[
Replying to post 20 by Realworldjack]
Realworldjack wrote:
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?
How do we reach the conclusion that
anything is true or not? As it so happens we are currently finding the entire concept of "truth" under attack. The president currently labels any news story that he does not like to be "false news," no matter how well documented the facts appear to be. And we live in an era of video shot as the events or the testimony is occurring. So how are we supposed to come to reasonable conclusions concerning things which may, or may not, have occurred thousands of years ago?
In any discussion or debate we have only the tools of reason, logic and facts to be used as a method for getting at the truth of any claim. We therefore have every right and reason to be suspicious of a claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away, or that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem. When we couple the nature of these claims with the
fact that these "events' went entirely unrecorded by anyone at the time they were supposed to have occurred, and that the details of these claims are only to be found in anonymously authored accounts written decades after the "events" themselves were supposed to have occurred, we then are left with every genuine reason to suppose that these claims are bogus, that these events never in fact occurred, and that claims of such occurrences are nothing more than the fertile product of the human imagination.
But of course God can do anything. Once this declaration has been made these admittedly unrealistic claims are suddenly fully explainable. Based on that premise however, Santa and his team of flying reindeer are fully explainable. If God can do anything, then it is perfectly reasonable to claim that Oz is a real place, and the Harry Potter books are true stories. Because once one has taken the step of declaring that anything is possible because that is what they choose to believe, then there is no distinction between physical reality and make believe.
How do we know that Christianity is true or not? Because the core of Christian beliefs are based on claims that are silly. Claims which contradict all reason and logic. Claims which can easily be explained as perfectly natural occurrences derived from the mundane actions of humans for mundane human purposes. And that is about as close to proving a thing is or is not true as fallible humans can come to ascertaining the truth.
Silly; adjective,
1. weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish:
2. absurd; ridiculous; irrational:
Believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away is silly in the same way that believing that reindeer can fly is silly. But of course if your recourse to explaining these things is by claiming supernatural intervention, or magic, then "Once upon a time," becomes an historical account.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
My conclusion is that things which defy all common observation, common experience, and therefore all common sense, are silly by definition. Things which are too silly to be true are invariably NOT TRUE. And I can see that, even by looking at the claims which are provided by the NT, it is possible to recognize a perfectly natural explanation for it all. We live in a world where natural explanations are the norm, and genuine supernatural explanations can in fact never actually be established. However, such is the nature of make believe, and the power of a lifetime of indoctrination, that even into the 21st century make believe still manages to impose unsophisticated beliefs on otherwise sophisticated minds. Although that is rapidly becoming less and less true.
Some of the most brilliant minds in history were also very religious. Because religion and supernatural intervention once seemed to be the only solution to questions of existence and the operation of the universe. This is no longer true however. Unsophisticated beliefs do not stand up to sophisticated scientific observation. If it makes you feel any better, I am convinced that the truth will prevail. But that may or may not ultimately go in your favor. If observational truth continuously proves to be NOT what you prefer to believe, can you accept that? Or would you rather die wrapped in your comforting cocoon of illusion?
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
I concluded that the explanation for existence that I was provided with as a child was obviously nonsense. So I have taken an interest in discovering an explanation that actually makes sense. You may not agree with the conclusions I have reached, but I am NOT the product of any specific indoctrination. I have spent a lifetime sorting through the various possibilities. The conclusions I have reached are entirely my own. And unlike the indoctrinated, I fully understand why I have reached the conclusions that I have. Because they are my own conclusions I am fully capable and prepared to defend them in great detail. As opposed to believers who join the forum armed with the "truth" their indoctrination has established for them, only to see their assumptions effortlessly quashed by those who have taken the time and effort to learn all the facts, and who have reached conclusions all on their own. I am sure you have observed many times yourself at this point, Christian newbies expounding on exactly the same doctrinaire assumptions and assertions which you already know that the non believers on the forum are just waiting to pounce on and eviscerate.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
You are STUCK with making the same arguments. Because you are stuck with the same "book of revealed truth" that all Christians are saddled with. Your "book of revealed truth" is the product of the thought processes and beliefs of ancient ignorant iron age people. Quite naturally it does not hold up to modern knowledge and observation. But you are STUCK with it. And as modern knowledge and observation continues to expand, your "book of revealed truth" will inevitably become more obviously arcane and insupportable. Committed believers will hang on to their arcane "book of revealed truth" to their dying day. But the upcoming generation is walking away from the beliefs of their parents in growing numbers. Because they are reaching the same conclusion that I reached when I was 13. These ancient iron age beliefs are too silly to be true.
