Yes or No?

[Athetotheist]

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. (Matthew 28:2-3)

Did Mary Magdalene see this happen or did she not?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #28

Thanks for answering the question, i appreciate that.

However I do believe it is possible for both Gospels to be right. A number of things might explain it. We might be interpreting it wrong and both happened, after all we are limited to a few words on paper. OR MM could have experienced both somehow, like in an altered state of reality, and Matt could have depicted one side while the other Mark could have depicted another side of events. Or if you want to get to true skepticism which i myself cant even get past, I (or you or both) could have been created yesterday and created in a universe with an illusion of age, and created with memories of the past. God could do that, and God could create a Bible that is His Word.

All you're doing here is saying, "Well, there's no logical way for it to work, but maybe it just works anyway," and refusing to grant any other belief the same benefit of the same doubt. That's the fallacy of Special Pleading.

[Athetotheist]

I really think a lot of critics of the Bible dont really show an appreciation for skepticism and the profound questions it brings to reality itself. Surely all of reality can be scrutinized. And God could have simply created us in a moments time, and created a bible. All truth can be brought into scrutiny, including laws of science and logic, and we could simply live in a universe where nothing is for sure. And ultimately the words of the Bible leave room for this kind of scrutiny.

It says "there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God." (Romans 3:11)

then 1 Corinthians 1 says:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

And here you're using claims made in the Bible as arguments to excuse any shortcoming in the Bible's claims. That's circular reasoning [again, without affording any other belief the same privilege,] and a confirmation bias.

[Shem Yoshi]

atheism will never get that, because they believe all religions are the same, but the truth is is that not a single religion is the same of another.

First off atheism isn't a "they." It is the lack of belief in god/gods. Atheists could be considered a "they" but we don't all agree on matters beyond sharing a lack of belief in god/gods.

As one atheist I can assure you that I don't consider all religions the same. Christianity for instance is horrible. Dudeism is quite chill:

Yes atheists have different beliefs, I am just commenting on something I have seen common among atheists. That is to reject all religions equally as if they are the same. I am not talking about disingenuous religions like the flying spaghetti monster, or you have brought up dudeism.

Though I suppose it is because of a basic belief that God doesnt exists. A Christian might have a similar basic belief that Jesus is the only way so all other religions are not a way to God. Though i suppose a difference there, is that there is no evidence for atheism.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #33

A Christian might have a similar basic belief that Jesus is the only way so all other religions are not a way to God. Though i suppose a difference there, is that there is no evidence for atheism.

How is there more evidence of Jesus rising from the dead than there is of the Mother Goddess birthing the universe from her womb?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #33

A Christian might have a similar basic belief that Jesus is the only way so all other religions are not a way to God. Though i suppose a difference there, is that there is no evidence for atheism.

How is there more evidence of Jesus rising from the dead than there is of the Mother Goddess birthing the universe from her womb?

Well I said there was no evidence for atheism. If you really want to honestly compare the evidence's of different religions I would be open to that, however the way you are questioning these things seems logically absurd to me. Are you really asking for "more evidence" for Jesus then "the Mother Goddess..."?

Is there a quantifiable way to count evidence, and some how determine something has "more" evidence then something else? And somehow that makes it rationally valid?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #35

You seem to have gotten over your earlier weariness of the debate.

Are you really asking for "more evidence" for Jesus then "the Mother Goddess..."?

Are you admitting that there isn't more evidence for Jesus?

If you really want to honestly compare the evidence's of different religions I would be open to that, however the way you are questioning these things seems logically absurd to me.

I've identified several logical fallacies you've employed in your attempt to give the inconsistency in the resurrection accounts some roundabout plausibility. How has my questioning been logically absurd?

Is there a quantifiable way to count evidence, and some how determine something has "more" evidence then something else? And somehow that makes it rationally valid?

If you don't think there is, why have you been one-siding all of your speculations in favor of what you believe as if that made for a better argument?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #35

You seem to have gotten over your earlier weariness of the debate.

