism, is it? It completely overturns the doctrinaire Christian assertions and Christian assumptions that each generation of Christian seeks to impregnate the next generation with. It exposes the myth of Christianity for the myth that it has always been, and causes you believers to face facts that you have been programmed to believe do not exist, and which you would rather not be confronted with. That's what I meant. I have no power to change what you choose to believe, but I can certainly expose the unfounded assertions and assumptions that your beliefs are predicated on as fallacious.

First of all, there is no "historical evidence" for ANY OF THIS.

Whether you like it or not the Gospels do count as historical evidence and they are the primary sources of information that ancient historians use to derive information about Jesus.

Whether you like it or not the Gospels represent religious doctrine predicated on supernatural assertions. None of which is to be found in association with the established historical record. Christian claims ARE NOT taught as factual history in the public schools and universities. Because they are religious beliefs.

The only source of information we have concerning the life and death of Jesus which anyone is willing to credit with the possibility of being potentially valid, are the four Gospels, written by the followers of Jesus decades after he was supposed to have died.

The fact that they were written only decades of Jesus' lifetime lends them an enourmous amount of credibility considering that many other texts documenting the lives of other ancient historical figures (such as Alexander the Great) were written centuries after his lifetime.

Much of what we think we know about history could very conceivably be wrong. And nothing ANYWHERE in the accepted historical record is predicated on the occurrence of the supernatural.

"Yes, the disciples did not have to 'steal' the body because they were legally entitled to it." We are both in full agreement here. The priests took control of Joseph's tomb sometime on Saturday. However the entrance was closed by a large boulder, and, given the nature of the holy day, THEY DID NOT INSPECT THE TOMB FOR THE BODY OF JESUS. The tomb proved in fact to be empty on Sunday morning. Just what the priests feared would occur. The basis for placing the guards at the tomb in the first place had in fact ALREADY OCCURRED. It is obvious to the exclusion to all REASONABLE doubt, that the tomb was ALREADY EMPTY WHEN THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF IT. Because the disciples did not wait several days to remove the body of Jesus from the tomb. It was likely only in the tomb for a matter of hours.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. What evidence do you have for this?

Will this do?

Matt. 27:
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Sounded like a conspiracy to the priests as well.

Or will you admit that it's just a made up hypothesis on your part to avoid positing the resurrection?

All of the points I presented to you are taken directly from scripture. Even you admit that the story of the resurrection is unbelievable. If it's possible to draw a natural explanation from the narrative at hand, then the story of the resurrection, already implausible, has no foundation to stand on. Because an empty grave and missing body are infinitely more likely to have been the result of actions taken by the living, then to have been the result of actions taken by the corpse. And the narrative clearly presents us with the most plausible LIVING suspects right at hand, complete with the means, motive and opportunity to have accomplished the task. Rejecting this conclusion has nothing to do with reason, logic or the facts at hand, and EVERYTHING to do with emotional need and pure blind faith.

If the tomb was empty from the beginning then why would first century scribes waste time devoting precious resources to inscribing made up narratives?

Because they were true believers, just like you, and not a part of any conspiracy.

If the tomb was empty from the beginning and the whole story was concocted then why do the narratives have women being the first ones to discover the empty tomb?

Perhaps because the women REALLY WERE the first to proclaim the empty tomb.

Additionally, why would the disciples willingly die horrible deaths for Christianity if this was all a convulted scheme?

Despite the fact that I have answered this point repeatedly, through the magic of cut and paste I can answer it as many times as you choose to ask it.

Taken from post 76 of this string:

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This contention would carry more weight if it were actually grounded in the facts. Acts 4 32-37 indicates that the disciples had it pretty darned good, traveling about telling stories of Jesus and living off the largess of their audience. Compared to the backbreaking and dangerous work of fishing, or that most dangerous of professions, tax collecting, this must have seemed like an extended vacation. Act 5:26-42 depicts them being arrested. But an influential Pharisee named Gamaliel defended them. What are they doing after all, but proclaiming a bodily resurrection from the dead. Something which the Pharisee firmly believe in, but which was denied by the Sadducee. And so to prevent conflict the disciples are set free with only a beating. Which they seem happy to take.

