Non Believers Are "Evasive" and "Nervous"

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I posted this in another string. But it seemed important enough to give it it's own topic.

Is it possible that atheists evade offering a positive alternative historical explanation for Christian origins because it is hard (anyone can doubt something, after all) and they are nervous it might get them trapped: that is, they might have to defend a position which itself might crumble?

You have been a member of this forum for two years now. To insist that non believers are somehow "nervous" or timid or have in some way been evasive in offering an explanation for the origins of Christianity is way past distressing and all the way to psychotic. As in, a complete disassociation from reality. In what way does it seem to you that making these sorts of obviously ridiculous declarations is somehow strengthening your claims? Because to the rest of us they seem nothing short of delusional.

But I will be perfectly happy to take you up on your claim that no one can offer an explanation for the origins of Christianity. The short version is to be found in Matthew 27:62-64.

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[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.

And there you have it, right in the pages of the Gospels. Because this is EXACTLY what occurred, according to the NT. The body of Jesus disappeared, and a few weeks later his followers began spreading the rumor that he had risen from the dead.

But for a slightly deeper analysis, let's turn to what the Gospels themselves detail.

1) Jesus was crucified and died on the Friday before Passover.
2) The body of Jesus was turned over to his followers (Joseph and Nicodemus) that same day by the Roman governor. (Matt.27:57; John 19:38)
3) The body of Jesus was taken to the personal tomb of Joseph of Arimathea to be washed and prepared because the tomb was conveniently close to the place where Jesus was crucified.(John. 19:42)
4) The body of Jesus was washed according to Jewish tradition, and heavily wrapped and coated with 100 pounds mixture of aloe/myrrh.(John.19:39)
5) The entrance to Joseph's tomb was covered with a large stone and the disciples departed.(Matt.27:60)
6) The Next day (Saturday) the chief Jewish priests asked for and received permission from the Roman governor to place a guard at Joseph's tomb.
7) Finding the tomb entrance closed off by the large stone, and, given the nature of the high holy day, the priests simply placed seals on the closed tomb and set a guard.
8) The next morning (Sunday) Joseph's tomb proved to be empty.

So we are confronted with the obvious conclusion that Joseph's personal tomb was already empty when the priests set the guard. We also notice that the disciples of Jesus were the last individuals to be in clear control of the body.

Now Acts indicates that after being away in Galilee for about forty days, the apostles and other disciples returned to Jerusalem. (Acts 1:3) On the day termed by Christians as the day of Pentecost, the followers of Jesus began spreading the rumor that Jesus had "risen from the dead." Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus? His followers and ONLY his followers. And where was the "risen" man now? He was gone, having lifted bodily up off of the ground and disappeared into the clouds. (Acts 1:9) Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus lift bodily off of the ground and fly up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds? His followers and ONLY his followers.

What did the Jewish priests believe the followers of Jesus intended to do? Relocate the body of Jesus from Joseph's tomb and then spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. And what happened? The tomb of Joseph proved to be empty and some six weeks later the followers of Jesus began spreading the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Now, if you still wish to assert that non believers are somehow unable or uncertain about providing an explanation for the origins of Christianity, perhaps you should read the answer that has been provided to you yet again a few dozen more times!

Agreements? Disagreements?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 29 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Perhaps you could illustrate for us the proper technique for determining the difference between those things which are actually true and those things which are believed to be true?

Sure, allow me to help you out! You see, I believe Christianity to be true. However, simply because I believe it to be true, does not cause it to be true. This is an example of simply believing something to be true.

Next, I do not simply believe that we have the reports contained in the NT, I know that we have them, because it is a fact, that we have them, and this can be demonstrated to be a fact.

I could not claim Christianity to be true, because it has not been demonstrated to be a fact. Therefore, it would be an opinion. However, I can confidently claim, that we have the letters contained in the NT, because it is a fact, that can be demonstrated.

Now listen! Getting in to an argument about who the authors may have been, and how we have obtained these writings would be beside the point at this time, because at this point, I am simply stating that it is a fact that we have the reports contained in the NT.

I certainly hope this helps you out in determining those things that we know to be a fact, as opposed to those things that we simply believe to be true.

Using the word blasphemous and considering something to be blasphemous are two slightly different things.

You are right, but since this sort of thing has never crossed my mind, when I am engaged with unbelievers, then I believe this would indicate very strongly that I do not hold the position. Again, this certainly seems tactical, in that you are attempting to get me off track, and attempting to get me to defend something that I have not said, and has never crossed my mind.

I will assume this is something you believe I must adhere to, and are attempting to get me to defend it, but I will not take the bait, and you are free to have your own conversation with yourself if you wish, concerning this subject.

If I were to suggest, and I do, that God is simply a figment of the imagination, many people would consider that to be blasphemous.