My prediction is that by the end of this century belief in christianity will be something akin to believing in Zeus, or Odin. It will be a product of the past. The challenge is going to be in bringing the Muslim world into the increasingly religiously skeptical late 21st and 22nd century. On the one hand there are fledgling Muslim atheist groups. But being raised Muslim and becoming openly atheist currently means taking one's life in one's hands. Religious beliefs will not die without a great deal of violence I am afraid.
Realworldjack wrote:
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?"
While this may be an accurate statement, beliefs can only be changed on a point by point basis. Your beliefs might not be allowed to change, but your children or your children's children will make up their own minds. Christians have currently undertaken a process of declaring that evolution is not only a "failed theory," but that it has largely been discarded by science. This is not only NOT true, it is delusional. Evolution can be defended on a point by point basis. And should be. Religious beliefs can be discounted and eviscerated on a point by point basis. And should be.
Realworldjack wrote:
In my view, these types of comments, only ruin one's 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.
If I am ruining my reputation then that is the direction I choose to take my ruined reputation in. I can only say that if you find that statement to be insulting, then it must be because you see how it applies to you. On the one hand it is never my intention to be needlessly insulting. On the other hand I do expect that the things that I say will resonate with others. And of course the nature of debate is the nature of expressing ones views.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
If many people actually believed that Santa actually exists and that the rest of the story is true as well, in what way would that change what is true? Or to put it another way, does belief in Islam change what is true? What about belief in Mormonism? Both of these beliefs are based, to some degree at least, on Abrahamic beliefs. So what about the belief of Hinduism? Do the hundreds of Hindu Gods actually exist because a half a billion Hindus believe that it is so, or are the hundreds of Hindu Gods simply fictitious because you "know" them to be fictitious. How much difference is there REALLY between the story of a team of flying reindeer, the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus, and the flying Hindu monkey god Hanuman?
http://www.lotussculpture.com/hindugodhanuman.html
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
There are many sites devoted to Hinduism. Does that fact affect reality?
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
nonsense [non-sens, -suh ns]
noun
1. words or language having little or no sense or meaning.
2. conduct, action, etc., that is senseless, foolish, or absurd:
I suppose the reason Joseph of Arimathea's tomb proved to be empty was because, being his personal family tomb, it was never intended to be the final burial site of Jesus, who was a non family member. Joseph's tomb was simply used as a convenient place to wash and prepare the The body of Jesus. Which was then relocated to another permanent site. The story of the "risen" Jesus was simply a false rumor spread by the followers of Jesus in an attempt to restore his name.
You suppose that the reason Joseph's tomb proved to be empty was because the corpse of Jesus returned to life, left the tomb of it's own volition, and ultimately flew off up into the sky and disappeared.
Which supposition ACTUALLY most closely conforms to the dictionary definition of "nonsense?"
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
If people DID choose to believe that the story of Santa is valid, I would happily now be presenting them with all of the reasons why such a belief is nonsense. And that is EXACTLY why such a comparison has a place in this debate. Or we could argue the truth of the belief in the Hindu God Lord Hanuman - The Monkey God, if you wish. That particular belief has the backing of a half billion Hindus. Which apparently, according to you, gives it validity.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
And I have done that quite extensively. I look at the question from a different perspective than some others. Since there is nothing inherently unbelievable about an empty grave and missing body, I see no reason to discount the story outright. It might be true, and it might not.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
I have simply pointed out that the empty tomb story is easily explainable naturally, without recourse to a supernatural explanation. It is an explanation that is right there in Gospel Matthew 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.
The chief priests, who were after all
there at the time, thought that a plot existed among Jesus' followers to relocate the body. Jesus' followers were in fact
already in possession of the body of Jesus.
A natural explanation is ever so much more likely to be true than a supernatural explanation is. In fact, if a natural explanation is apparent, a supernatural explanation has no obvious standing whatsoever.
Realworldjack wrote:
The first thing that needs to be pointed out here is, I am not the one who is appealing to the Bible, you are!
I am appealing to the NT, because the NT is the only source that anyone considers to be potentially valid. If we exclude the NT, we have no explanation at all for why Christianity suddenly appeared in the first century AD. And we can see within the pages of the NT, potentially at least, how Christianity originated. We are not left with the unavoidable conclusion that the laws of reality changed for a brief time during the first century AD for some reason.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Paul was not "said" to have experienced these thing while on the road to Damascus. The only one who reported any of this was Paul, after his recovery, years later. This is Paul's version of events.
But Paul was the afflicted man. Paul was the one who was blind and disoriented at the time.