And so it continued for the disciples for a number of years, telling their stories of the risen Jesus in relative freedom. And then at the beginning of Chapter 12 James the brother of John is arrested and beheaded by Herod Agrippa. Peter is also arrested in chapter 12, but subsequently escapes. After his escape Peter decides to depart "into another place." In other words, discretion being the better part of valor, he took a powder. Most of the rest of the apostles, excepting Peter himself who does later return to Jerusalem, disappear from the narrative of Acts at this point as well, having chosen to also depart into other places. Chapter 12 of Acts ends with the death of Herod Agrippa. Herod Agrippa died in 44AD. Jesus was executed circa 27-30AD. So for some 14 years or so the apostles and other disciples went about telling stories of the risen Jesus rather remarkably free from serious interference. After chapter 12, most of the apostles disappear from the narrative, at which point Acts becomes mainly the Paul story. There is no scriptural affirmation of your claim that they died for something they knew to be untrue. The common stories of the various martyrs deaths suffered by the apostles is a product of the baseless assumption and unfounded traditions of later generations of Christians. Such traditions have no validity founded in historical fact. Like so much of Christian mythology, Roman guards at the tomb for example, you folks simply made it up, circulate it among yourselves, and then declare it to be true as a matter of common assumption dictated by what would necessarily have been true based on what surely must have been true.

Most of the stories of the violent martyrdoms experienced by the various apostles are derived from various works of the so called Apocrypha, which even the most ardent Christian scholars admit are nothing more than works of pure fiction and make believe. The actual fact however is that most of the apostles disappear from Acts after Chapter 12, and what actually became of them is unknown. Except in Christian make believe.

To be clear, your claim is that the tomb was just an entire charade. The disciples never intended to place Jesus' body in the tomb, they just got the tomb in order to make it seem like Jesus rose from the dead. In other words, the tomb was just part of this huge masterplan.

Joseph's new family crypt was used as a private place to wash and prepare the body of Jesus because it was conveniently "nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus was executed. It was never intended to be the final resting place for Jesus. Family crypts are for FAMILY members. Whether Joseph's crypt was intended to be used as a prop to provide the physical basis for the rumor of the "risen" Jesus right from the beginning, or if it just worked out that way as a matter of happenstance is impossible to say with any certainty. The apostles were away in Galilee for some six weeks before returning to Jerusalem. It may be that word reached them in Galilee that the empty tomb was generating much speculation about whether Jesus had risen from the dead, providing them with a perfect spring board to make that very claim. Remember, bodily resurrection from the dead was very much a part of the Pharisaic belief system. This may in fact have been when and where the idea of spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus first arose. On the other hand, the chief priests seemed to feel that such a plot existed right from the beginning. The only thing we can really say here with near perfect certainty is that the story they would tell was bogus because in reality corpses do not come back to life and then fly away.

Ok, so first, what evidence is there for this? Second, how does this deal with any of the historical problems I brought up? Third, don't you think this sounds a little bit far fetched and conspiratorial?

The "evidence" that I provided you is material taken directly from the Gospels and Acts. The "historical" problems that you brought up? Shall I address the "martyrdom of the apostles" yet again? There is no doubt that the story of the risen Jesus was being peddled by his followers by the second half of the first century. The Gospels attest to that. Do I think my natural explanation is more "far fetched" then your contention that the corpse came back to life and flew away, and more "conspiratorial" then the conspiracy which the Jewish priests believed at the time was already in play? Reconsider this question and then attempt to answer it honestly yourself.

So the entire Christian martyrdom that took place over the course of the first and second century didn't happen? There is no indication that the disciples were martyred? There is no indication that the disciples chose to preach Christianity in spite of Jewish and Roman persecution? Is this a joke?

The practice of Christianity was not a violation of Roman law at all during the time frame we are discussing here, circa 30's and 40's AD. That would be the time frame that Acts is concerned with. There is no indication, historically or in scripture, of Christians being generally persecuted by the Romans during this time frame. Persecution of all things Jewish began after the great fire in Rome which occurred in 64 AD, and became much more virulent after the Romans reconquered Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from the holy land in 70 AD. Christianity was still basically a Jewish splinter cult at this point. And certainly during the second and third centuries, Christian persecution was widespread. It depends on exactly who you would consider to be a Christian today of course.