You are more than likely correct to say that, "many people would consider that to be blasphemous", but again, this has never even crossed my mind, when I have read your post.

In fact, when I read these sort of things from you, or others, I have no emotion whatsoever. It has no effect at all. The reason for this is, I can clearly see, and demonstrate that this is an opinion, and not a fact.

Actually, I can demonstrate this, "suggestion" to be false! Because you see, I did not dream the concept of God up. There is actual evidence of God. Now, does this in any way prove there is a God? It does not. However, it certainly demonstrates that I did not simply dream it up.

Most religions, including Christianity consider denying the existence of God to be the ultimate form of blasphemy.

You see, this is why someone may want to leave a conversation with you, because you seem to want to have your own conversations. Here, we have wasted time on things you are bringing up, which have nothing to do with what has been said in our conversation. And again, it seems to be some sort of tactic to get me to defend something I have never said!

My position on this is the same as Paul. "What do I have to do with judging those outside the Church?"

But allow me to ask you directly; do you or do you not consider denying the existence of God to be blasphemy?

And here we continue!

Blasphemy-the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

Now, is this what you are doing? Then you should be able to answer the question! As for me? I could not care less one way of the other. So no, I do not consider it blasphemy, when it has never crossed my mind. I have respect for those who do not believe, and I am sincerely interested in understanding our differences. So again NO! I never think about it.

Again, this is a question, and an attempt, to get me to defend something that you think I must.

Do you consider my often repeated observation that Christianity is founded on the belief that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away, to be rude? Because many of the Christians on the forum consider my very use of the phrase "came back to life and then subsequently flew away" to be rude, and would strongly prefer that I use the terms "resurrected" and "ascended" instead.

Again, I could not care less about the terminology you use, and I believe I have explained this thoroughly in my last post. I would prefer you to use the terminology you wish, because it allows me to understand what sort of person I am dealing with.

So then, as I said in the previous post, "there is a difference between, having the freedom to freely express yourself, and this being considered rude by others, when there was really no attempt to be, as opposed to being rude, in an attempt to inflame the emotions of the one you are addressing."

It is sort of like many Churches, Isn't it? In Church, you could simply explain what the Bible has to say, and appeal to the mind. Or, you could skip this process altogether, and leave the mind behind, and simply appeal to the emotions. Appealing to the mind, and dealing with the facts is hard work, and takes a lot of time, and effort. Appealing to the emotions is far simpler, and it has been found to work great! Not only in Church, but in other situations as well.

With this being the case, there are those who attempt to use these same sort of tactics in debate. In other words, instead of sticking to the facts, and the actual topic of the conversation, it is far easier to attempt to inflame the emotions of the opponent, and believe it or not, many folks allow this sort of tactic to work.

But this sort of thing will not work on me at all. It did not, and does not work on me in Church. In fact, I do not, and never would attend a Church that held an altar call.

With all this being the case, you can continue to refer to the Resurrection any way you wish, without being concerned about how I may take it, it will not effect me in the least.

However, for you to even ask me this question, certainly seems to demonstrate that this is what you are attempting to do. If it were not, then why in the world would you ask the question? Why not wait until I were to bring it up?

You have done this in our conversations in the past, and I have never mentioned it. So why would you not think that I would not have complained before now? The reason I have not brought it up, is because I am not bothered.

In fact, let us all look at the way in which the question is worded again.

Do you consider my often repeated observation that Christianity is founded on the belief that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away, to be rude?

Certainly seems to me to be an attempt to inflame the emotions, because you have used this very same terminology numerous times with me in the past, and I have never mentioned it. This seems to have bothered you, therefore, you make sure that I not only read it again, (as if I have not read it over, and over) and then you ask me to respond to it. Why?

At any rate, I believe I will leave it here at this point. I have just received a private message from another member informing me that he has responded to one of my post. In this particular thread, this member has taken days to respond to may post, and this is not the first time in which this has occurred.

Now, you seem to think that, this is a sign that this member must be losing the argument. But I do not think in this way. I understand that people are busy just as I am, and also, just as me, they may be more interested in other threads, and spending much of there time there.

This particular conversation between myself, and this other member, has been going on for over a month now, and most times he will take several days, in order to respond, and I will do the same myself.

My point is, I am leaving our conversation at this point, in order to address his post, which will more than likely take a couple of days, on top of the fact, that I am far more interested in this particular conversation, as this member seems to be able to stay more on topic, and addresses the conversation at hand, without bringing into the conversations, things he wishes to derail the conversation with.

When I am finished, I may check back in, or I may decide to move on to other things. Either way, I will be here and I am sure we will meet again.

