[
Replying to post 19 by Tired of the Nonsense]
TON wrote:I was raised to be a Christian as a boy. But by the time I was 13 it had become apparent to me that Christian claims are far to silly to have any real viability. That was in 1961. My friends and family, everyone I knew, were believing Christians. I didn't know a single other atheist. And yet it was clear to me that everyone but me believed in foolishness. And they believed largely because everyone else believed. They were told that their beliefs were beyond question, as I was, so they never question them. But I am very skeptical by nature. When things don't make sense to me I am compelled to work out the nature of the problem. And what I worked out is that Christianity is nonsense.
I didn't walk around with a sign on saying: "You all believe in nonsense." But the subject did inevitably come up. And so I was forced to carefully and systematically explain why I was right and everyone else was wrong. And, yes, it was pointed out to me many times that taking the position that I was right and everyone else was wrong is a very precocious position to take. And yet it was a position I was FORCED to take. Because it was quite clear to me that my reasoning was quite valid, as evidenced by the fact that the believers that I engaged in debate not only could not overcome my argument, and were clearly quite shocked themselves by this fact, but had obviously never themselves considered the arguments that I was making. If the entire world is wrong then it is time for the entire world to change.
Fifty five years later I live in a world where I am surrounded by other skeptics. Religion is superstitious nonsense. As the modern world becomes more educated this fact becomes increasingly more obvious. I wasn't the only skeptic in 1961, as it turns out. I was a little ahead of the curve, but the rest of the world is now catching up. I have simply been considering this problem of religious foolishness, specifically Christian foolishness since I live in a country that is predominantly Christian, longer than most people. So I have gotten pretty good at it.
I know, and I have heard it all before, to the point I can almost tell your story myself. What I would like you to do is, to explain how any of what you say above would have any effect at all upon, whether Christianity is true, or not?
My point is, how you have arrived to your conclusions, and what has drove you to these conclusions, has no bearing at all upon whether your conclusions are correct or not. It may be enough for you, but since we are in a debate forum, we need far more than what you have experienced.
Next, what does anything you have to say above, have to do with the FACT that you have had to come up with alternative explanations? Again, this is a debate forum, and has nothing to do with what you have experienced in your past life. I am not those in your past life, and I am not making the same arguments.
The question is, if Christianity is so obviously false, then why bother coming up with alternate explanations, to someone who has not made the same arguments you heard in childhood? Why not simply state that, "Christianity is obviously false, to the point that it does not deserve refutation?"
TON wrote:If you lived in a world where everyone else believed that Santa lives at the north pole, has a team of flying reindeer, and all of the rest of it, would you decide that everyone else must be right, and subscribe to a belief in Santa yourself? Or would you spend the time and energy necessary to explain to the WHOLE WORLD in detail, why they are being foolish? Maybe you are just not that hard headed. But some of us are.
In my view, these types of comments, only ruin ones reputation, and is simply and attempt to insult those one is attempting to debate, and an attempt to keep from dealing with the facts involved.
You see, anyone can make such comments, no matter what the subject matter. But, the fact is, there is a tremendous difference between belief in Santa Claus, which everyone knows is a fictitious character used for the imagination of children, as opposed to Christianity.
Because you see, I do not believe there are very many sites that have been developed in order to debate the truth of Santa Claus, precisely because all know that it is not a serious matter. However, there are many Christian debate sites, on top of the fact that there have been those throughout the centuries, who continue to debate the truth of Christianity, and for one to compare the two, causes those who understand this, not to want to continue the debate with those who do such things.
So then, this could be one of the reasons there are Christians who leave this site, because they would rather not be bothered with those who would make such outrageous, and unfounded claims, because if one truly wants to argue the facts, it becomes frustrating to deal with, such nonsense.
Even if one were to truly believe the two compare to each other, (which I would be willing to wager no one really does, it is more than likely a tactic) they could not demonstrate in any way how they compare, therefore this type of comment has no place in the debate.
TON wrote:All four Gospels indicate that the body of Jesus was taken to a tomb to be washed and prepared, and that this tomb later proved to be empty. Since the four Gospels represent the ONLY source of information concerning the origins of the story of the risen Jesus that anyone considers to be potentially valid, then this is the information I am forced to consider. Some people consider the fact that Paul never mentions the tomb at all to be a reason to discount the story of the tomb. But there is nothing inherently unbelievable about the story of the rich man Joseph having had a new tomb constructed. This was a common practice among those who could afford it because it was common practice among the Jew to bury family members together. All four Gospels mention the tomb, and unless we are going to throw out the entire story, there is no particular reason to question the tomb.
