Jump to content

Mr. P on the resurrection


Guest Truth Squad
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Truth Squad

In David Paszkiewicz’s latest “pondering” on Kevin Canessa’s blog, he argues that Jesus’ resurrection “can be accepted beyond any reasonable doubt.” Since that blog is heavily censored, I’ll comment here.

Mr. P’s argument for literal truth of the resurrection story is as full of holes as the green Swiss cheese the moon isn’t made of. I choose that comparison because of his remarks about Martians and space aliens.

Mr. P is wrong about a great many things, including his assertion that “it is possible” that Martians put snow on the ground. It is not possible because Martians do not exist. We know that because we have observed Mars closely enough to know that no living beings live there.

Mr. P offers us a slight variation on this theme when he tells us that “it is possible” that space aliens walk on “cat stilts.” The reason it is not merely unlikely, but ridiculous, is that there is no evidence that any space aliens exist, much less that they walk on “cat stilts.”

It’s fascinating to watch this most peculiar mind try to wrestle with the daunting concept of reality. Already we have a pretty good idea that we’re dealing with someone fascinated by reality as an ideal, but not really grounded in it. Predictably, his argument about the resurrection story overlooks a key fact.

People do not return to life after they are dead. It makes no sense to offer something that does not happen as the most likely explanation for a myth.

The most likely explanation is the same one that explains all the other myths Mr. P does not believe in, like those of Zeus and Thor. People found comfort in a rumor, so they chose to believe it.

Unfortunately, Mr. P, who does not believe in or understand science, does not understand how the human mind constructs its version of reality. As a result, he lacks the tools to evaluate the question. The mind fills in details all the time, accepting what it likes and rejecting what it does not like. This is just another example of it, and it's no different from all the religious myths Christian fundamentalists call primitive and laugh at. Their notions of what is real are as predictable as 2dim's or Bryan’s defense of whatever W did today.

There is no mystery why the Bible reports Jesus as predicting his own resurrection. Once people accept the idea, based on a rumor, that a dead man arose to live again, they will have little trouble accepting the rumor that he said he would do it. And of course it would serve the purposes of those who were promoting the story to promote it as a prophecy. All of it is easily done after the event is claimed to have occurred.

Most interesting, perhaps, is Mr. P’s attempted refutation of Kirkegaard’s critique of theistic faith as a blind leap of unreason. Of course, this completely ignores John 20:29, but we can leave that for another day. Intellectual consistency is not Mr. P’s strong suit.

In arguing for an empirical approach to faith, Mr. P offers us the slightest glimpse of hope that he may one day be redeemed into a life of reason. However, in arguing the case for a fantasy, he sets himself a standard he cannot meet. One cannot argue for empiricism and in the same breath argue that a man arose from the dead. There is no empirical basis for it.

Mr. P’s most perplexing argument is the one he assumes: how people can imagine that a loving God would have a hell in his universe in the first place, or why eternal torment could ever be considered justice. Until one faces the moral repulsiveness of that aspect of Christian theology, he has no claim to thinking reasonably, or morally or spiritually.

Will he ever face that fatal problem in his theology? Will our culture ever face or address it? To put the question more simply: Do we, will we ever, have the courage to face the truth; to submit to the reality that is greater than we are instead of proclaiming our desires as the determinants of reality? Will we ever truly believe in God? That is the question in its simplest terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Studies and Observations

How pathetic is your life that you have nothing better to do than attack someone for believing differently than you do??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Here is the full text of Paszkiewicz's remarks. Citing the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible reflects a complete lack of objectivity. It's scary to think that someone like this is "teaching" our kids.

Kierkegaard suggested that faith was a blind leap into the darkness. Jesus Christ, however, never expected his followers to believe blindly. He told his listeners that if they didn’t believe his words, to at least believe the evidence of the miracles themselves (Jn. 14:11).

The apologetics of Jesus involved performing miracles. The greatest of these miracles was his resurrection from the dead. There are two amazing aspects to this miracle.

First, he predicted it in advance (Matt. 16:21; Mk. 10:33-34; Lk. 9:22). Second, it actually happened (Acts 2:23-24; 13:13-15). Taken by itself, the resurrection is already a singularity. However, given the fact Jesus himself predicted it in detail — one week prior — makes it the greatest miracle of the Bible. The very God of the universe, who created man, emptied himself of his former glory and took on human flesh. He set aside the independent use of his attributes as God and allowed himself to be fully human.

As such, he died on a cross as the atonement for man’s sins.

In order to confirm who he was, he predicted his death and resurrection in detail one week in advance. Jesus put a premium on evidence for his claims about himself. Both his prophecy concerning his resurrection as well as the resurrection itself confirm this.

God the Father is equally interested in providing man with evidence for his faith. Acts 17:31 makes it clear that one of God’s purposes in raising Jesus from the dead was to provide “proof” of man’s coming judgment. In addition, in regard to the evidentiary value of the resurrection, we must remember God could have very easily just said he loved us. However, it seems, in some sense, emotions like this have to be played out in space and time for them to be real.