Oh, and BTW, I will be leaving this weekend to go to a particular Church camp, where I have been the cook for over 25 years now, where we plan on indoctrinating the kids. So I doubt that I will have access to the site, for a while.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 31 by Realworldjack]




TotN wrote:
"Perhaps you could illustrate for us the proper technique for determining the difference between those things which are actually true and those things which are believed to be true?"

Sure, allow me to help you out! You see, I believe Christianity to be true. However, simply because I believe it to be true, does not cause it to be true. This is an example of simply believing something to be true.

Next, I do not simply believe that we have the reports contained in the NT, I know that we have them, because it is a fact, that we have them, and this can be demonstrated to be a fact.

I could not claim Christianity to be true, because it has not been demonstrated to be a fact. Therefore, it would be an opinion. However, I can confidently claim, that we have the letters contained in the NT, because it is a fact, that can be demonstrated.

Now listen! Getting in to an argument about who the authors may have been, and how we have obtained these writings would be beside the point at this time, because at this point, I am simply stating that it is a fact that we have the reports contained in the NT.

I certainly hope this helps you out in determining those things that we know to be a fact, as opposed to those things that we simply believe to be true.

This represents the fundamental difference in worldview between believers and non believers. Believers prefer a certain thing to be true, and then declare that thing TOO be true even though the thing they wish to be true is not only not obviously true, but may actually contradict all common experience. Non believers simply do not possess the ability to be that unskeptical... or inherently gullible. It genuinely is the difference between living in the real world and living in a world of make believe. It does however free the non believer up to investigate the truths that are waiting to be discovered in the real world. Things that non believers don't seem to particularly want to know about anyway.

Yes we do have the reports contained in the NT. These reports represent the perspective of the ancient superstitious iron age people who wrote them. And they are interesting for that reason. But these were ignorant people living in a world of superstition and the fear of what they did not have the means to understand. That is not an indictment of them. We will be considered largely ignorant by people living a couple of centuries from now, let alone thousands of years from now. But as knowledge progresses we should naturally leave the ignorance of the past behind.

As a non believer I do not choose to "believe" things to be true the way believers do. I "believe" that when I jump into the air I will not fly off into space because I have a lifetime of common physical experience that indicates that this will not occur. I also have some current scientific understanding why this is so. And yet I do not necessarily dogmatically "believe" the scientific explanation for gravity. It's just that theories on how and why gravity works as it does represent the best current answer. I am fully prepared to modify my understanding of how gravity works as new and better information becomes available. Anything else would represent dogma, and dogma represents potentially being locked onto ignorance. I have no emotional attachment to ignorance, as the religious seem to. Because many people demand answers, and then expect those answers to be absolute and unchanging. And the real world is not always like that.

TotN wrote:
"Using the word blasphemous and considering something to be blasphemous are two slightly different things."

You are right, but since this sort of thing has never crossed my mind, when I am engaged with unbelievers, then I believe this would indicate very strongly that I do not hold the position. Again, this certainly seems tactical, in that you are attempting to get me off track, and attempting to get me to defend something that I have not said, and has never crossed my mind.

I will assume this is something you believe I must adhere to, and are attempting to get me to defend it, but I will not take the bait, and you are free to have your own conversation with yourself if you wish, concerning this subject.

Do you notice that the very act of asking a question is considered by you to be a 'tactic?" something to be considered with suspicion? I would refer to that is paranoia. However attempting to psychoanalyze other forum members apparently violates the rules. I attempt to answer everything you say honestly and in detail. I have no hesitation in doing so. Choosing what you are comfortable answering, and what you are not, is up to you.

Non believers are constantly accused of being rude and angry, vindictive and insulting. Even though we are usually just being matter of fact. Saying exactly what I mean is not a tactic. Although I suppose that ANYTHING could be considered a tactic.

Actually, I can demonstrate this, "suggestion" to be false! Because you see, I did not dream the concept of God up. There is actual evidence of God. Now, does this in any way prove there is a God? It does not. However, it certainly demonstrates that I did not simply dream it up.

No, of course you were not the one who dreamed this stuff up. You were indoctrinated into this particular belief system by your parents who underwent the same process themselves. Just as I was. Just as Muslim and Hindus and Buddhists are. I am suggesting to you that it is possible to break free from your programing however, to think for yourself, and to reach your own conclusions. I broke free from my childhood programing because it became apparent to me that what I was being taught was too silly to be valid. Many people find these silly beliefs to be reassuring however, and do not wish to break free from them. They prefer a comforting world view based on make believe.

Have you noticed yet how your "evidence" for God consistently fails to hold up to examination? Because if there WERE actual undeniable physical evidence for the existence of God, this conversation would not be necessary.

TotN wrote:
Most religions, including Christianity consider denying the existence of God to be the ultimate form of blasphemy.