Either, there is reason to believe that what is recorded in the Gospels concerning the empty tomb, or there is not. If one is contending that there is no reason to believe the accounts, then they are under the burden to demonstrate how they must be false.
You however, are arguing, there was an empty tomb, and going on to give us other POSSIBILITIES that may explain the empty tomb. This is perfectly fine, but it does not in any way tell us how the tomb became empty, rather it simply gives us another possible explanation.
TON wrote:Why leave the "gaps" for another time?
Because, as you can see, we have plenty to cover here. So then, it will be better to stay focused on the topic at hand, and we have time, and will eventually be able to get to the rest.
TON wrote:According to Acts 9, while on the road to Damascus Paul became stricken. Acts specifically indicates that at one point Paul went three days without drinking. Whatever the cause, Paul was clearly severely dehydrated and therefore deathly ill. Three days without water is a critical condition. Severe dehydration commonly affects the eyesight, as the vitreous fluid in the eye thickens and sight is diminished, and causes the neurons in the brain to misfire from lack of fluid, inevitably resulting in hallucinations. Among other symptoms, severely dehydrated individuals are routinely "out of their heads."
The first thing that needs to be pointed out here is, I am not the one who is appealing to the Bible, you are! With this being the case, Paul was said to have had the "experience on the road", and then went three days without water. So then, if we are going to appeal to what is recorded in the Bible, then we cannot say that the lack of water could have triggered what is reported to have occurred, which is the hearing of a voice.
It is after this that Paul is said to have went three days without water. So then, it could be argued that Paul suffered from dehydration after the incident, but it would not explain what caused the incident to begin with.
Another thing that must be considered is the fact that, the author here would have been present through much, if not all of the missionary journeys of Paul, and there is very strong internal evidence that this is the case, and this author claims to have witnessed certain miraculous events concerning Paul.
So you see, it is not simply Paul who must be explained, but also the author of "Acts." This author would not have been present to have witnessed the events on the road to Damascus, so then he would not have been a victim of this dehydration.
At any rate, what we have concerning Christianity is, those who were involved in somehow hi-jacking the body, those who were delusional, those who were lying, those who were fooled, those who suffered dehydration to the point they cease the persecution of the movement they once abhorred, to become it's biggest champion, those who wrote under other's names decades after the events, those who copied from another, those who never witnessed the things they record, and all of this, in the face of those who would have surely wanted to put an end to this movement, and would have had every reason to do so.
All of this, and this movement somehow becomes undeniably successful! Now, if all the above, satisfies your mind as far as the origin of Christianity, then I really have no problem with what may satisfy your mind. However, to go on to say, there is no reason to believe the Christian message, in the face of all the above, is certainly, most unreasonable!
Remember, we are not saying it absolutely has, and must be true. Rather, we are simply saying, there are good, and solid reasons to believe, and what I have simply outlined above, would simply be the tip of the iceberg.
TON wrote:But we in the 21st century, in the light of reason and logic, are left to consider whether it is more reasonable to conclude that Paul, in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, conversely, whether it is reasonable to conclude that it is more likely that Paul actually MET WITH AND CONVERSED WITH A DEAD MAN!
Right, but this would not be all that would need to be considered, because there is a whole lot more! Like, the evidence is overwhelming that Paul was completely opposed to this movement to begin with, so much so he was willing to see those put to death who embraced it.
Paul was steeped in Judaism, and knew the Jewish law as well as any. So then, out of all of those, one would expect to continue to be opposed, Paul would lead the pack. However, not only from his own testimony, but from the testimony of one who followed, and witnessed the life of Paul first hand, this man makes an about face, and becomes the biggest champion of the faith, he was once opposed to.
But at any rate, whether your logic leads you to believe the message of Paul, or whether it leads you to believe that this movement which was doomed to fail from the start, continues to have things like Paul to simply fall into place to somehow keep it going, to the point it is today, none of this would have any sort of impact on whether it would be true, or not.
In other words, I understand that, what one considers to be reasonable, does not necessarily, equal truth. So then, you may consider one thing to be reasonable, while another believes something totally different to be reasonable. Until one side or the other is proven, it is a waste of time to argue which side is more reasonable. It is like two kids on the playground arguing about whose dad, can beat up the other dad.
TON wrote:I notice that which side of this question opinion tends to fall invariably has a very direct correlation to whether or not a person has been programmed from an early age to uncritically accept stories of miracles and flying reanimated corpses, and the like.
