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]

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.

When I state that "I have yet to see..." this is not a statement of belief, it's a statement that I've never seen anyone contradict the Bible, apparently including you, since you didn't offer one.

(And no, I don't believe the Bible is "perfect", I believe that it was written in good faith, reflects actual history, and (so far) has been demonstrated to be error-free.

This is not a theological belief--I don't have very many of those.

This statement is based on my extensive study of the Bible, history and archaeology. Please enlighten me and tell me where I'm wrong.

[higgy1911]

The notion that a fellow came back to life after three days is somewhat difficult to believe. Acceptable evidence for believing it could haveppossibly occurred would be in depth experimentation to see ifssuch a thing is possible.

To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 112 by higgy1911]

I'm sorry, but medical science has NEVER found evidence contradicting Jesus' resurrection.

Nor has anyone else.

[higgy1911]

The notion that a fellow came back to life after three days is somewhat difficult to believe. Acceptable evidence for believing it could haveppossibly occurred would be in depth experimentation to see ifssuch a thing is possible.

To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.

[higgy1911]

The notion that a fellow came back to life after three days is somewhat difficult to believe. Acceptable evidence for believing it could haveppossibly occurred would be in depth experimentation to see ifssuch a thing is possible.

To me modern medical science is pretty solid evidence that no one died and came back to life after three days. I would say its reasonable to ask for evidence that such a thing is possible, given all the evidence suggesting its not.

[higgy1911]

really? The resurrection is not contradicted by medical science? I don't understand? Do people often come back to life. Do we have documented cases of this? After three days?

[Ooberman]

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.

This is such a smarmy Christian lie.

So, you are going to cite modern psychology to assess the mental states of people 2000 years ago? Classic.

The bold is where you really overstep. Yes, you are right their beliefs don't make it true. That's important.

Then you follow up that they had a willingness to die because they genuinely believe Jesus rose from the dead.

This is a LIE. A bold and unadulterated LIE.

You have no idea if they were willing to die. you have no idea if they had a chance to recant a belief in a literal resurrection. They could have died with a belief that Jesus was God - sure - but we don't have this record either.

There is no record of what they were willing to do when the sword was put to them - IF they were killed at all.


Stop the lies, Christians. Stop it. What a pathetic religion if it has to rely on such obvious lies.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 107:

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).

So what we gotta figure out, is if my bar's too high, or yours is too low.

Unfortunately, this isn't how reality works.

I'm unaware of any reality that includes dead people strolling about town.

In what reality do you propose such occurs?

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 don't ask for privileges from you, I follow site and moderator rulings in this regard.

I have no burden of proof, except for those claims I make.

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.

We see often that those who worship a book so full of condemnation for others, can't wait to do them some of it too, even if they hafta tip-toe to do it.

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.

Please note, I've not begun to challenge any "other historical document" here, in that, there ain't been any "other historical document" presented.

You accuse or imply I "deny reality", you imply I'm not "open-minded", you imply I lack "character", you imply I'm not "accountable" (to what I don't know), you imply I'm not "honest", and you imply I'm not "generous", and now you accuse me of rejecting that which has not been presented.

But yeah, I'm the one being "emotional"


Face it, you are utterly and completely incapable of showing you speak truth in this matter. The mere challenging of your claims brings out ad-hom-by-tip-toe.


Don't like your claims being challenged? Stop claiming.

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.

When Julius Caeser comes in here a-braggin' 'bout how he done whooped them Gauls, I'll set to challenging his claims just like here I did with yours.

For Jesus, we have 4 sources and many, many indirect sources.

If I had a hundred different sources saying pigs could pilot aircraft, would you book a ticket?

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 118 by JoeyKnothead]

If you're:

1--Unwilling to back up your claims, and
2--Unwilling to accept evidence...

You and I can't have a discussion.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 112 by higgy1911]

I'm sorry, but medical science has NEVER found evidence contradicting Jesus' resurrection.

Nor has anyone else.

Nor confirming it.

Nor has science disproved that Ganesh had an elephant head.

This is really grasping at straws.