Are you really asking for "more evidence" for Jesus then "the Mother Goddess..."?

Are you admitting that there isn't more evidence for Jesus?

If you really want to honestly compare the evidence's of different religions I would be open to that, however the way you are questioning these things seems logically absurd to me.

I've identified several logical fallacies you've employed in your attempt to give the inconsistency in the resurrection accounts some roundabout plausibility. How has my questioning been logically absurd?

Is there a quantifiable way to count evidence, and some how determine something has "more" evidence then something else? And somehow that makes it rationally valid?

If you don't think there is, why have you been one-siding all of your speculations in favor of what you believe as if that made for a better argument?

Well I dont know what you mean by "more evidence", you should really answer my question in this thread.
viewtopic.php?p=1103711#p1103711

What evidence do you accept as evidence for something that is true? And is it objective for all truth?

And Personally I believe I have given three rational explanations for the Resurrection accounts.
1) the interpretation of the inconsistency could be wrong, we are very limited in knowing what literally toke place by a few words on paper. I believe it is possible somehow that they all happened together and our interpretation could fail us.
2) The differences might actually be true differences, and somehow a person could have experienced two things. This seems to go against what we would normally experience, but so does any miracle by definition. It is possible that the observer observed two scenario in some sort of miracle, or altered state of reality.
3) God could simply be a personal God, and nothing outside of personal experience is provable, or even happening, and God could simply make a reality with His Bible.

You keep on saying how would this hold up to other religions, but any other belief aside, how are any one of those not possible?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #35

You seem to have gotten over your earlier weariness of the debate.

ya soemtimes that happens.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #37

1) the interpretation of the inconsistency could be wrong, we are very limited in knowing what literally toke place by a few words on paper. I believe it is possible somehow that they all happened together and our interpretation could fail us.
2) The differences might actually be true differences, and somehow a person could have experienced two things. This seems to go against what we would normally experience, but so does any miracle by definition. It is possible that the observer observed two scenario in some sort of miracle, or altered state of reality.
3) God could simply be a personal God, and nothing outside of personal experience is provable, or even happening, and God could simply make a reality with His Bible.

1. The accounts don't go together, but let's just say that maybe they do.

2. It's logically impossible for mutually exclusive things to happen, but let's just say they happened anyway. The Bible says there was a miracle, so let's just assume that there was and not engage in any critical analysis of the text.

3. Our if's and maybe's could work just as well for other beliefs, but let's just apply them to our own and assume that our belief is entitled to an exclusive benefit of the doubt.

You keep on saying how would this hold up to other religions, but any other belief aside, how are any one of those not possible?

If you're going to make your own belief unfalsifiable, you can't just put "any other belief aside".

viewtopic.php?t=40219

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #37

3) God could simply be a personal God, and nothing outside of personal experience is provable, or even happening, and God could simply make a reality with His Bible.

3. Our if's and maybe's could work just as well for other beliefs, but let's just apply them to our own and assume that our belief is entitled to an exclusive benefit of the doubt.

If you're going to make your own belief unfalsifiable, you can't just put "any other belief aside".

I dont think you are fully appreciating what I'm saying when I ponder what skeptical philosophers have pondered. For example number three, my belief make up every personal experience in the universe. This amuses the idea that there is no other personal experience besides mine, and certainly it is not provable that there is any other personal experience besides the person experiencing things.

So say someone has a different belief then i do. It doesn't matter. My personal experience would make up reality. Of course other people could influence my personal beliefs, but outside of the self there is no provable personal experience. And it just might be the case that the God of Christianity is a personal God, while all other God's outside of myself are impersonal and belonging to others.

for #3 it wouldn't matter if "Our if's and maybe's could work just as well for other beliefs"... Another person outside myself can make the same argument, however if they make that same argument I am still observing another person make that argument and it isnt myself the one who is experiencing it.

God could be a personal God