Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[Divine Insight]

In 13 years of internet debating, I've never yet seen an atheist or nonchristian give a plausible answer to the question- "What would have been the Bible writers MOTIVE for making it all up?"

I don't believe that you have never yet seen an atheist or non-christian give a plausible answer to the question you've pose. My guess it that you are simply in denial of their very intelligent and rational answers to that question.

To begin with it would be no different from asking, "What would have been the motivation for making up the Qur'an?"

Can you answer that question? If so, then you should easily see motivations for the authors of the Bible. In fact, the people of the Far East see all of the Abrahamic religions as nothing more than tribes of the Middle East each trying to own the copyright on "God".

My answer to your question is simple. The first obvious motivation is the same for every religion in the region - Superstition!

No doubt many of these people actually believed in their superstitions. However, in the case of the Bible as these superstitions grew they also took on Political Agendas. In fact, that happened early on in the Old Testament, but it became extremely political in the New Testament and with the rise of Christianity. Christianity was indeed used as a very strong political machine. There can be no doubt about that.

So there is no mystery why these things became what they are. And the motivations for them are obvious. The mere fact that you think this would be a difficult question to answer seems silly to me. That's your own personal problem there.

For the rest of us it's not a problem at all. And I'm sure that if you've been debating atheists for 13 years you've heard many great answers to this question. For you to claim that you've never heard a plausible answer to this question is extremely questionable. In fact, I hold that if that is indeed your claim after 13 years of debating atheists then you either aren't listening to what they are even saying, or you are in extreme denial of the truths that they speak.

[Hamsaka]

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Roman tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that Julius Caesar was stabbed by a team of conspirators?

Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting this basic belief about Roman history must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it"?

I'll take your word for what you say you ate for lunch yesterday, because eating lunch is not an extraordinary feat. I'll look at you askance if you claim you flew from LA to Newark airport after you ate lunch.

The assassination or attempt to it of a Roman emperor is not as prosaic as 'what Paprika ate for lunch yesterday', but it is still not particularly extraordinary, like you flying across the US.

The OP gives a list of crucially extraordinary claims lacking any evidential support whatsoever. Your question is not relevant to the topic, and could be described as a typical dodge, a category fallacy, and answering a question with another question in hopes of shifting the heat away from an honest answer.

See? No straight answers.

Irrelevant.

What 'verifiable evidence' of such a alleged 'ordinary' historical event in ancient history, (with no physical evidence remaining (eg monuments)) can be produced when all the sources are ruled out? None.

Precisely correct. And, irrelevant again. This thread has a topic we should stick to. In an attempt to recast your post as actually addressing the OP, I brought in the reasoned, rational process of accepting 'ordinary' versus 'extraordinary' claims, and necessity of a different approach to each. In your first post, you appeared to be attempting to equivocate 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary', a common fallacy proposed by theists who rationally understand the difference but due to pride or confusion, cannot acknowledge it.

And yet even though such alleged 'ordinary' events can't been proven or supported by 'verifiable evidence' under '"no sources allowed" conditions' you demand that others prove alleged 'extraordinary' events (eg. the resurrection) in such a fashion. What a hoot.

Dreary and boring on this end . When such 'ordinary' events such as the assassination of Julius Caesar can be conflated with the miracle of a god writing a Bible, or making himself born of a virgin, or sacrificed for the blood atonement of your sins and mine, then you may have a point.

The Bible isn't considered sufficient evidence for the claims it makes for obvious reasons. The Bible is itself a claim, and remains largely unsupported even in its 'ordinary' claims, such as the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. If the Bible claims of ordinary events can be shown to be nothing more than the moral justifications of the writers (false, in other words), then the Bible's extraordinary claims (miracles, suspension of the laws of physics) suffer an even worse fate in debate.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Jesus was anything more than human? None

The impression he left on humanity(the world), goes well beyond that of any natural human in history.

From a believing Christian point of view, of course Jesus pops out as having huge significance.