Not exactly my friend. There are many people who were brought up to be Christians who have rejected the Faith, and their rejection has no bearing whatsoever upon whether what they have rejected is true, or not. On the other hand, there are also many who were once very much opposed to the Faith, and after they reexamined their beliefs, by using reason, they have now come to believe the Faith they once rejected.
A real good example of the latter would be, Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Doctor Butterfield was a tenured professor at Syracuse University. She was extremely opposed to Christianity, and was in the process of writing a book on, "The Rise of the Christian Right in America." This was the beginning of her transformation.
I will leave it at that as far as Misses Butterfield is concerned, because her story is readily available, and it is a very intriguing story, to say the least.
At any rate, her transformation, has nothing to do with what the truth actually is, just as what people may have been programmed to believe has no bearing upon the truth, because you see, Misses Butterfield claimed to have been programmed to believe that Christianity was fiction, and was only believed by those who needed something to believe in.
The main point here is, you have brought nothing up thus far, in all of your comments, that demonstrates in any way that Christianity, must, and has to be false. All you have done is to give us, other possibilities, insults, and debate tactics.
TON wrote:And like Paul and the author of Luke, you have no actual direct knowledge of Jesus.
Here is a statement you make as if it were a fact, that you can in no way demonstrate. You cannot demonstrate that Paul had "no actual direct knowledge of Jesus", you can only assume this.
The facts are, the author of Acts claims that Paul had this direct knowledge, and Paul claims this as well. Now it cannot be demonstrated that these reports are true, but neither can it be demonstrated that they are false. Therefore, to claim that Paul had "no direct knowledge of Jesus", would be presumptuous, because it can only be assumed, not proven.
TON wrote:It has become much more difficult to make the story of a corpse that comes back to life and then flies away appear to be reasonable in this day and age, however.
You are absolutely positively right! However again, what you say here, like most of what you have said, would have no bearing whatsoever upon what the actual truth may be. You see, Misses Butterfield thought the same exact way. She could not believe that any reasonable person could actually believe the things recorded in the Bible. And yet here she is, a very reasonable, and well educated person, embracing the Faith she once abhorred, and believed it to be only accepted by unreasonable people.
TON wrote:You begin in a deep hole of unrealistic claims.
Here is another fine example. You may believe the claims are unrealistic, along with the majority of people in the world, but this has no bearing at all as to whether the claims are false, are not.
Here are the facts. It is a fact, that the claims have been made. It is a fact that what you believe to be realistic, has no bearing upon the claims being true are not. This is the way in which a debate forum works. In other words, one who wants to debate, should stick to, and deal with the facts! Opinions have no bearing upon the facts!
TON wrote:Because we no longer live in a world of make believe and superstition.
Here is another example. Here you are clearly claiming the Bible is "make believe and superstition", but have not come close to demonstrating such a thing. You see, I can demonstrate clearly where authors of the Bible ensure that their audience could not make the mistake of comparing what they have wrote to, "make believe and superstition", and that is a fact. It is not a fact that Christianity is "make believe and superstition" that is simply your opinion!
Again, in debate. we need to be able to distinguish between, what is a fact, as opposed to those things that are simply an opinion. Facts matter! Opinions, not so much.
TON wrote:But if you have some valid evidence that Christian claims are necessarily true, then please present it.
This sentence is quite cleaver, and it seems to be bait for those who may not read, or think so carefully. The key word in the sentence of course is "NECESSARILY." If we were to take the word, "NECESSARILY" from the sentence, one such as myself could type for days supplying such evidence.
But, the FACT of the matter is, I have never claimed there was evidence that could demonstrate the claims of Christianity to be "NECESSARILY" true. In FACT, I have never claimed, Christianity is "NECESSARILY" true. What I am proclaiming is, there are many good, and solid reasons to believe the Christian message.
Now the question is to you. If you have some valid evidence that Christians claims are "NECESSARILY" false, then please present it? But, you do not have any such evidence, because if you did, you would have already supplied this evidence.
Oh, and BTW, if you or I could actually present anything at all that would "NECESSARILY" demonstrate our case, it would not be "EVIDENCE", rather it would be "PROOF" at that point.
So then, neither you, nor I have actual proof of what we claim to believe, rather all we have is the evidence, along with the facts. You may have good reasons for what you claim to believe concerning Christianity, but this does not necessarily mean that those opposed to your position, would not have good reasons for their position.
TON wrote:"It's true because my parents said so," or "because everyone I know says so," or "because I feel in in my heart," doesn't really count for anything.
And again, another great example of assumptions! You see, I have never made such arguments. In fact, I have argued this same exact point against other Christians. So you see, it is really a waste of time for you to make such comments, and a waste for me to respond to them.