You see, this is why someone may want to leave a conversation with you, because you seem to want to have your own conversations. Here, we have wasted time on things you are bringing up, which have nothing to do with what has been said in our conversation. And again, it seems to be some sort of tactic to get me to defend something I have never said!

Believers often choose to leave a conversation with non believers because they feel the non believers are being aggressively insulting and offensive. In fact however the non believer is simply saying what they think. But what non believers think is blasphemy by definition, and believers find it offense. In our case, you are exhibiting all the hostility. And that is because you find what I am saying to be insulting. But what I am saying is that you believe in nonsense, so of course you find it insulting. Rather than getting hostile, your best course of action would be to clearly demonstrate why I am the one peddling the nonsense. You have found that you can't do it of course, which only serves to make you frustrated and more hostile. Which is not my fault. The argument you have chosen to defend is a poor argument. Your choices are to either find a way to up your game, or to disengage. But that would be a clear indication that you recognize that you are attempting to defend a losing proposition. Exposing your beliefs as nonsense isn't really some a tactic on my part so much as it is a goal. Stated right in my forum name. I'm not exactly being sly and cunning in my objectives.

And here we continue!

Blasphemy-the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

Now, is this what you are doing? Then you should be able to answer the question! As for me? I could not care less one way of the other. So no, I do not consider it blasphemy, when it has never crossed my mind. I have respect for those who do not believe, and I am sincerely interested in understanding our differences. So again NO! I never think about it.

Again, this is a question, and an attempt, to get me to defend something that you think I must.

Do you notice that you have chosen to consider asking a direct question to be a "tactic" on my part? But in a sense I suppose that you are right. My "tactic" is to expose nonsense as nonsense by holding it up to reason and logic. So at last I am exposed. Not that I was ever hiding.

So then, as I said in the previous post, "there is a difference between, having the freedom to freely express yourself, and this being considered rude by others, when there was really no attempt to be, as opposed to being rude, in an attempt to inflame the emotions of the one you are addressing."

In a discussion of religious belief, as opposed to non belief, the difference between freely expressing oneself and being rude is so uncertain that my only real concerns are about attempting to remain within the guidelines of established forum decorum. If I were free from constraints my terminology would be more forceful and blunt, but I would still be attempting to make the same points in the same way.

It is sort of like many Churches, Isn't it? In Church, you could simply explain what the Bible has to say, and appeal to the mind. Or, you could skip this process altogether, and leave the mind behind, and simply appeal to the emotions. Appealing to the mind, and dealing with the facts is hard work, and takes a lot of time, and effort. Appealing to the emotions is far simpler, and it has been found to work great! Not only in Church, but in other situations as well.

I haven't attended church since I was 12. And I was never a part of the adult "intrigues" that apparently are common among the members of the congregations anyway. Putting aside the various interpersonal conflicts that inevitably occur between people, the fact that as many as 40,000 different denominations of Christianity now exist indicates to me that there really is not a whole lot of common agreement on what the Bible has to say, and those differences in opinion can get quite emotional. I can say in all honesty that I never miss church.

With this being the case, there are those who attempt to use these same sort of tactics in debate. In other words, instead of sticking to the facts, and the actual topic of the conversation, it is far easier to attempt to inflame the emotions of the opponent, and believe it or not, many folks allow this sort of tactic to work.

Again, my only "tactic" is to say what I mean and to make every effort to be right. You can disparage me for that if you wish.

But this sort of thing will not work on me at all. It did not, and does not work on me in Church. In fact, I do not, and never would attend a Church that held an altar call.

You see! I don't even know what an altar call is.

However, for you to even ask me this question, certainly seems to demonstrate that this is what you are attempting to do. If it were not, then why in the world would you ask the question?

It was an attempt to demonstrate that hostility and wariness are built right into what it means to be a believer.

Why not wait until I were to bring it up?

Why do you suppose that I should wait and allow you to dictate the direction of the discussion? I asked because I wanted it established.

You have done this in our conversations in the past, and I have never mentioned it. So why would you not think that I would not have complained before now? The reason I have not brought it up, is because I am not bothered.

If I interject something into the discussion it is because I want to make it a part of the discussion. What are you afraid of? That I might make you look bad? I can only make you look bad if you say things that make you look bad. If the things you say are valid and obviously true, how can I make you look bad? I can only make someone look bad by establishing that the things they say are nonsense. Notice that I never seem to worry about being made to look bad myself.

Certainly seems to me to be an attempt to inflame the emotions, because you have used this very same terminology numerous times with me in the past, and I have never mentioned it. This seems to have bothered you, therefore, you make sure that I not only read it again, (as if I have not read it over, and over) and then you ask me to respond to it. Why?

I use the phrase "a corpse that came back to life and then subsequently flew off up into the sky," frequently with Christians. Not just you. Because it has become clear to me that believers often have never looked at it that way, and as a result have never actually considered just how silly the nature of their most basic belief actually is.