Jesus is not known to most of the people alive today on Planet Earth, except perhaps in a comparative religion course in Uttar Pradesh (university in India). Your response is Christian-o-centric, and is not 'true' beyond Christianity.

Humans possess a soul? None

Do you contend that you do not have a life force that is not of the physical ? The little voice inside your head, your inner energy that drives you to persevere ? We all have an aura, that can change with our mood. This life force inside you , that drives you , the inner voice , this is your soul. Your inner self that you are more aware of than any other. This life force , could be fulfilled , or lacking , this life force surely should be able to extend beyond the physical, as it is not physical, you can not touch your inner self .

I've been raised to believe I have a soul or spirit that manifests . . . somewhere, in my body, just around it . . .? I even 'like' the idea, to be honest, but I'm imaginative to a fault. When it gets right down to it, a spirit or soul cannot be shown to exist, in the manner we are able to show that other things exist -- including immaterial things. So far, it appears to be a faith-based belief rather than something that actually exists.

An afterlife exists? None

Should this be proven the whole point of Christianity would become moot.

Why? Was the basis of Jesus' message and life about making sure you get to the Afterlife? I realize how important this idea is to Christians, and that of all the doctrines, may be the one most counted on by Christians to help them make sense of and tolerate the bad things that happen to everyone.

Anyway, I'm going to say that not all Christians would agree their religion is 'moot' without the doctrine of an afterlife. Perhaps this is true for you, as is Jesus being the most significant human being (or part human) person to have walked the earth.

[Zzyzx]

.

Jesus was anything more than human? None

The impression he left on humanity(the world), goes well beyond that of any natural human in history.

All that is known about the impression made by Jesus is that a few devotees seem to have been impressed by tales about him. No one else seems to have noticed and no contemporary historians or chroniclers left records about "miraculous" feats for us to examine.

Christianity derives from the efforts of promoters such as Paul/Saul and gospel writers – and later Roman officials and churchmen.

Humans possess a soul? None

Do you contend that you do not have a life force that is not of the physical ?

I make no such contention. Instead, I ask those who propose such things to demonstrate that I (generic for we) possess or exhibit any force that is not of our own making.

The little voice inside your head,

I do NOT hear voices in my head (and do not have "visions" or hallucinations).

your inner energy that drives you to persevere ?

My inner energy derives from my own mental processes, including determination. If anyone contends that something else is involved, I invite them to demonstrate that such "energy" or forces affect me.

I am open to consider that possibility when someone presents credible, verifiable information.

We all have an aura, that can change with our mood.

Humans and other animals emit electromagnetic radiation as a function of life processes

This life force inside you , that drives you , the inner voice , this is your soul.

Is this to claim that my "soul" is my brain / mind / personality?

Your inner self that you are more aware of than any other. This life force , could be fulfilled , or lacking , this life force surely should be able to extend beyond the physical, as it is not physical, you can not touch your inner self .

I do not engage in flights of imagination, fantasy or conjecture.

An afterlife exists? None

Should this be proven the whole point of Christianity would become moot.

Is this to say that if an "afterlife" is proved to exist Christianity would become moot – or is it to say if "afterlife" was proved to NOT exist that would be the case?

If the latter, seeking proof of non-existence is a fool's errand and any requests for such are equally foolish. Instead, those who proclaim that an afterlife does exist are asked to show credible, verifiable evidence that they speak truth.

I do not disagree with a contention that if an afterlife does not exist Christianity is rendered moot (or false). Thus, the validity of Christianity rests upon the unverified assumption / conjecture / opinion that an afterlife exists.

[DanieltheDragon]

In 13 years of internet debating, I've never yet seen an atheist or nonchristian give a plausible answer to the question- "What would have been the Bible writers MOTIVE for making it all up?"
Instead they simply chant the mantra below over and over again (yawn)..

Genesis- LIES!
[...]
Revelation-LIES!