[Danmark]

I disagree that NO one would die for a belief he knew to be untrue. People are simply more complex than that. People are willing to die for what they WANT to be true, even tho' they have their doubts. Who are you to decree what they actually believed?
People are more complex than that. People get psychologically cornered all the time and go on rants or worse defending positions that in their private, quiet moments they have grave doubts about. Sometimes those very doubts provide the fuel for their over the top arguments.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with people being uncertain about their beliefs. I'm sure that many people would be willing to die for a belief that they're uncertain and unsure about. But, do you know anyone in your personal life who would be willing to undergo crucifixion or be thrown into a den of lions for a belief that they absolutely knew to be a flat out lie? Because that is my claim. Somebody would not die a gruesome death for something they knew was a lie.

One of the things that made Wm. Shakespeare such an amazing writer is that he understood the complexity of human emotion and the contradictory nature of motivation. This truth is found in much of what he wrote. What comes to mind is the famous line from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

When did I deny that humans are complex creatures? The point I'm trying to make is that we can make draw certain conclusions about human behavior using the social sciences. Human behavior is the underlying foundation for all the social sciences, and using this body of knowledge we can say for certain that humans are rational, self interested creatures. We are rational in the sense that we make cogent decisions that maximize satisfaction and utlity. Dying for a lie is not a rational, cogent decision nor does it provide the person with any satisfication or utility therefore it's safe to say that the disciples genuinely and sincerely believed Jesus' rose from the dead and did not steal the body.

In short, dying for one's beliefs adds no weight whatsoever for the truth of those beliefs.

I think you would look at this issue differently if you approached it from a more personal standpoint. I don't know if you have any children, but let's say that you have a son. Your son comes to you and tells you about how he was abducted by aliens one night. You, being an intelligent human being, obviously disregard his claim (I would do the same). But, let's say he's continues claiming that he was abducted by aliens and eventually his school and all your friends and associates get fed up with his nonsensical claims and threanten to kill him unless he stops. But you son doesn't stop and persists with his alien abduction claim. Finally, everyone in your city gives him one last chance to stop or else they'll all crucify him. Even in spite of their threats he continues on and asa result you all have him crucified. Now obviously we don't live in such a barbaric civilization and our first instinct wouldn't be to crucify him, but to instead get him psychiatric help. But, let's say that this did happen. You son died a painful death for a totally absurd claim. You wouldn't take a minute to look yourself in the mirror and ask why? Why would my son die for this? If he just made it up why would he take it this far? Why wouldn't he just admit he lied?

It as not uncommon for a person to have a 'fixed delusion' and otherwise appear normal. Psychiatrists counsel such patients to simply not announce their delusion to others because they will lose jobs and otherwise suffer socially.

An example of a very common fixed delusion is the belief some have that a particular human being is actually a 'God.' Some of these folks have even faced gruesome deaths, including by crucifixion. Yet these deluded people have clung to their delusions even knowing they faced just such a death.

To the deluded one, his belief is actually true and he may very well be willing to die for it. As has been demonstrated to you with abundant clarity, this willingness to die for one's beliefs is not affected by the fact the beliefs are a delusion, and the fact one is willing to die for his delusion does not make the delusion a reality.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 93:

...
To the deluded one, his belief is actually true and he may very well be willing to die for it. As has been demonstrated to you with abundant clarity, this willingness to die for one's beliefs is not affected by the fact the beliefs are a delusion, and the fact one is willing to die for his delusion does not make the delusion a reality.
...

Good point.

We can also look at it from the point of those who would kill for their beliefs. Should we be more confident in religious claims when one is willing to kill for 'em?

Who here is upset they weren't included at Jonestown?

[WinePusher]

True, I'm not really that great at understanding nonsense. And trust me, the way you're constantly shifting the goalposts and changing your positions doesn't make it any easier. One minute you're complaing about the truth of my facts and then another minute you're admitting that they are indeed facts. Make up your mind.

This is a particularly amusing charge, both to me personally, and I am certain, to the audience at hand, since I have been riding EXACTLY this same argument Ad nauseam for the entire four years that I have been a member of this forum. It's the same argument I have been using most of my adult life, in point of fact. Nothing that I have posted to you has wavered one jot from that argument. Your protests have the odd effect of making you appear almost shell shocked and experiencing some sort of a disconnect.