A JW lady came to my door once and wanted to discuss religion with me. I explained to her that I was an atheist and assured her that she almost certainly DID NOT want to discuss religion with me. But she insisted that, no, she really did. Well, at least I gave her a chance to get out of it. She went into a short spiel about Jesus and the Watchtower (along with a pamphlet). Then my question to her was, "Your basic belief is that a corpse dead for three days returned to life and then subsequently flew off up into the sky. What is wrong with you?"

She first protested that she believed no such thing, then became flustered when she realized what I was referring to and declared that she believed that Jesus was "resurrected" and that he bodily "ascended" to heaven. Which was somehow very different. I asked her in what way it was different. She abruptly fled my porch.

I was never rude to her. Most people simply close the door in the face of Jw's, or Mormons. I am actually willing to stand and talk to them. But they never leave happy. And yet despite giving this woman what she asked for, a discussion on religion, I offended her greatly. And insulted her. At least in her mind. She was a nice lady and yet I really didn't care that I had offended her, or that she was insulted by what I said. She had asked to discuss religion and I agreed. I had said what I meant, and at least I had given her something to think about that had obviously never occurred to her before. Which was about all I could hope for. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the outcome she had been hoping for.

Oh, and BTW, I will be leaving this weekend to go to a particular Church camp, where I have been the cook for over 25 years now, where we plan on indoctrinating the kids. So I doubt that I will have access to the site, for a while.

Have a happy Father's Day.

[tfvespasianus]

I work as an historian.

I sincerely doubt it. I say that not as a personal slight, but as an assessment of everything I have seen you post on this forum. My definition of an historian is broadly someone that has had a tenure track position at an accredited university teaching history. Nothing I have seen you post would lead me to infer that that is what you do as 'work' (i.e. employment) as you seem not only wholly unaware of fundamental critical arguments in biblical studies, and you also never appeal to even the most basic texts and/or scholars to support anything that you post. Moreover, you have continually brought up popular talking points of laymen apologists (cf. Joseph of Arimathea) that have been heavily discredited by scholarship without any awareness of the weakness of these arguments. In fast, on multiple occasions, when the argument is seriously rebutted, there are no further defenses of your position from you... the point is simply abandoned. Additionally, I have friends that are tenured academics in both religion and philosophy and one thing that neither of them do is engage in 'debate'/discussion with laymen on pubic message boards. If one knows people in such a positions or is in possession of actual credentials in a specialized field of knowledge then the reasons for this can be fairly easily intuited.

However, if what is meant by 'work as an historian' is that an honest attempt is being made to employ the methods of History as one understands the same as an accomplished layman... then sure. Perhaps many of us here do so. To assert that one does it better than others sans obvious distinction is just haughty and jejune.

take care,
TFV

p.s. I am not an historian. I possess an undergraduate degree in ancient and modern European history, but do not currently or in the past gain remuneration for doing work directly related to this credential (e.g. writing or teaching ancient/modern European history).

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I work as an historian.

I sincerely doubt it. I say that not as a personal slight, but as an assessment of everything I have seen you post on this forum. My definition of an historian is broadly someone that has had a tenure track position at an accredited university teaching history. Nothing I have seen you post would lead me to infer that that is what you do as 'work' (i.e. employment) as you seem not only wholly unaware of fundamental critical arguments in biblical studies, and you also never appeal to even the most basic texts and/or scholars to support anything that you post. Moreover, you have continually brought up popular talking points of laymen apologists (cf. Joseph of Arimathea) that have been heavily discredited by scholarship without any awareness of the weakness of these arguments. In fast, on multiple occasions, when the argument is seriously rebutted, there are no further defenses of your position from you... the point is simply abandoned. Additionally, I have friends that are tenured academics in both religion and philosophy and one thing that neither of them do is engage in 'debate'/discussion with laymen on pubic message boards. If one knows people in such a positions or is in possession of actual credentials in a specialized field of knowledge then the reasons for this can be fairly easily intuited.

However, if what is meant by 'work as an historian' is that an honest attempt is being made to employ the methods of History as one understands the same as an accomplished layman... then sure. Perhaps many of us here do so. To assert that one does it better than others sans obvious distinction is just haughty and jejune.

take care,
TFV

p.s. I am not an historian. I possess an undergraduate degree in ancient and modern European history, but do not currently or in the past gain remuneration for doing work directly related to this credential (e.g. writing or teaching ancient/modern European history).