Why misrepresent your experience as this has been addressed at length with you specifically. You even answered this question yourself with regard to testimony.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28382
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28381
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

[DanieltheDragon]

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Roman tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that Julius Caesar was stabbed by a team of conspirators?

Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting this basic belief about Roman history must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it"?

I like that you open up with a no straight answer response. The story of Julius Caesar's death is rather dubious. Even most people's surface knowledge is dependent on a quip from a playwright.

Why sidetrack the discussion though. The point is that most people don't claim this story as factual. The problem one runs into is when someone is asserting something as fact.

Take for example Dropship's assertion that the gospels are written by the disciples as a fact. Yet provides no evidence to establish its veracity. So if you want to assert your beliefs are fact then I am going to want to see the evidence. Not a song and dance around Julius Caesar.

[ttruscott]

I suppose a straight answer could be that, like the a blind cannot know light, the unspiritual cannot perceive spiritual things, if we are to believe the Bible, one of the source books about spiritual life anyway.

[DanieltheDragon]

I suppose a straight answer could be that, like the a blind cannot know light, the unspiritual cannot perceive spiritual things, if we are to believe the Bible, one of the source books about spiritual life anyway.

So a straight answer is we are incapable of believing any of your claims on the bible?

Makes debate and evangelist type work equivalent to running on a treadmill huh?

[Zzyzx]

.

In 13 years of internet debating, I've never yet seen an atheist or nonchristian give a plausible answer to the question- "What would have been the Bible writers MOTIVE for making it all up?"
Instead they simply chant the mantra below over and over again (yawn).

Boredom noted. Perhaps closer attention to what is actually said would relieve that problem -- though actual arguments are more difficult to address than are straw men.

Criticism of Bible tales is generally NOT in the form of accusation that Bible writers were lying. In fact, I do not recall that argument being presented more than once in a great while.

Instead, what IS said is that Bible tales cannot be shown to be anything more than folklore, legend, fable, and/or myth passed down for decades or generations before being recorded by religion promoters who cannot be shown to have had ANY personal knowledge of the events and conversations about which they write. Their sources of information are unknown and unverifiable and even the identity of Bible writers is unknown to or disputed by theologians and scholars.

As most of us are aware, stories passed orally from person to person over and over can be expected to depart from the original (often quite substantially). No one need LIE for stories to become exaggerated, distorted, embellished, extended (deliberately or inadvertently) with possibility / probability of misunderstandings, inaccurate memory, additions, etc over time.

Tales (folklore) about Paul Bunyan and John Henry (and other figures from literature) may have begun as truthful stories about exceptional characters. After many re-telling there may still be a kernel of truth in wildly exaggerated tales. There is no sound reason to declare that exactly the same did NOT happen in the case of stories about a wandering preacher named Jesus (or something comparable).

[Danmark]

In 13 years of internet debating, I've never yet seen an atheist or nonchristian give a plausible answer to the question- "What would have been the Bible writers MOTIVE for making it all up?"

Wrong! This question has been answered many times by many people.

It is nothing more than the "trilemma" question asked once again.

Just because someone believes something that is not true does not imply they have a suspicious motive. Many Republicans apparently believe giving up control of the economy to the biggest corporations and the richest fraction of 1% is good for everyone. This is an absurd idea, but it is believed by good and honest people despite how ridiculous it is.

Certainly some who make up religious claims may have bad motives like gaining power, control, or money, but one need not assume a bad motive. People are sincerely wrong on a daily basis. For every winner on Wall Street, there is a loser.

If one particular religion is "true" than all the others are false. This does not mean the others are all liars or charlatans. They are just wrong.

Some people have irrational or crazy motives for pushing some belief or ideology. This does not mean they are insincere; they are just wrong.

In short, there are many reasons why someone would promote a silly story, other than for personal gain. Which is not to say personal gain may not be a motive. Franklin Graham is paid a salary of $1,200,000 per year to promote his cause.

Graham acknowledged last week that his compensation total "looks terrible" and that "people won't understand it."

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.s ... addre.html