For example, a father can say his children are his priority, but if he never spends time with them, his actions prove otherwise. God didn’t just say he loved us; he proved it by entering space and time and dying for us. He evidenced his love for us. God doesn’t expect his children to believe blindly; he provides them with evidence to support their faith in him.

Consider the empty tomb of Jesus as evidence for the resurrection. There are essentially only four plausible explanations for the empty tomb:

1. The disciples stole the body.

The disciples had nothing to gain by stealing the body. They certainly gained no worldly benefits from preaching the resurrection; tradition tells us they were martyred.

2. The Jews stole the body.

The idea here is the Jews stole it so the disciples couldn’t claim the resurrection. If this were the case, those same Jews could have very easily produced the body of Jesus in order to refute the disciples’ claims when they preached he was risen.

3. Jesus was in a coma-like state in the tomb.

The Jesus who died by crucifixion would be in no shape to convince anyone he had been raised from the dead. He would obviously be alive, but not raised in glory. He would have been ragged in appearance from the flogging he received.

4. The women who first saw the empty tomb went to the wrong tomb.

The women (at least Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses) witnessed the entombment of Jesus (Matt. 27:61; Mk. 15:47; Lk. 23:55). It would be highly unlikely they would go to the wrong tomb as a result. In addition, the Gospel of John states the tomb was in a garden near Calvary (Jn. 19:41:42). It is highly unreasonable the women went to the wrong tomb. If in fact they forgot the way in the two days since the burial, it would have been very easily distinguished from the others. It was the one sealed and guarded by Roman troops (Matt. 27:65,66).

There are those who say the resurrection of Jesus cannot be proven with certainty. I agree the resurrection cannot be proven beyond doubt; however, I believe it can be proven beyond a “reasonable” doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof so convincing that you would act on it. You would act on it in your own affairs without reservation.

Allow me to share an illustration I heard years ago given by a judge.

Suppose you woke up at 8 a.m. and went to the kitchen to look out your window. Upon looking out the window, you notice four inches of snow on the ground. Because there was no snow on the ground the night before, you would reasonably assume it snowed while you were sleeping. It would be unreasonable to suggest little green Martians with snow machines put the snow there while you were sleeping.

Is it possible? I suppose. But it is unreasonable.

Likewise, you leave the window for five minutes to brush your teeth. When you come back, you notice cat paw prints in the snow. You could, therefore, reasonably assume a cat walked by the window in the snow in the five minutes you were gone. It would be unreasonable to assume that those same space aliens walked by on cat stilts for the purpose of deceiving you. Is it possible? I suppose, but it is unreasonable.

With regard to Jesus of Nazareth, his resurrection can be accepted beyond any reasonable doubt. In the absence of a legitimately plausible explanation for the empty tomb, one must accept the fact that God raised him from the dead.

Happy Easter!

Obviously, Mr. P neglects to mention a fifth possibility: It never happened. Here is why that is the most likely explanation. It is as likely as no Martians and no space aliens, and essentially for the same reasons.

Throughout history people have been making up stories and believing them. We have stories about rain gods, thunder gods and other gods of nature; Hindu gods; Greek gods; and gods of hundreds of indigenous peoples. Contained within those stories are tales of events that we recognize today as fanciful.

In the past couple of millennia, we have had stories of witches and demons and other supernatural events, not one of which has ever been substantiated sufficiently to earn scientific or historical credence. We have seen entire civilizations give themselves license to believe that slavery was freedom and that they were entitled to invade and take over land someone else had inhabited for centuries. In our time, we have seen stories told, and believed, about someone who is not O. J. Simpson leaving his DNA at the crime scene, and about WMDs that never existed. People tell stories to their spouses, their parents and their business contacts every day, and other people believe them. There are probably trillions of examples of people believing things that are not true.

Human gullibility is a known phenomenon, far more common than some of us may wish to believe. We know that it happens and we know quite a bit about why it happens.

By contrast, there is not one substantiated account of a living being, human or non-human, returning to life after being dead for several days. Such a story is contrary to everything we know about the means and mechanisms of life.

In addition, the story of Jesus' supposed resurrection contains an account of his supposed appearance to five hundred people. The mere claim that he did so does not prove the story, but if we accept the story as true, it does prove that Jesus could appear to each of us without violating our free will. Just as he supposedly appeared to Thomas, who would not believe in his supposed resurrection without proof, why would he not appear to every non-Christian today? Does it really make sense to you that a God who loves us would rather allow us to suffer in eternal torment than make this simple effort to save our souls?

The true explanation is not difficult at all. It fits perfectly with what we know about the world and ourselves, and it does not require us to engage in fancy. We can believe in a story that makes no sense morally and spiritually, which is contrary to everything we know about how things work. Or we can accept the fact that people make up and believe stories all the time, and this is just another example of it.