Some years ago I had a dialog with a person that kept claiming to be a "scientist." Yet during my conversation it became painfully obvious that he actually knew little about science, and most of what he thought he knew was flatly wrong. I eventually coaxed out of him that he had a bachelor of science degree in economics.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 34 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I think your anecdote reinforces my point. That is, if you were of such a background/education that you worked at CERN would you spend your downtime posting on a Yahoo message board about cosmology with the general public? How many tenured professors of biology spend time posting on Facebook groups rebutting creationist cranks? In general, they don’t. The reasons for this are diverse. That being said, I enjoy participating in conversations about religion in that they are just that… conversations. I am edified mostly by the idea that I am gaining insight into what other people think about the topic and I am not pretending to know more about this subject than others and thus ‘educating’ them on the material nor am I trying to convince anyone of the correctness of my opinion – and I certainly wouldn’t appeal to my ‘credentials’ whether real or fake to lend credence to what I am saying.

take care,
TFV

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 34 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I think your anecdote reinforces my point. That is, if you were of such a background/education that you worked at CERN would you spend your downtime posting on a Yahoo message board about cosmology with the general public? How many tenured professors of biology spend time posting on Facebook groups rebutting creationist cranks? In general, they don’t. The reasons for this are diverse. That being said, I enjoy participating in conversations about religion in that they are just that… conversations. I am edified mostly by the idea that I am gaining insight into what other people think about the topic and I am not pretending to know more about this subject than others and thus ‘educating’ them on the material nor am I trying to convince anyone of the correctness of my opinion – and I certainly wouldn’t appeal to my ‘credentials’ whether real or fake to lend credence to what I am saying.

take care,
TFV

My anecdote was intended to reinforce your point. And even tenured professors or those working in the field of scientific research eventually retire. And when they do they may well discover that they need some form of ongoing mental stimulation in an effort to avoid allowing their minds from turning into mush.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 32 by Tired of the Nonsense]



Well, as I have said, I have been very busy over the course of the last few weeks, ordering the food, and preparing for this particular camp, on top of the fact, that I have a full time job, with my responsibilities at home.

So then, at this point, I have very little time so I will not be able to respond to all that has been said here.

I use the phrase "a corpse that came back to life and then subsequently flew off up into the sky," frequently with Christians. Not just you. Because it has become clear to me that believers often have never looked at it that way, and as a result have never actually considered just how silly the nature of their most basic belief actually is.

A JW lady came to my door once and wanted to discuss religion with me. I explained to her that I was an atheist and assured her that she almost certainly DID NOT want to discuss religion with me. But she insisted that, no, she really did. Well, at least I gave her a chance to get out of it. She went into a short spiel about Jesus and the Watchtower (along with a pamphlet). Then my question to her was, "Your basic belief is that a corpse dead for three days returned to life and then subsequently flew off up into the sky. What is wrong with you?"

She first protested that she believed no such thing, then became flustered when she realized what I was referring to and declared that she believed that Jesus was "resurrected" and that he bodily "ascended" to heaven. Which was somehow very different. I asked her in what way it was different. She abruptly fled my porch.

I was never rude to her. Most people simply close the door in the face of Jw's, or Mormons. I am actually willing to stand and talk to them. But they never leave happy. And yet despite giving this woman what she asked for, a discussion on religion, I offended her greatly. And insulted her. At least in her mind. She was a nice lady and yet I really didn't care that I had offended her, or that she was insulted by what I said. She had asked to discuss religion and I agreed. I had said what I meant, and at least I had given her something to think about that had obviously never occurred to her before. Which was about all I could hope for. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the outcome she had been hoping for.

Much of your post here, is the same as the above, and is exactly what I am talking about! I have had very similar conversations with JW's myself. In fact, I have had very similar conversations with fellow Christians, and have had them become offended by the things I have had to say.

However, I do not bring things into the conversation, that they have never brought up, simply to see if I could get a reaction out of them, that would simply be an attempt to offend. Rather, I stick to those things that have been said, and work with the facts. Since you have given me an example, allow me to do the same.

Years ago, I ran into a particular gentleman, who noticed that I was wearing a t-shirt with the logo of the particular camp I am attending for the next two weeks. At one point he asked if we, "experienced the fire of God at our Church." Of course I was pretty sure where the conversation was headed, therefore I attempted to divert it, because I realized we were going to have some major differences, and I would rather not have this conversation with someone I had just met.

However, he persisted, so I told him I was not sure what sort of "fire of God" he was speaking of, even though I was pretty sure of the scripture reference he would use.

Of course I was right, and he said, "you know when John the Baptist said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.�

I responded by saying, "I hope we never do experience this fire of God you are speaking of", and went on to explain to him that this "fire" he was speaking of, was judgement. In other words, John was saying to the Jews at that point, "there will be those of you who will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, as opposed to those of you who will be judged!"

Because you see, the passage goes on to say, "he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.� So then, it is clear the difference between the wheat, and the chaff.