This is just another example of how one assumes that since they have heard this sort of thing from other Christians, then all Christians must argue in this way, or that they have too. But it would be far better if you would actually attempt to argue against the actual arguments being made.
Another shot in the dark! Another swing and a miss! And another reason why there may be those such as myself, who would rather not continue to waste time with those who want to make their own arguments, and then tear them down.
TON wrote:Hard evidence is all that really matters.
I absolutely agree, and stated as much above,
realworldjack wrote:In other words, one who wants to debate, should stick to, and deal with the facts! Opinions have no bearing upon the facts!
So I am willing to stick to, and deal with only the facts, while leaving opinion out of the equation! But as demonstrated above, there seem to be those who have trouble distinguishing between the two. And again, this sort of thing causes those who are able to distinguish between the two, to not want to continue to waste time with those who seem not to be able too.
As you say, the only thing that matters is the, "hard evidence!" It does not matter what you believe! It does not matter how strongly you believe it! It does not matter how many times you repeat the same things! It does not matter how you have arrived to your beliefs! The only thing that really matters is what the truth actually is. However, it is far better to deal with the facts involved, instead of simply holding on to what it is, you would rather believe!
As I have also said, "I have posted much here, and much here on this site over the years." The challenge for you is to demonstrate where I have failed to deal with the facts. I have demonstrated clearly above, where you seem to have trouble, and here is another example,
TON wrote:And hard evidence indicates that a corpse cannot come back to life and then fly away.
And again, this is not a fact! It is simply your opinion! What is the "hard evidence which would indicate that a corpse cannot come back to life?" Is it the fact that it is, scientifically impossible? Well, there are those of us who realize, that science cannot, and does not have all the answers. In other words, it is a fact that such an event would be scientifically impossible, but science does not posses the ability to tell us, whether a corpse has ever came back to life. It can only tells us, "according to their research, it would be, "scientifically impossible." Again, this would in no way tell us, if a corpse has indeed come back to life, or not.
Would the "hard evidence be, "you, and no one you have ever know has witnessed such a thing? Well again, this would not be, "hard evidence" at all. It may be evidence that would need to be considered along side all the other evidence involved, but this would be a far cry from being, "hard evidence."
TON wrote:That is your hurdle. And I have reason to consider it insurmountable.
I am certain beyond doubt that you have your reasons for rejecting, Christianity. As I have said elsewhere, "I understand unbelief, and I understand there are reasons for unbelief." However, the fact of the matter is, simply because you have reason for your unbelief, does not negate the fact that there is also many good, and solid reasons for belief.
You see, there are those of us who understand this fact, and others who do not. In other words, there are those who seem to believe that since they have used reason to arrive to a certain conclusion, then this somehow must demonstrate that those opposed could not possibly have used reason.
Then there are those of us, who live in the "real world", who understand that those opposed to us, could have very well used reason themselves, and we simply have a disagreement over the facts, and evidence involved.
But here is the fact of the matter. I have not claimed Christianity to be true. I have not condemned, ridiculed, or insulted anyone who may not believe. All I have done is to claim to believe the Christian message, and that there are many good, and solid reasons to believe, and there is a tremendous difference.
You were correct above when you said,
TON wrote:This is a Christian debate forum. "Going through these things" is what we do here.
With this being the case, lets look at the FACTS concerning this site, and Christianity. It is a fact that, no one on this site, no matter which side of the debate they are on, can, nor has proven what it is they claim to believe concerning Christianity. It is a fact that all any of us can do is to attempt to explain what it is we believe, and why we believe as we do.
It is also a fact that there are those on both sides of the debate who seem to believe, that since they believe as they do, then there must be no logical reason for anyone else to be in disagreement, which means those opposed could not possibly have used reason.
As demonstrated above, it is a fact that there are those who seem to have trouble distinguishing between, fact, and opinion, and seem to believe that their opinion somehow equals fact.
With these facts in front of us, it is clear to see that there is plenty of reason to be, "tired of the nonsense" coming from both sides of the equation.
Because I understand these things, I have not claimed Christianity to be true. Rather, all I have done is to claim to believe it, and have given plenty of reasons for my belief while I have been here on this site, and there is a tremendous difference between claiming Christianity to be true, as opposed to claiming to believe that it is true, along with reason.
Now the question to you becomes, are you under the impression that you have proven, and or demonstrated that Christianity must, and has to be false? Your answer to this question will go a long way in determining who exactly is living in a world full of dreams, fiction, and fantasy.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
