I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

[POI]

To protect the innocent, (for now), I will not divulge the author of this recent statement issued in an extremely long and convoluted thread:

"Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence."

For Debate:

Based upon the given 'evidence' for the claim that a man resurrected from a grave, is it rational to still remain skeptical of this extraordinary claim?

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a ridiculous and dismissive argument. Whether or not Believers credit to Bible as totally, or substantially reliable, they cannot honestly or rationally deny that we doubters have good reason to doubt these stories, even though the Faithful can come up with reasons for them to continue to believe.

Since the resurrection is specifically mentioned, I understand that it can be argued that, miracle or not, it is record in an ostensibly eyewitness account that it actually happened. Add to that the apparent corroboration ofPaul (I Corinthians) and that should do it, give or takethe other arguments.

Indeed, this has stood up for quite a while and is one of my biggest beefs with Bible - critics: they too easily accept as a credible account what really isn't. The ghastly contradictions of the resurrection accounts make it clear that we have made up 'evidence' in support of the proposition that 'Jesus rose from the dead' which is of course evidence of nothing

But suppose we took it as eyewitness testimony as reliable as is assumed in the 'Real Jesus' hot sellers. That does not mean that Jesus really rose from the dead, as the 'Swoon theory' (dismissed without consideration by the Gospel -apologists), is by far the more credible explanation as an Induced swoon.

Take the trial. Pilate, according to the gospels, sees that Jesus is being framed and tries to let Jesus off. The Sanhedrin are having none of it and Jesus himself isn't co - operative, as he has his own plan to be saved and thus save, which I needn't elaborate. But the point is, all the time Jesus is being prepared to be crucified, Arimathea goes to Pilate to 'ask for the body'. Alive. Pilate, who is sad that his hand was forced, instructs his soldiers to co -operate.

"But will it work?" Pilate wonders.

"It worked when we staged the Lazarus resurrection."

So 'Someone' feeds Jesus some wine on a stick and Jesus conks out immediately.'Nuff Sed as they say. As soon as it's dark, two figures approach the tomb, roll back the stone and scuttle off with the body. The 'disciples took the body'as Matthew reports was said in his day. Now, because of the contradictions, the following scenarios vary. Or on 2nd thots, I'll use the version the too - accepting (not to say Lazy) Bible critics accept; the woven - together version.

Sunday morning, the women approach the tomb, carrying girly -gunk they have made. A young fellow in white, knowing they'd be coming, tells them that Jesus has 'risen' and they run off. If they see Jesus walking about, it's because he was never actually dead; and if the Faithful can swallow that Jesus appears and repeats a message for the disciples to go to Galilee and then appears that night and gives them a 40 day - scripture lesson in Jerusalem, they should understand that the skeptics can swallow that Jesus was never dead, which accords more with the way the world works than miracles do.

It only remains for me to save their time and mine in not starting with a Faith that Jesus really rose from being dead and picking the bits of the story that fit and ignoring the bits that don't. I look at ALL the story, not just the bits that suit me.

So I'm not interested in their Pet Theories; I'm only interested in mine.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

is it rational to still remain skeptical of this extraordinary claim?

Well, let's look at the definition of rational.

ra·tion·al
[ˈraSH(ə)nəl]
ADJECTIVE
based on or in accordance with reason or logic:

So yes, one can use reason and logic to remain skeptical about this extraordinary claim. However, either way you look at the events concerning this claim, you cannot escape the extraordinary. I mean, it is not like if we eliminate the Resurrection we are rid of the extraordinary. What we would be left with is, ordinary everyday fishermen, who had just seen their leader crucified, pull off the greatest hoax in the history of the world. Of course, there are many other theories of how all this took place, but none of these alternative explanations eliminate the extraordinary. Moreover, as we think about the fact there are many who attempt to come up with all these other alternative explanations, sort of demonstrates there are good reasons to believe the claims, otherwise there would be no reason to go to the trouble to come up with all these other explanations of the facts, and evidence we have. Rather, they could simply point to how ridiculous the claims are and leave it at that. Therefore, while one may be able to use rationale to continue to remain skeptical of the extraordinary explanations contained in the Bible, one can also employ rationale to remain skeptical of all these other alternative explanations, which would be just as, if not even more extraordinary. What would be irrational would be for one side or the other to insist those opposed could not possibly be using reason and logic to come to their conclusions. It would also be irrational to think that any explanation would eliminate the extraordinary.

[otseng]

To protect the innocent, (for now), I will not divulge the author of this recent statement issued in an extremely long and convoluted thread:

"Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence."

For Debate:

Based upon the given 'evidence' for the claim that a man resurrected from a grave, is it rational to still remain skeptical of this extraordinary claim?

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

No need to protect me.

Here's the context...

I asked:

And since the resurrection claim is to be taken upon faith, as it is completely unfalsifiable and not really testable.

This is false. If anyone can falsify the resurrection, then they've falsified Christianity. I make the further claim that if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection.

Well, this answer is easy. (3) independent labs tested this cloth. They all independently concluded the cloth is from many centuries later, among other things....

Yeah, this is the number one claim made by skeptics. I've countered this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

Please address my counterarguments about the 1988 C-14 dating.

And then you answered with:

And since the resurrection claim is to be taken upon faith, as it is completely unfalsifiable and not really testable.

This is false. If anyone can falsify the resurrection, then they've falsified Christianity. I make the further claim that if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection.

This is false. The resurrection claim cannot be falsified. Just like I told you about the claim that "Muhammad flew to Heaven on a white horse" cannot be falsified. This is why you can confidently stand by 'Paul's" assertion.

