A simple---but serious---question

[Athetotheist]

There are numerous god-men who died and rose from death in stories predating the time of Jesus. Considering the notable differences between the gospel accounts, and particularly the differences between the accounts of Jesus's supposed resurrection, here's a question for gospel apologists to think seriously about:

There are four resurrection accounts about Jesus in the Christian gospels. If the exact same accounts, with the exact same differences, were written about Osiris, Tammuz, Attis or any such god-man other than Jesus, would Christian apologists find all of those accounts believable?

And if they wouldn't find all of them believable, would they find any of them believable?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #182

But I do not agree. If God decides something is going to happen, no one can stop it.

That isn't an argument; it's just a statement of belief that God has decreed a particular thing to happen.

Of course, it is an argument. It is one totally unsupported given that no verifiable evidence has been provided, but that is true of all god claims.


Tcg

We are already granting if God exists.

So if God exists and God decides that X will happen, who can stop X from happening?

If God decides that X will happen, there won't be any way to stop X from happening.

But if there is a way to stop X from happening, and someone wants to stop it, that's a fairly strong indication that God has not decided that X will happen.

In my Teens I was doing a fair bit of spiritual searching as they say. I decided pretty much right away that no one religion had all the dibs and, while I gave Prophetic evangelism a fair whirl, when a Big End Times prophecy failed, I closed the Book on that until (in my 30's) a work colleague badgered me into 'Really Reading the Bible' which i did, and the results taught me two tihngs - the Bible is utterly unreliable, and the Believers are utterly incapable of approaching the matter with a really Open Mind (they mean unquestioning acceptance). But I also gave the 'Occult' a whirl, too. I mean the Palmistry and dowsing lot. And I realised early on that Fate is a bit of a delusion and fraud. It's obvious that anyone can claim that Fate is inevitable; and whatever you do won't change that. And if you make an effort and change that, that was the fate anyway. It is an unfalsifiable undisprovable, and the evidence for 'God working in your life' works just the same way. What the Believer sees as evidence of God, is evidence of nothing but their Faith.

This is absolutely what your post above is doing - claiming that whatever happens is what God decided will happen and nobody can change that. And if anyone does change that, it was what God had decided anyway.
I know, I know. nobody can make you change your mind about that and that apparently counts as a win, but that isn't the logic of debate. The claimant has the case to prove and having no case means you lose, and Keeping the Faith is merely refusing to admit that you lost, and there are no missing votes.

I won't name names, but the arguing of internal logic, or explanations, anyway, within an unvalidated faith claim proves nothing, has no evidential value and is a waste of all our time. But the Believer cannot get out of this mental box of assuming the god - claim is true and arguing from those false premises.

Why should you give a flip about what my post above is doing? The whole world isn't going to look at everything from your worm's-eye perspective and is under no moral or intellectual obligation to bow down to your high-and-mighty evangelical atheism. If you have no interest in discussions of a theological nature, then you're wasting just as much of our time as we are of yours.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #182

But I do not agree. If God decides something is going to happen, no one can stop it.

That isn't an argument; it's just a statement of belief that God has decreed a particular thing to happen.

Of course, it is an argument. It is one totally unsupported given that no verifiable evidence has been provided, but that is true of all god claims.


Tcg

We are already granting if God exists.

So if God exists and God decides that X will happen, who can stop X from happening?

If God decides that X will happen, there won't be any way to stop X from happening.

But if there is a way to stop X from happening, and someone wants to stop it, that's a fairly strong indication that God has not decided that X will happen.

In my Teens I was doing a fair bit of spiritual searching as they say. I decided pretty much right away that no one religion had all the dibs and, while I gave Prophetic evangelism a fair whirl, when a Big End Times prophecy failed, I closed the Book on that until (in my 30's) a work colleague badgered me into 'Really Reading the Bible' which i did, and the results taught me two tihngs - the Bible is utterly unreliable, and the Believers are utterly incapable of approaching the matter with a really Open Mind (they mean unquestioning acceptance). But I also gave the 'Occult' a whirl, too. I mean the Palmistry and dowsing lot. And I realised early on that Fate is a bit of a delusion and fraud. It's obvious that anyone can claim that Fate is inevitable; and whatever you do won't change that. And if you make an effort and change that, that was the fate anyway. It is an unfalsifiable undisprovable, and the evidence for 'God working in your life' works just the same way. What the Believer sees as evidence of God, is evidence of nothing but their Faith.

This is absolutely what your post above is doing - claiming that whatever happens is what God decided will happen and nobody can change that. And if anyone does change that, it was what God had decided anyway.
I know, I know. nobody can make you change your mind about that and that apparently counts as a win, but that isn't the logic of debate. The claimant has the case to prove and having no case means you lose, and Keeping the Faith is merely refusing to admit that you lost, and there are no missing votes.

I won't name names, but the arguing of internal logic, or explanations, anyway, within an unvalidated faith claim proves nothing, has no evidential value and is a waste of all our time. But the Believer cannot get out of this mental box of assuming the god - claim is true and arguing from those false premises.

Why should you give a flip about what my post above is doing? The whole world isn't going to look at everything from your worm's-eye perspective and is under no moral or intellectual obligation to bow down to your high-and-mighty evangelical atheism. If you have no interest in discussions of a theological nature, then you're wasting just as much of our time as we are of yours.

As I think our Pal A4G put it 'Emotional outburst'. In fact you put your finger on why we do this; the 'whole world' is listening to pretty much Evangelical religion and it needs to realise that it doesn't have to believe it (and there is good reason not to) and they can, with opinion and votes, make it what it ougt to be - a free choice that has the right to exist (within the law) and will have no clout in politics, education, the workplace or the military. Oh - and it will pay taxes like everyone else and submit its' accounts, and no cover - ups for misdemeanours...which will include misinformation, failed prophecies, badmouhing anyone that says things they don't like.... I can see it being a lot of fun in the future but the people have to know and understand this and someone has to tell them. It starts somewhere like here. Is it effective? Probably not as much as an online video channel, but I have to hope that the Ideas creep out and others use them. Whether it works out or not, we have to try.

"We cannot defeat the forces of Mordor".

"No, we cannot; but we shall meet them in battle, nonetheless." (Theoden).

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #192

As I think our Pal A4G put it 'Emotional outburst'. In fact you put your finger on why we do this; the 'whole world' is listening to pretty much Evangelical religion and it needs to realise that it doesn't have to believe it (and there is good reason not to) and they can, with opinion and votes, make it what it ougt to be - a free choice that has the right to exist (within the law) and will have no clout in politics, education, the workplace or the military. Oh - and it will pay taxes like everyone else and submit its' accounts, and no cover - ups for misdemeanours...which will include misinformation, failed prophecies, badmouhing anyone that says things they don't like....I can see it being a lot of fun in the future but the people have to know and understand this and someone has to tell them. It starts somewhere like here. Is it effective? Probably not as much as an online video channel, but I have to hope that the Ideas creep out and others use them. Whether it works out or not, we have to try.

"We cannot defeat the forces of Mordor".

"No, we cannot; but we shall meet them in battle, nonetheless." (Theoden).

Where I live, I don't have the luxury of optimistic faith in the political process and I would caution you not to place your trust there either. Theocracy is philosophically weak but has money and influence on its side, so opposition to it has to be a behind-the-lines ideological struggle with little or no help from once-democratic institutions.