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 world’s 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?

[The Me's]

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

There's no rational reason to demand evidence of this kind.

The gospels relate eye-witness accounts. You may choose to believe them or not, but you may not choose whether they stand as legitimate until you have something of equal or greater authority contradicting them.

Your standard of evidence, that "court documents" must be found to confirm an historic claim, MUST force you to reject all history. None of it meets this threshold.

[WinePusher]

Wow, want some cheese with that whine?

You're projecting again. The only person whining here is you, and it's understandable. If I didn't have anything intelligent to say I'd probably whine and complain too.

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

Just prove me wrong, quick, whinepusher.

Since when did it become my job to educate you? Are you so lazy that you're unwilling to read a simple New Testament textbook or do you just enjoy being ignorant?

The martydom of the disciples took place throughout the reign of three Roman Emperors: Diocletion, Domition and Nero. For example, Peter's martydom is recorded by Eusebius and took place under Nero's reign.

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:

But you don't know anything about the issue so it's impossible for you to tell the truth.

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

Awe, is someone mad? Why all the screaming? Peter's death is documented by Eusebius and is correlated with ancient historical facts regarding the reigns of Diocletion, Domition and Nero. Now that you've been proven wrong what are you going to do? Keep screaming and whining?

[Ooberman]

Hey, you know who else died without recanting their belief their supernatural beliefs were true?

Joseph Smith's followers.
David Koresh's followers
Jim Jones's followers
The Heaven's Gate cult members.
Muslims
Jews
Hindus
etc....


It must all be true, then!

[The Me's]

Hey, you know who else died without recanting their belief their supernatural beliefs were true?

Joseph Smith's followers.
David Koresh's followers
Jim Jones's followers
The Heaven's Gate cult members.
Muslims
Jews
Hindus
etc....


It must all be true, then!

I'm not following your logic here...

People have beliefs
People died without recanting them
Therefore their beliefs were correct

Normally, I ask for some kind of verification beyond this, but that's just me.

With the Bible, we have uncountable confirmations of the text itself, and we have even more evidence suggesting the Bible's believability.

I have yet to see any evidence directly contradicting any claim made by the Bible. That in itself isn't really important--until you think in terms of "preponderance of evidence".

[Danmark]

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.

Why do you persist in quoting yourself? If you cited an authority it would make a better argument.
IF the disciples 'died for their beliefs' it may mean nothing more than that they were deluded, and their delusions were real to them, and they had 'the courage of their convictions' or, in other words, 'The Determination of their Delusions.'

You could call this 'The argument from sincerity' or the 'Sincerity Fallacy.'
Essentially it is the use of a positive ad hominem.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 101:

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

There's no rational reason to demand evidence of this kind.

Sure there is. We're told this Jesus fellow was one swell dude, and we gotta do what he says, based on such testimony.

Only we don't so much get it from the horse's mouth, as from those who speak for the horse.

The gospels relate eye-witness accounts.

Only not the first one of 'em can be shown to be.

You may choose to believe them or not, but you may not choose whether they stand as legitimate until you have something of equal or greater authority contradicting them.

The onus is on the claimant. I have no responsibility to refute claims the claimant can't show are valid.

Your standard of evidence, that "court documents" must be found to confirm an historic claim, MUST force you to reject all history. None of it meets this threshold.

I would agree here where we speak of "court documents". Where I differ is in the notion we can't speak to these "original claimants" in order to see if what they said / wrote is an accurate reflection of their observations and such, and where we can't examine their credibility beyond what they are said to have written / spoken.

I need not reject all of history to reject claims that go against what all of history tells us - snakes don't talk, humans don't hop up after being dead for three days, and pregnancy requires more'n a woman just up and getting that way.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 106 by JoeyKnothead]

All you have to do to deny reality is to set your bar of evidence so high that no evidence can be found (and only then is your worldview safe).

Unfortunately, this isn't how reality works.

If you want the privilege of denying that the gospels are not what they say they are, you have a burden of proof to meet.

**************
I quite enjoy being a Christian because of the people I meet. I always find them to be open-minded in practice and usually of good or great character, accountable, honest and generous.

I wish I could find that quality in others. I have hope for the world, but that's just me.

When people challenge the Bible, they usually do so in unsupportable terms, they make emotional arguments rather than rational ones, they act out of insecurity for themselves rather than just plain curiosity, and (as you did here) they hold the Bible to a different standard than they do any other historical document.