I have absolutely no interest in reading all the posts you've written over the past four years. I've only read the posts you've written in this thread, and you've been flip flopping like crazy and changing your position every chance you get. First you were complaining about how my facts aren't facts. And when you were pressed on it you later admitted that you actually agree with my facts. If you don't want to cause anymore confusion then try being a little bit more clear.

You don't know anything about me (THANK GOD) so I think it'd be best for you to refrain from making these clueless, ignorant, uninformed statements. Since you seem to be so curious about my past (only God knows why) I'll give you a little synopsis. I used to be an atheist and my only tie to religion was through an exgirlfriend I once had who was Buddhist. And in order to cozy up to her I started doing the whole Buddhist thing too. I didn't believe in any God and had a particular problem with Christian doctrines regarding hell and struggled with the problem of evil. But overtime, through a combination of academic philosophical readings and personal experiences with my Lord, I became enlightened and converted to Catholicism, a decision I've never once regreted. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why atheists are so hostile to religion and religious believers? Christianity provides a unique type of hope and love that has transformed communities, nations and individual lives. Atheists cannot enjoy all these exclusive 'Christian' things, and I think this sufficiently explains why you guys are constantly railing against the religious.

Pleased to meet you... yet again! As I have already pointed out, we have butted heads before.

Yea, not really. I'm sure we butted heads once or twice but I don't really remember debating that much.

If atheists appear to be "hostile" to religion, that is because religion seeks to impose it's outdated ancient superstitious will on the rest of us. By force, in the case of radical Islamists. And politically, in the case of American Christianity.

I agree with you about radical Islam. As for America, the same is true for every single other special interest group. Feminists seek to impose feminism on 'the rest of us.' Socialists seek to impose socialism on 'the rest of us.' Libertarians seek to impose liberty on 'the rest of us.' Atheists seek to impose atheism on 'the rest of us.' Christians seek to impose Christianity on 'the rest of us.' Why are you only complaining about Christians? Every single person that votes is essentially seeking to impose an agenda or belief system on the rest of society. The way this can be prevented is by ensuring that the government doesn't have the means or power to implement other people's belief systems and enact them into law.

If you folks had chosen to stay in your churches and keep your superstitious nonsense to yourselves, we probably would not be having this conversation. But instead the American religious right has chosen to impose it's superstitious beliefs and values on the rest of society. Of course they have every right to do in our society. But once that occurred those religious beliefs became fair game. The beliefs and claims which drives the political agenda of the religious right are nonsense, and they are being summarily and systematically discredited as such. Which those of us in opposition have every right to do as well.

I never said you don't have the right to engage in political debate about social issues. It's one thing to argue about religious institutions and the American religious right, but it's another thing entirely to be arguing and obsessing about an entity that you don't believe exists. I think it's perfectly fine for atheists to argue and spend time fighting Christians who want to prevent gays from getting married, or who want to impose creation science in public schools. Those are legitimate issues to be concerned about. But, it's weird, creepy and somewhat sad to have tons of atheists arguing and obsessing about something they don't believe in. Like I said, I don't waste my life arguing and obsessing about unicorns, fairys or bigfoot.

As for the problem of evil, perhaps I can help you with that. Evil DOES NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD. There, feel better? Evil it is not a tangible force, like say, gravity. It is a concept which is rooted in the mean and horrible things that humans do to each other. It occurs because some individuals believe that it is their right to physically impose their will on others.

It doesn't seem like you're aware of any of the philosophical scholarship that's gone into studying the problem of evil (theodicy). Evil does exist in the real world and philsophers have categorized evil into two sets: moral evil (evil committed by humans) and natural evil (evil committed by nature). And you think evil occurs because some individuals believe that it is their right to impose their will onto others? Is this really your definition of evil? I hope you're joking since voting would qualify as an evil act under your absurd definition.

Think about it for a moment. You're spending a huge portion of your time, both physically and mentally, obsessing and arguing about a being you don't even believe exists. Do you see me arguing about unicorns? Do you see me arguing about bigfoot? Do you see me obsessing about mermaids?