You do not have to try and defend falsifiable claims, like a flood claim or an Exodus claim anymore. You are safe. Just like the Muslim, in that Muhammad really did ascend to Heaven.

Further, as I informed you prior, I'm not going to entertain fringe views, which have little/no merit, like with the flat-earthers and/or the young-earth-creationists.

Just like the flat-earthers, I could debate them as well, until 'kingdom-come'; but it's a futile endeavor.

Yeah, this is the number one claim made by skeptics.

Yes, and there is a reason it continues to be

I've countered this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

Please address my counterarguments about the 1988 C-14 dating.

And like I have stated, a couple of times now, I can "debate" arenas like "AIG" or the "Discovery Institute" about all sorts of young earth claims too. The debate will still never end. Why? Because virtually any claim can be 'debated', even if one side appears unreasonable and unfounded.

********************

The conclusion.... We look to have Biblical falsifiable claims, which are indeed reasonably falsified. So why then still place much/any faith in the claims, which are also unfalsifiable -- (like a resurrection claim)? The book has already proven to be untrustworthy, unless you can PROVE the authors already knew the falsifiable events, (i.e. a flood and the Exodus), were not meant to be literal, and only teaching tools. Which I doubt.

Where is your rational arguments in your response? Why bring up Muhammad, flat-earthers, young-earth-creationists, AIG, Discovery Institute? Why not address the topic at hand?

As for the resurrection to be an extraordinary claim, I readily admit this. That is why I've spent considerable time in discussing the Shroud of Turin. And there are still much to be discussed about the TS. After this, we will spend significant time as well just looking only at the textual evidence.

[POI]

So yes, one can use reason and logic to remain skeptical about this extraordinary claim.

Thank you

However,

I figured there may be a proverbial 'but' in there, soon on its way....

either way you look at the events concerning this claim, you cannot escape the extraordinary. I mean, it is not like if we eliminate the Resurrection we are rid of the extraordinary.

Of course not, but we can dismiss this claim as unlikely, based upon reason and logic. And then, on to the next one for evaluation, which will surely come, sooner or later directly or indirectly.

What we would be left with is, ordinary everyday fishermen, who had just seen their leader crucified, pull off the greatest hoax in the history of the world.

Hmm, exactly what "ordinary everyday fisherman" saw this, reported it, acknowledged their names in formal testimony, and then had their claims deposed and/or corroborated by others? Because remember, we are dealing with, what could arguably be the largest claim in human history. It would be nice if this uber extraordinary claim was backed up with all sorts of evidence. Do you feel we have this?

Of course, there are many other theories of how all this took place, but none of these alternative explanations eliminate the extraordinary.

I hear this almost daily in the hospital.

Moreover, as we think about the fact there are many who attempt to come up with all these other alternative explanations, sort of demonstrates there are good reasons to believe the claims,

No it doesn't.

otherwise there would be no reason to go to the trouble to come up with all these other explanations of the facts, and evidence we have. Rather, they could simply point to how ridiculous the claims are and leave it at that.

You would be correct if we were not talking about a claim which navigates so many lives, in so many ways. I, myself, am surrounded by theists; who make all sorts of extraordinary assertions on a regular basis.

Sure, if it was a random, on the street corner, claiming he's talking to spirits. Sure, I just walk right on by.

Therefore, while one may be able to use rationale to continue to remain skeptical of the extraordinary explanations contained in the Bible, one can also employ rationale to remain skeptical of all these other alternative explanations, which would be just as, if not even more extraordinary. What would be irrational would be for one side or the other to insist those opposed could not possibly be using reason and logic to come to their conclusions. It would also be irrational to think that any explanation would eliminate the extraordinary.

Seems as though you are suggesting, like some apologists also suggest, that (Jesus rising) is the most logical answer. Is this what you are saying? Yes or No?

And I guess a follow up question would be, what reason(s) does one have to believe the extraordinary claims in the Bible?

[POI]

So you do have time to address other threads. Interesting Okay, you need a little recap? No prob.

Where is your rational arguments in your response? Why bring up Muhammad, flat-earthers, young-earth-creationists, AIG, Discovery Institute? Why not address the topic at hand?

Muhammad was brought up to demonstrate that claimed magical eyewitnessed events, posed centuries ago, are not falsifiable. Same goes for Jesus.

The flat-earthers and YECs were brought up to demonstrate that it is futile to debate flat-earthers, YEC's, and also people who argue the TS.

AIG and DI ascribe to some pseudoscience, ignore counter information, and/or manipulate some information willfully or in ignorance, to taste, in accordance with 'affirming' a young earth and a literal account of Genesis and the Exodus. I lump TS-ers into this category. It was debunked long ago, but you cannot see it.

As for the resurrection to be an extraordinary claim, I readily admit this. That is why I've spent considerable time in discussing the Shroud of Turin. And there are still much to be discussed about the TS. After this, we will spend significant time as well just looking only at the textual evidence.

I do not take the claims of "fringers", like (AIG, DI, flat-earthers, YECs, and yes, the group adhering to the TS), too seriously. Sorry.

[otseng]

[Replying to POI in post #6]

I then rest my case and stand by my statement:

"Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence."

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #6]

I then rest my case and stand by my statement:

"Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence."

Of course you will... Post 6 explains why. And on a side-note, I guess anyone who dismisses the TS is irrational

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to POI in post #6]

I then rest my case and stand by my statement:

"Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence."

Them's a lot of words just to say, " Ya can't prove it ain't."

How much evidence does somebody need to know that folks who become dead remain dead?

Anybody standing by the grave hoping grammaw'll hop on up and fix a big ol' mess of collards?

[POI]

Them's a lot of words just to say, " Ya can't prove it ain't."

Bingo!