Paul does not indicate what actually caused his infirmity because he likely did not understand it himself. The first and most obvious possibility is that he was suffering from heat
stroke. Paul certainly has all of the symptoms of heat stroke. Dysentery is also a possibility. People with dysentery commonly die of dehydration, because they cannot retain water. There is also a condition known as dysphagia, in which the muscles of the throat become paralyzed, causing the person to lose the ability to eat or drink. One of the causes of dysphagia is brain damage caused by a
stroke.
But this was Paul's experience, and the story that has come down to us Paul's version of what he believed he experienced after he had recovered. But you see
Paul was the afflicted man.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
I do not deny that the author of Acts was a follower of Paul. What portion of the story of Acts the author of Acts may have personally experienced himself, if any, cannot be determined.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
EXACTLY TRUE! The story of Paul's troubles while traveling to Damascus are entirely based on what Paul believed happened to him after he had recovered. BUT PAUL WAS THE AFFLICTED MAN. No one who has gone three days without water in a desert climate can be expected to be in their right mind. They can, however, expect to be delusional.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
No one had to "hi-jack" the body of Jesus. The body was given to his followers by the Roman governor, and the followers had every right to inter the body wherever they chose. That the body was not later found in Joseph's personal private family tomb leads us to the natural conclusion that Joseph's personal family tomb was never intended to be the final resting place for Jesus.
Realworldjack wrote:
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!
This is actually the best argument in favor of Christianity. It might be a more viable argument if we did not see exactly the same thing repeating itself with the rise of Islam. Currently, and seemingly against all odds, the same thing seems to be occurring with Mormonism. Religious beliefs come, and religious beliefs go. Many overnight. And some few grow into mighty beliefs held by millions. Against all odds.
There is also the explanation that the religion that Paul brought to the Hellenic gentiles was constructed in such a way as to conform to preexisting beliefs that were already in place throughout the Mediterranean region. But that explanation is long and this response is already going to be a long one. I will provide this more detailed explanation if you really want it. The existence of Islam actually answers your question concerning how a religion held in devoting by million could possibility be based on that which is not true.
abilities of the religion in question to grow and prosper, and the conditions that existed naturally at the time.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Could I be wrong in my evaluation? Of course. Is the "true" answer likely to be a supernatural one? Well, no that is NOT likely.
Realworldjack wrote:
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 became a true believer, this is undeniably true. Given that Paul was deathly ill, delusional and delirious (unavoidable effects from being deeply dehydrated), and having his life saved by a Christian man who prayed over him in the name of Jesus until he recuperated, there is little surprise that Paul became a confirmed Christian after his recovery.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Paul underwent a life changing experience while on his way to Damascus. This does not lead us to the unavoidable conclusion that he actually had a face to face meeting with the years dead Jesus.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Most fledgling religious movements fail. But some succeed. Christianity, along with Islam, are the most prominent examples of improbable successes.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
You are trying to convince yourself and all of the rest of us that just because a claim happens to conform very closely to nonsense, does not necessarily "prove" that it is nonsense. But you see, a claim that conforms very closely to nonsense does necessarily need a significant amount of hard evidence before it should reasonably even begin to be taken seriously. Christian claims on the other hand can rather easily be explained as unfounded assumptions, baseless assertions, insupportable traditions, and just plain old wishful thinking.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Perhaps you missed my point. People who are inclined to believe in unbelievable claims overwhelmingly tend to be people who were
raised to believe in very specific unbelievable claims. A person who was raised to believe in Christianity, who then became skeptical for a time, but later returned to their Christian beliefs, was a person who was raised to believe in Christianity from the beginning. So a person who was raised to be a Christian and to believe that Jesus returned to life and then subsequently flew away, is much more easily convinced of
that story than say, a Christian who has been told that Muhammad once flew up to heaven on a flying steed named al-Baraq is going to easily be convinced of
that story.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Conversations with Rosaria
"I came to Christ in 1999. I broke up with my lesbian partner because I was convicted of my sin, but my heart was a mess. I never called my partner my wife because I had rejected all things “heteronormative.� I —and others of my generation—dismissed the idea that we were “born this way.� Instead, I believed that my lesbian sexuality was a cleaner and more moral choice.'"
