There are many things which can not be proven to be true. This is especially true in regards to history. So yes it just you. I have no trouble accepting things like the Gettysburg address, WW2, Columbus discovering America and a whole bunch of other things from the past, all of which can be denied if you simply assume a position of disbelief before examining evidence for or against as well as sources, intentions, ulterior motives, outside source material and other things which should be weighed before making a decision.
I see. So if I believe that Lincoln made a speech decreeing all slaves free, the same logic can be used to justify a belief that thousands of years ago, a man named Jesus walked on water, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven?
You see nothing logically wrong with this summation?
Historians accept the Gettysburg Address, WW2, and Columbus because they are historically founded. We have multiple (even thousands) of
reliable first hand accounts, undeniable archeological evidence, and in the case of the Gettysburg Address, the original manuscript.
On the other hand, no credible historian will attest to the fantastical happenings described in the Bible. Many do not even think that Jesus' very existence is historically founded. We don't know where this book came from. We don't know when it was written. We don't know who wrote it. We don't know if the people claiming to have written it ever even existed. We don't know how many times it has been manipulated and altered over the years, and in what way.
And yet, you claim that we should accept it as historical knowledge, along with proven events such as the Civil War and Columbus' voyage?
This is the fundamental downfall of the atheist regarding miracles. They deny the possibility based on their preconceptions. Then when a source supporting said events is put forth, they need to deny it because of their preconceptions.
No. I deny such a source because it is wholly rediculous, baseless, unfounded, incoherent, and inconsistent with established historical fact.
I wonder- do you give every other book the same undying blind faith that you give the Bible? If I claimed to have ridden my tricycle to the moon on my 5th birthday, would you question my truthfullness?
Jesus can make whatever inane claims he wants. Until he demonstrates the accuracy of those claims, no one can logically accept him as their personal savior.
Well, none exists, of course.
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing that your demand of our proving miracles beyond any shadow of a doubt is illogical.
Demanding that you prove
anything beyond a shadow of a doubt is illogical. There is nothing of which we can be certain, but a good number of things of which we can be pretty sure.
Show me a man walking on water (or more signifigantly, a god capable of impowering such a feat), and I can be
pretty sure that miracles do indeed exist.
However, pointing to an unreliable religious text that merely
claims that such things took place is not going to do it for me.
Forget the Bible. Either show me God, or walk to Japan. Take your pick.
Granted. However there are other sources of information on God. In order to dismiss God outright, the witness accounts of Jesus (both his followers and enemies) would need to be shown to contain massive errors.
I don't need to do ANYTHING to dismiss God outright.
YOU need to do quite a bit to
prove him.
Unless I am mistaken, the biblical contradictions thread failed to present a single contradiction which endangered any major area of Christian beliefs.
"Christian beliefs"? Exactly what beliefs are those? Catholic beliefs? Orthodox beliefs? Baptist? Later Day Saints?
Until Christians can decide just what Christ taught, we can hardly label any belief as being "Christian".
I don't need to demonstrate a contradiction between Jesus' teachings. Christians do that themselves.
No I do not think that there should be a higher demand placed on evidence of religion. I think it should fall under the exact same rules as other historical events.
Jim Bob claims that yesterday, he read a book.
Billy Joe claims to have been adbucted by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, whisked away 10,000 galaxies, and anally probed by a pink winged unicorn wearing a ski mask.
I write a testimony for each person attesting to their feats. Which testimony do you think will hold up in a court of law? Which would be more likely to make it's way into a history textbook?
If the non-theist must administer higher standards to exclude evidence presented by Theists then I think your demands actually lend us a great complement and high credibility. We require our own level of examination to be disproved. Outstanding!!
It's not so much that you have to present a higher standard of proof. You just happen to have more facets of the issue to prove.
When Jim Bob claims to have read a book, a reliable written testimony is all that is needed, because it has all ready been established that it is indeed possible for a person to read a book.
Billy Joe, on the other hand, has a bit more on his plate. Not only must he provide a witness, he must also:
(1) Prove the existence of this "Flying Spaghetti Monster"
(2) Prove that there is technology available to allow for intergalactical travel.
(3) Prove the existence of flying pink unicorns, ect
The same problem exists with Jesus. It has not been proven that walking on water is possible. The God that brought about this event has never been proven to exist. If Historians allowed for "equal treatment" of all claims, just think of the crap our textbooks would be littered with.
There were no scientific "experts" in Jesus' time, of course. Even more reason to be skeptical of those who claim to have seen his miracles (if any such people actually exist).
You were the one who wrote this
I think that this particular point of his really rings true, because we know that even most experts in Jesus' time did not believe in his miracles (besides the ones who actually saw them... or so the Bible says).
Are you not contradiction yourself here? Please explain.
In the first quote, I claimed that there were "experts" during Jesus' time.
In the second, I denied the existence of any such experts.
However, this is not a contradiction. How? Because it is a miracle; I have made two statements that explicitly defy the principles of the English language, yet these statements remain inerrant. Why? Because I said so.
Based on your standards of historical inquiry, you have no choice but to accept this.