At any rate, like the JW you are referring too, this gentlemen went away very upset, and said, "you need to get your nose out of the Bible, and begin to experience the things of God."

My point is, I did not bring anything into the conversation at all, that he did not bring up himself, in an attempt to get a rise out of him, or attempt to get him to defend something he had not said.

In your example, it was perfectly legitimate to ask the question that you asked, and she became "flustered." But what in the world, does any of this have to do with our conversation? You have made this same comment to me, and it has not in any way offended me. I have never mentioned it, or complained.

The reason it does not bother me at all, is because what you say is, basically true. In other words, you refer to it in one way, while I may refer to it in another way, but in the end, we know we are referring to the same reported event. So what would there be to get upset about?

I understand that you do not believe the event occurred, and also realize that you believe it to be silly, so what else would I expect? If I know you believe it to be silly, then I do not expect you to show any respect at all, so why would I become offended?

The point is, you have said this very same thing over, and over, and I have never mentioned it, because I have not been bothered, and have not abruptly left because of the way in which you have referred to it, in the same way as the JW.

This seems to have bothered you, therefore you bring up the fact that it has bothered others, and then go on to point blank ask me, "does it bother me", which is more than likely the question, "why does it not bother me", because I have shown no sign where it has bothered me.

Again, you have said it over, and over. It has never bothered me, so I have never mentioned it. You have brought up the fact that, it has bothered others, and this only bothers me, because it has nothing to do with me, or our conversation.

You then go on to ask me the question point blank, and I have answered this question, by saying that, "my position is the same as Paul in that, "what bushiness is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" This is a straight forward answer, and yet you continue to bring it up.

So then, what will it take, and will we ever get past the fact that, this does not bother me in the least, on top of the fact that, nothing you will be able to say, will ever offend me, because I am fully aware that none of the things we discuss, has anything at all with me, or how I may feel?

I do not know how to explain this any better! I never am offended by what those I may be opposed to have to say, even if it is clear to me that this is their attempt, and this is not only here on this site, nor is it simply talking about Christianity. It is the same with any subject, including my job.

The reason I am never offended, is because I am able to see past the tactics, in order to discover if what the person is saying is true, or not. If what they have said is true, then I am still not offended, and appreciate the fact that they did not care about my feelings, and was more concerned about me.

So could we please get past the fact that, you have not, and will never offend me, in order to deal with the facts? It is very tiresome to continue to discuss, how one may feel, when it has nothing to do with what we are attempting to discuss.

Have a happy Father's Day.

Thanks! Hope you have a great Fathers day as well!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 37 by Realworldjack]

Much of your post here, is the same as the above, and is exactly what I am talking about! I have had very similar conversations with JW's myself. In fact, I have had very similar conversations with fellow Christians, and have had them become offended by the things I have had to say.

And yet you said them anyway. Because offending the person was not your goal. Your goal was to make your points as succinctly as possible. Offending them was simply a possible unavoidable byproduct. Offence is common taken when when we are contradicted. Especially of the contradiction obviously has merit, and is not easily refuted. The alternatives are to consider the merits of the contradiction and why it is not easily refuted, or to simply be offended. One alternative is an intellectual reaction, and the other is an emotional reaction.

However, I do not bring things into the conversation, that they have never brought up, simply to see if I could get a reaction out of them, that would simply be an attempt to offend.

Rather, I stick to those things that have been said, and work with the facts. Since you have given me an example, allow me to do the same.

Years ago, I ran into a particular gentleman, who noticed that I was wearing a t-shirt with the logo of the particular camp I am attending for the next two weeks. At one point he asked if we, "experienced the fire of God at our Church." Of course I was pretty sure where the conversation was headed, therefore I attempted to divert it, because I realized we were going to have some major differences, and I would rather not have this conversation with someone I had just met.

However, he persisted, so I told him I was not sure what sort of "fire of God" he was speaking of, even though I was pretty sure of the scripture reference he would use.

Of course I was right, and he said, "you know when John the Baptist said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.�

I responded by saying, "I hope we never do experience this fire of God you are speaking of", and went on to explain to him that this "fire" he was speaking of, was judgement. In other words, John was saying to the Jews at that point, "there will be those of you who will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, as opposed to those of you who will be judged!"

Because you see, the passage goes on to say, "he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.� So then, it is clear the difference between the wheat, and the chaff.

At any rate, like the JW you are referring too, this gentlemen went away very upset, and said, "you need to get your nose out of the Bible, and begin to experience the things of God."