The number of my posts on this forum in the little over four years that I have been a member average out to about one a day. A relatively modest total, compared to some. And about half of what you have compiled during less time on the forum. Presumably we all find this to be entertaining, since it clearly is not all about the money we make for doing it. We apparently all find this satisfying at some level.

Yes, and that's what I find weird. I don't understand why you find this satisfying and entertaining when you don't believe in it. Do I find arguing about the existence of unicorns and fairys to be satisfying and entertaining? No. Yet, you find arguing about the existence of God (a being you don't believe in) to be satisfying and entertaining.

You really think you have the skill and knowledge to overturn an entire worldview that has impacted the world tremendously. LOLOL. The only thing you've 'completely overturned' is your own argument. How is anyone supposed to know what your position is when you keep changing it?

What I am presenting here is not exactly Christianity 101 as taught in Sunday School, or Catechism, is it? It completely overturns the doctrinaire Christian assertions and Christian assumptions that each generation of Christian seeks to impregnate the next generation with. It exposes the myth of Christianity for the myth that it has always been, and causes you believers to face facts that you have been programmed to believe do not exist, and which you would rather not be confronted with. That's what I meant. I have no power to change what you choose to believe, but I can certainly expose the unfounded assertions and assumptions that your beliefs are predicated on as fallacious.

I'm sure I would pause and re-evaluate my belief if I was presented with a compelling argument or thesis. I considerd the late Christopher Hitchens to be the best atheist intellectual in all of history and much of what he said and wrote caused me to re-examine my views (and even caused me to abandon some beliefs all together). But the same isn't true with your argument. Sure, what you're saying obviously isn't in sync with Christianity. But your argument is tantamount to the ravings of a conspiracy theorist like Dan Brown. I don't find conspiracy theories compelling or persuasive. I'm sure many of your fellow atheist friends on here do, but I don't.

Whether you like it or not the Gospels do count as historical evidence and they are the primary sources of information that ancient historians use to derive information about Jesus.

Whether you like it or not the Gospels represent religious doctrine predicated on supernatural assertions. None of which is to be found in association with the established historical record. Christian claims ARE NOT taught as factual history in the public schools and universities. Because they are religious beliefs.

Never said otherwise. But you did dodge the point though. The Gospels are the primary sources of information that historians use to derive information about Jesus. Even the Jesus Seminar, which represents the far left of the biblical scholarship community, realizes that there are many pieces of information within the Gospels that are accurate and liekly to have happened. My claim in the topic was that the Gospels are semi-reliable, and biblical scholarship agrees with this position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that there is nothing in the New Testament that can be correlate with the established historical record. In other words there's no truth to be found in the New Testament. Sorry, but this view has no intellectual support for it.

The fact that they were written only decades of Jesus' lifetime lends them an enourmous amount of credibility considering that many other texts documenting the lives of other ancient historical figures (such as Alexander the Great) were written centuries after his lifetime.

Much of what we think we know about history could very conceivably be wrong. And nothing ANYWHERE in the accepted historical record is predicated on the occurrence of the supernatural.

Way to dodge the point again. You, for some reason, decided to add the fact that the Gospels were written decades after the events. Many other atheists do the same so I assume it must be a cherished talking point among you guys. Well, the fact that the Gospels were only written decades after the event lends them greater credibility. In other cases (such as the biographies of Alexander the Great) the texts themselves were written centuries after the event, and since decades are shorter than centuries, the Gospels would actually be considered more reliable than those other texts. So do you realize that the Gospels being written only decades after the fact is a positive piece of information that helps establish their credibility?

"Yes, the disciples did not have to 'steal' the body because they were legally entitled to it." We are both in full agreement here. The priests took control of Joseph's tomb sometime on Saturday. However the entrance was closed by a large boulder, and, given the nature of the holy day, THEY DID NOT INSPECT THE TOMB FOR THE BODY OF JESUS. The tomb proved in fact to be empty on Sunday morning. Just what the priests feared would occur. The basis for placing the guards at the tomb in the first place had in fact ALREADY OCCURRED. It is obvious to the exclusion to all REASONABLE doubt, that the tomb was ALREADY EMPTY WHEN THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF IT. Because the disciples did not wait several days to remove the body of Jesus from the tomb. It was likely only in the tomb for a matter of hours.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. What evidence do you have for this?