"I cried out to God to help me understand how this could be—how I could see my own lesbian appetite and identity as something that degraded me and made me a beast, but at the same time see others in the lesbian community and their happy and stable households in a completely different way. I asked God to let me come face-to-face with His Word on this. This prayer brought me to the gospels and the disciples and the holy love they had for the Lord Jesus and for each other. This was real love. This love didn’t cause others to sin. This love so cherished God and the person you love that you sacrifice all unholy desires that could separate your lover from the God who made her."
http://rosariabutterfield.com/frequentl ... questions/
I could find no information on Rosaria Butterfield's childhood. That she felt guilt over her lesbian lifestyle leads me to the supposition that she was raised in the Christian faith. It is very difficult to overcome one's lifetime of programming.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Presumably this occurred after she was grown, by those wicked old lesbians. My experience with hard core lesbians is that they can be quite obnoxious and difficult to be around. But they have every right to choose their own lifestyle.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
I bluntly say what I mean. It is not intended as a tactic or to be unnecessarily rude.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
1Cor:
[8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
[9] For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
[10] But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
By Paul's own admission he was an apostle "born of due time," and not as a result of being one of the 12. Paul's claim to authority is his assertion that he spoke with Jesus years after Jesus was executed. Years after the other apostles claimed that Jesus ascended to heaven, and as a result of his delusional state while deathly ill due to dehydration.
I am a fan of Abraham Lincoln. I have read a lot about lincoln. But I have no direct knowledge of Lincoln.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Paul believed that he had direct knowledge of Jesus. That is because Paul believed that he saw and spoke to dead people.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Like it or not, claims that a corpse came back to life and flew away, or that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves, are unrealistic. Believing them to be true does not serve to make them realistic. Asserting that such claims are not unrealistic, when clearly they are, does not serve to help your credibility either.
unrealistic
adjective un·re·al·is·tic \ˌən-ˌrē-ə-ˈli-stik\
not realistic : inappropriate to reality or fact
Realworldjack wrote:
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!
Only evidence has a bearing on the facts. All common observation and experience has established that a corpse will not come back to life and then fly away. You have no evidence that such a thing has ever happened. You only have some few unverifiable and unrealistic claims. That is what I meant that you begin in a deep hole of unrealistic claims. The task before you is to establish that such claims are, at the very minimum, plausible. That would at least bring to to even. But you can't do it.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
I am not suggesting that the authors of the Bible didn't fully believe their make believe and superstition themselves. Nor am I suggesting that the audience the Bible was written for didn't believe in their system of make believe and superstition. I am suggesting that these were iron age peasants who had only the tiniest fraction of the knowledge that we possess today. They were not less intelligent than we are today, but they were drastically less well informed about the functioning of the universe.
So, where they believed that God created the earth before the stars, we know today that the universe is actually billions of years older than the earth. And that is simply a well known scientific "fact." To subscribe to the notion that the earth was created before the rest of the universe, is to subscribe to the make believe and superstition of ancient iron age peasants. Like believing that the earth is a circle covered by a curtain. Or that the earth once stopped turning for about 24 hours. Belief in such things requires stepping backwards into ancient ignorance.
TotN 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.
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Parents all over the world have told their children a variety of competing and often contradictory things about the nature of existence. And people all over the world are certain that their beliefs are true because they feel it in their heart that is is so. And at the end of the day we have hundreds of millions of competing beliefs and competing heartfelt declarations. My great "example of an assumption" is simply to recognize that all of these competing beliefs cannot possibly be true. They could certainly ALL be untrue, however.
Realworldjack wrote:
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!
Facts are my forte. But I am willing to consider yours. Lay out the facts that indicate that Joseph's tomb could
not possibly have been empty because Joseph chose to bury the body of Jesus someplace other than his new family crypt, and that the origin of the story of the risen Jesus was
not the result of the followers of Jesus spreading that very rumor.
Realworldjack wrote:
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,
TotN wrote:
And hard evidence indicates that a corpse cannot come back to life and then fly away.
This is a fact as surely a the word "fact" has any meaning.
fact [fakt]
noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. something known to exist or to have happened:
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
Realworldjack wrote:
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.
Hard evidence that a corpse cannot come back to life and fly away would be found in the form of the entire observation and experience of humankind throughout history.
Realworldjack wrote:
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."
Throw in medical science concerning the things that corpses are capable of, and the laws of physics concerning the flight capabilities of dead humans, are we are beginning to close in on the meaning of "hard evidence," and "fact."
Realworldjack wrote:
I am certain beyond doubt that you have your reasons for rejecting, Christianity.
I reject religion and superstitious make believe across the board. Christianity simply fits into that category.
Realworldjack wrote:
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 non believers on this forum have debunked religion about as thoroughly as it can be debunked. Proof is, after all, to be found in the physical evidence. The physical evidence
supports none of the claims made by the religious. What cannot be proven I suppose, is whether or not the concept of proof is ultimately achievable. I suspect there will never be an "aw haw" moment, when religion is finally and undeniably debunked. What will happen is that science will continue to erode religious beliefs until there is no place left for religion to claim for it's own. At some point religious beliefs will simply evaporate without a whimper.
Thank you for responding. Because you don't always respond. You must admit, not responding does give the impression that one is unable to defend their beliefs. And I do enjoy these long indepth discussions.
"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.