It's very difficult to "get a reaction" out of anyone via text based discussions. In a text based discussion people only reveal what they wish to reveal. Or what they may reveal
inadvertently by the tone they have taken. In a face to face discussion all sorts of reactions can be noticed. But getting a reaction is not the purpose. Getting a reaction is the result. And of course I have a huge advantage in a discussion with a Christians because I am already very familiar with the various arguments they invariably present. For most Christians encountering a detailed sophisticated argument that contradicts their most fundamental beliefs is not only something that have never dealt with before, but something they have always been assured is simply quite impossible. Many missionaries seem to be of the opinion that they will encounter people who are simply confused. A condition they are convinced they are easily correct through the process of regurgitating their lifetime of programming. And they are fully prepared to engage with the straw men that have constructed in their minds and trained for. They are entirely unprepared for the real thing. So, yes, in a face to face discussion I inevitably get a reaction. Very often that reaction is frustration and hostility. Which makes the inevitable question of why I am so angry doubly amusing. I am never the one who has gotten angry. In fact I am usually delighted by the opportunity to discuss one of my favorite subjects.

I also enjoy discussing science, movies, and classic 60's cars.

My point is, I did not bring anything into the conversation at all, that he did not bring up himself, in an attempt to get a rise out of him, or attempt to get him to defend something he had not said.

Just as I do not bring up anything that is not pertinent to a forum devoted to discussing religion. No one is forced to be here.

In your example, it was perfectly legitimate to ask the question that you asked, and she became "flustered." But what in the world, does any of this have to do with our conversation?

You have made this same comment to me, and it has not in any way offended me. I have never mentioned it, or complained.

People become flustered when they encounter a situation that were not expecting, or are unfamiliar with. In fact many Christians are unfamiliar with the very act of encountering the idea that Christianity may not be true. Although this seems to be becoming less and less of a fact.

The point is, you have said this very same thing over, and over, and I have never mentioned it, because I have not been bothered, and have not abruptly left because of the way in which you have referred to it, in the same way as the JW.

Experience has taught me that sometimes the only way to make a point is by repeating it over and over. Especially if the point I am attempting to get across can be presented by various different arguments from various different angles. Many Christians seem to feel the that concept that Jesus was NOT resurrected from the dead to be too unrealistic to be true, and as a consequence give it little consideration. The point has to be made repeatedly. You should also keep in mind that I have been in thousands of discussions such as this one. I do not always remember who I said what to, and so I make an effort to cover the same material over and over, for the sake of clarity. And of course there is always our silent audience to consider. I expect to continue referring to the "flying reanimated corpse of Jesus" claim as long is it remains obviously silly and the basis of the entire Christian faith. Because Christians seem to have a unique ability to lose sight of just how silly their most fundamental claim actually is.

This seems to have bothered you, therefore you bring up the fact that it has bothered others, and then go on to point blank ask me, "does it bother me", which is more than likely the question, "why does it not bother me", because I have shown no sign where it has bothered me.

I do remember you becoming particularly upset some time ago at my pointing out that Jesus wrote nothing, and that that everytime you or anyone quotes "Jesus said," what you are really quoting are the words placed in his mouth by others decades after Jesus was dead. Which of course undermines everything you assume to be true about what Jesus stood for. Which is why I pointed it out.

You then go on to ask me the question point blank, and I have answered this question, by saying that, "my position is the same as Paul in that, "what bushiness is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" This is a straight forward answer, and yet you continue to bring it up.

I asked you specifically if you supported the doctrine that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. A question which caused you to accuse me of attempting to use "tactics" on you. A question you refused to answer. The concept of omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God is a pretty mainstream Christian belief. Are you afraid of being revealed as out of step with common Christian doctrine? Or are you afraid that no matter what your answer, my intention is to box you into a corner of doctrinaire illogic? Because OF COURSE that was my intention. Pointing out that Christian beliefs are illogical and self contradictory is part and parcel of just what these sorts of debates are all about. You either have to formulate an argument that explains the apparent illogic, or forgo entering into these sorts of discussions.

So then, what will it take, and will we ever get past the fact that, this does not bother me in the least, on top of the fact that, nothing you will be able to say, will ever offend me, because I am fully aware that none of the things we discuss, has anything at all with me, or how I may feel?

I do not know how to explain this any better! I never am offended by what those I may be opposed to have to say, even if it is clear to me that this is their attempt, and this is not only here on this site, nor is it simply talking about Christianity. It is the same with any subject, including my job.

The reason I am never offended, is because I am able to see past the tactics, in order to discover if what the person is saying is true, or not. If what they have said is true, then I am still not offended, and appreciate the fact that they did not care about my feelings, and was more concerned about me.

The ultimate "tactic" would be for me to force you into a position of admitting that I am probably right and you are probably wrong. That would entirely turn your life upside down and is something that has never once happened over the course of many years of discussions such as this one however. So I have no such expectation. My only real goal is to present my argument as clearly as possible, and allow the strength of it to speak for itself. Or not. And I have nothing better to offer but intellectual honesty and stark reality.