Will this do?

Matt. 27:
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Sounded like a conspiracy to the priests as well.

What does this have to do with anything? Your claim is that the disciples kept the body and never put it in the tomb to begin with. Where is the evidence for this? The verse from Matthew 27 does not support your claim at all.

Or will you admit that it's just a made up hypothesis on your part to avoid positing the resurrection?

All of the points I presented to you are taken directly from scripture. Even you admit that the story of the resurrection is unbelievable.

In terms of science it is. Not in terms of history.

If it's possible to draw a natural explanation from the narrative at hand, then the story of the resurrection, already implausible, has no foundation to stand on.

The natural explanation you've presented here isn't historically viable. Which is why I said that only at face value does your explanation trump the resurrection. When you take background information into account your hypothesis lsoes more and more credibility.

If the tomb was empty from the beginning then why would first century scribes waste time devoting precious resources to inscribing made up narratives?

Because they were true believers, just like you, and not a part of any conspiracy.

I think you have it backwards. If the whole resurrection narrative was a concocted lie then they were not 'true believers.' The only case where the disciples and apostles would have been 'true believers' woul dbe if Jesus actually did rise from the dead and appear to them. This event would have caused them to genuinely and sincerely believe in Jesus' divinity even to the point of death. But if we're using your conspiracy theory scenario then there would have been no 'true believers.'

Additionally, why would the disciples willingly die horrible deaths for Christianity if this was all a convulted scheme?

Despite the fact that I have answered this point repeatedly, through the magic of cut and paste I can answer it as many times as you choose to ask it.

Taken from post 76 of this string:

You've answered this point by ignoring the facts? You think writing off all of ancient history strengthens your case? Since you're citing Acts I'm sure you're aware of the martydom of Stephen, which is explicitly stated in Acts. I'm sure you're also aware about the reigns of the Roman Emperors Diocletian, Domition and Nero. I'm also sure you're aware about the great fire of Jerusalem that was primarily blamed on the Christians and caused further tensions to break out between Jews and Christians. Or, are you just going to deny all these facts just because they're inconvient and cut against your beliefs?

So the entire Christian martyrdom that took place over the course of the first and second century didn't happen? There is no indication that the disciples were martyred? There is no indication that the disciples chose to preach Christianity in spite of Jewish and Roman persecution? Is this a joke?

The practice of Christianity was not a violation of Roman law at all during the time frame we are discussing here, circa 30's and 40's AD.

That really doesn't matter. All that matters is that the disciples in question died cruel deaths for their beliefs.

[Ooberman]

That really doesn't matter. All that matters is that the disciples in question died cruel deaths for their beliefs.

This is another great lie of Christianity.

There is no evidence the disciples died a cruel death for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

Everyone knows this except those people of such low character as to regurgitate it.


There is no evidence any of them died for their beliefs. They may have died with their beliefs, but in order for Christians to claim they died for their belief that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, they would need court transcripts that have the disciples saying just that.

There are no such records.


Now, I expect apologists to hem and haw and obfuscate, then when he researches it, he will regurgitate a few references to Fox's Book of Martyrs (written in 1563) and then a few other traditional tales with no support..

Then when he realizes I'm right, he will stop making the claim for a little while, and then, when he feels he can get away with it again, he'll repeat the oft-told lie that "all the disciples died for their belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus".

It's the lowest and scummiest thing I've seen, because it only takes a few seconds to disprove the claim, but Christians don't care.

They simply don't care if they lie for their religion.

[WinePusher]

That really doesn't matter. All that matters is that the disciples in question died cruel deaths for their beliefs.

This is another great lie of Christianity.

There is no evidence the disciples died a cruel death for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

Uh why should anyone believe you? You've clearly demonstrated that you know nothing about this topic so why are you still here? At least Tired of the Nonsense has shown he understands what he's talking, and despite his flip flopping he has a good grasp of New Testament studies and isn't totally ignorant of the topic at hand.

Everyone knows this except those people of such low character as to regurgitate it.

Reported . Besides why should anyone care about your uninformed opinions?