I sincerely doubt that you need any more evidence than you already have that Julius Caesar invade Gaul. His own written account is all we have. For Jesus, we have 4 sources and many, many indirect sources.

[WinePusher]

Why do you persist in quoting yourself? If you cited an authority it would make a better argument.

My argument is that the disciples would not die for something they knew to be a lie, therefore they genuinely believed in the resurrection of Jesus and did not steal the body or make up a hoax. To support this I've cited various theories in the social sciences that indicate that humans are rational, self interested beings that seek to maximize utility and satisfaction. Dying for a lie does not maximize an individual's utility or satisfaction (it actually does the exact opposite). And I am not saying that their willingness to die proves Christianity to be true. What I'm saying is that their willingness to die shows that they genuinely believe Jesus rose from the dead and that they didn't steal the body. Therefore the stolen body hypothesis does not adequately explain the empty tomb.

IF the disciples 'died for their beliefs' it may mean nothing more than that they were deluded, and their delusions were real to them, and they had 'the courage of their convictions' or, in other words, 'The Determination of their Delusions.'

It could mean that, but that would require alot of heavy lifting on your part. First of all, if they were deluded then they wouldn't really have the capability of stealing the body and constructing a fanciful lie about Jesus' resurrection. Second of all, is there any evidence that shows they were deluded? Additionally, is there any reason why we should we believe that massive amounts of people were deluded? Because remember, we're not talking about one single disciple that may or may not have been deluded. We're talking about a massive number of people that you're claiming were deluded or suffering from hallucinations.

[Danmark]

Why do you persist in quoting yourself? If you cited an authority it would make a better argument.

My argument is that the disciples would not die for something they knew to be a lie, therefore they genuinely believed in the resurrection of Jesus and did not steal the body or make up a hoax. To support this I've cited various theories in the social sciences that indicate that humans are rational, self interested beings that seek to maximize utility and satisfaction. Dying for a lie does not maximize an individual's utility or satisfaction (it actually does the exact opposite). And I am not saying that their willingness to die proves Christianity to be true. What I'm saying is that their willingness to die shows that they genuinely believe Jesus rose from the dead and that they didn't steal the body. Therefore the stolen body hypothesis does not adequately explain the empty tomb.

IF the disciples 'died for their beliefs' it may mean nothing more than that they were deluded, and their delusions were real to them, and they had 'the courage of their convictions' or, in other words, 'The Determination of their Delusions.'

It could mean that, but that would require alot of heavy lifting on your part. First of all, if they were deluded then they wouldn't really have the capability of stealing the body and constructing a fanciful lie about Jesus' resurrection. Second of all, is there any evidence that shows they were deluded? Additionally, is there any reason why we should we believe that massive amounts of people were deluded? Because remember, we're not talking about one single disciple that may or may not have been deluded. We're talking about a massive number of people that you're claiming were deluded or suffering from hallucinations.

Your argument is based on ignorance of the nature of delusion. It's based on the irrational "all or nothing" thinking that says if a person has a specific mental heath problem, he is completely dysfunctional and nothing he does is functional or effective.

This kind of thinking is very easily refuted. A popular example would be John Forbes Nash, the Nobel Prize winning mathematician and economist on whose life the book and movie A Beautiful Mind was based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

But we do not need to look at examples from the outer limits of the bell curve. As I have pointed out previously on this thread there are millions of people who believe in various delusions about human beings being God, virgin births, talking donkeys and winged horses flying people up to some paradise above the clouds.

The only difference between some religious delusions and other delusions is the popularity of religious delusions and the fact religious delusions, generally, are learned.

[Ooberman]

I have yet to see any evidence directly contradicting any claim made by the Bible.

I'm initially skeptical of your knowledge of the Bible if you don't think there are contradictions.

This means you believe the Bible is a perfect book. Which means you presuppose this, since there are no perfect books on Earth. Even the most meticulous history book will have errors in it. Yet, you without an advanced degrees in the subjects of the Bible, are challenging experts.

To say that you haven't seen any in the Bible makes you an uncritical believer.

This opinion of yours is completely worthless.

Stop the presses! Another Christian thinks the Bible is the cats pajamas!

BTW, did you know that Muslims think their book is perfect, too? Yet, I bet you can think of some problems with it.

Yet, they too have apologetics. I treat both Christian and Muslim (and Mormon) apologetics all the same - worthless propaganda.

Instead of asking us to disprove Zombies got up and walked around when Jesus died, how about you take on the burden of proof to show it actually happened.

I'm tired of this "well, lack of evidence against means it happened the way we say!" excuse.