There is no evidence any of them died for their beliefs. They may have died with their beliefs, but in order for Christians to claim they died for their belief that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, they would need court transcripts that have the disciples saying just that.

There are no such records.

Please, take the time to actually read and learn about the issue you're trying to debate. Go read a New Testament textbook, go listen to some lectures by New Testament scholars and then come back and try again when you're better educated.

Now, I expect winepusher to hem and haw and obfuscate, then when he researches it, he will regurgitate a few references to Fox's Book of Martyrs (written in 1563) and then a few other traditional tales with no support..

Then when he realizes I'm right, he will stop making the claim for a little while, and then, when he feels he can get away with it again, he'll repeat the oft-told lie that "all the disciples died for their belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus".

First of all you haven't disproved anything. All you've done is whine and complain and get mad because no one's taking you seriously. Nearly all of what you've written in this thread is just factually incorrect and demonstrates no understanding of the topic at hand.

It's the lowest and scummiest thing I've seen, because it only takes a few seconds to disprove the claim, but Christians don't care.

Uh yea, why should I care about your uneducated, uninformed opinions?

They simply don't care if they lie for their religion.

No, what I don't care about is your opinions. Why can't you understand this? Your opinions are worthless because you know nothing about the topic. At least Tired of the Nonsense's opinions and theories have some worth because he's smart.

[Ooberman]

That really doesn't matter. All that matters is that the disciples in question died cruel deaths for their beliefs.

This is another great lie of Christianity.

There is no evidence the disciples died a cruel death for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

Uh why should anyone believe you? You've clearly demonstrated that you know nothing about this topic so why are you still here? At least Tired of the Nonsense has shown he understands what he's talking, and despite his flip flopping he has a good grasp of New Testament studies and isn't totally ignorant of the topic at hand.

Everyone knows this except those people of such low character as to regurgitate it.

Reported . Besides why should anyone care about your uninformed opinions?

There is no evidence any of them died for their beliefs. They may have died with their beliefs, but in order for Christians to claim they died for their belief that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, they would need court transcripts that have the disciples saying just that.

There are no such records.

Please, take the time to actually read and learn about the issue you're trying to debate. Go read a New Testament textbook, go listen to some lectures by New Testament scholars and then come back and try again when you're better educated.

Now, I expect winepusher to hem and haw and obfuscate, then when he researches it, he will regurgitate a few references to Fox's Book of Martyrs (written in 1563) and then a few other traditional tales with no support..

Then when he realizes I'm right, he will stop making the claim for a little while, and then, when he feels he can get away with it again, he'll repeat the oft-told lie that "all the disciples died for their belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus".

First of all you haven't disproved anything. All you've done is whine and complain and get mad because no one's taking you seriously. Nearly all of what you've written in this thread is just factually incorrect and demonstrates no understanding of the topic at hand.

It's the lowest and scummiest thing I've seen, because it only takes a few seconds to disprove the claim, but Christians don't care.

Uh yea, why should I care about your uneducated, uninformed opinions?

They simply don't care if they lie for their religion.

No, what I don't care about is your opinions. Why can't you understand this? Your opinions are worthless because you know nothing about the topic. At least Tired of the Nonsense's opinions and theories have some worth because he's smart.

Wow, want some cheese with that whine?

How about you mention ONE disciple and what he did or didn't recant at his death..


Just prove me wrong, quick, whinepusher.


This is as I prophesized. Apologists will hem and haw, create a lot of light without heat, and then, finally see I am telling the absolute truth:


THERE IS NO RECORD OF WHAT THE DISCIPLES DID OR DID NOT RECANT AT THEIR DEATHS.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

This is a question of perspective.

When we say "fact", we mean that something can be demonstrated (by our own means) as true.

Keep in mind that "our own means" are limited. We can never make factual claims for things as big as a universe. That's just arrogant.

[Ooberman]

What this perpetuated lie (that "no one would die for a known lie") is akin to is saying the 9-11 animals died without recanting their belief in the literal ascension of Mohammed.

They clearly could have died because of brainwashing, or political motivations, and not a belief in some supernatural fairy tale.

Until a Christian finds a court document of what the apostles said, they should do the right thing and stop lying.

Notice, though, they won't. It's too good a story to fool people not willing to question the claims of Christians.