Happy vernal equinox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
How pathetic is your life that you have nothing better to do than attack someone for believing differently than you do??

Pardon me, but you're missing the point. Mr. P has every right to comment publicly on this subject, but when he does so, he invites public response, both to the content of his argument and to the quality of his thinking, which is quite poor.

Christian theology is not merely a private belief. If it was, people would be more inclined to leave it alone. As it is, there has long been a taboo against criticizing other people's religious beliefs. Unfortunately, some people have tried to impose their private religious beliefs on others and even to give them the force of law. Mr. P shamelessly tried to indoctrinate his students and favors the view that the United States is a "Christian nation" in a legal sense. That invites both comment and opposition.

Truth Squad's arguments are entirely to the point and extremely well-reasoned. If you have something to say about their content, please do so. Merely accusing others of being pathetic could be seen as looking at your own reflection in a mirror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
How pathetic is your life that you have nothing better to do than attack someone for believing differently than you do??

Why don't you ask that question of the person who threatened Matthew LaClair's life, hypocrite? Or of all the people who did more than criticize Matthew here; they LIED about him many times, and about his family, in an attempt to smear him? All the original poster did was criticize an absurd claim. At least he didn't make shit up about Paszkiewicz and his family in an attempt to smear him.

Face it. As long as you keep believing ridiculous things, people will reserve the right to call them ridiculous. That's the price of superstition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In David Paszkiewicz’s latest “pondering” on Kevin Canessa’s blog, he argues that Jesus’ resurrection “can be accepted beyond any reasonable doubt.” Since that blog is heavily censored, I’ll comment here.

Mr. P’s argument for literal truth of the resurrection story is as full of holes as the green Swiss cheese the moon isn’t made of. I choose that comparison because of his remarks about Martians and space aliens.

Mr. P is wrong about a great many things, including his assertion that “it is possible” that Martians put snow on the ground. It is not possible because Martians do not exist. We know that because we have observed Mars closely enough to know that no living beings live there.

And Martians could not be intelligent enough to hide from us (again, because they don't exist).

The Truth Squid shows a positively LaClairian ability to fallaciously beg the question. And in any case, "Martians" is commonly used as a generic term for "space aliens." That the Squid puts his focus on Mars in particular bodes ill for what follows.

Mr. P offers us a slight variation on this theme when he tells us that “it is possible” that space aliens walk on “cat stilts.” The reason it is not merely unlikely, but ridiculous, is that there is no evidence that any space aliens exist, much less that they walk on “cat stilts.”

If the Squid has no evidence that space aliens exist, then space aliens do not exist (fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam).

It’s fascinating to watch this most peculiar mind try to wrestle with the daunting concept of reality.

... moving from the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam to ad hominem. Somehow Paszkiewicz was able to avoid those fallacies and you weren't. Perhaps you should excrete some ink in the water and swim away before you make things even worse for yourself?

Already we have a pretty good idea that we’re dealing with someone fascinated by reality as an ideal, but not really grounded in it. Predictably, his argument about the resurrection story overlooks a key fact.

People do not return to life after they are dead. It makes no sense to offer something that does not happen as the most likely explanation for a myth.

Fallacy of begging the question. Way to go, there, Squidster.

The most likely explanation is the same one that explains all the other myths Mr. P does not believe in, like those of Zeus and Thor. People found comfort in a rumor, so they chose to believe it.

Unfortunately, Mr. P, who does not believe in or understand science, does not understand how the human mind constructs its version of reality. As a result, he lacks the tools to evaluate the question. The mind fills in details all the time, accepting what it likes and rejecting what it does not like. This is just another example of it, and it's no different from all the religious myths Christian fundamentalists call primitive and laugh at. Their notions of what is real are as predictable as 2dim's or Bryan’s defense of whatever W did today.

Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

There is no mystery why the Bible reports Jesus as predicting his own resurrection. Once people accept the idea, based on a rumor, that a dead man arose to live again, they will have little trouble accepting the rumor that he said he would do it. And of course it would serve the purposes of those who were promoting the story to promote it as a prophecy. All of it is easily done after the event is claimed to have occurred.

That's all well and good if we have followed the Squid in the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam by assuming that a dead man cannot rise to live again.

Most interesting, perhaps, is Mr. P’s attempted refutation of Kirkegaard’s critique of theistic faith as a blind leap of unreason. Of course, this completely ignores John 20:29, but we can leave that for another day. Intellectual consistency is not Mr. P’s strong suit.

... said the Squid of Serial Fallacy.

In arguing for an empirical approach to faith, Mr. P offers us the slightest glimpse of hope that he may one day be redeemed into a life of reason. However, in arguing the case for a fantasy, he sets himself a standard he cannot meet. One cannot argue for empiricism and in the same breath argue that a man arose from the dead. There is no empirical basis for it.

Fallacy of begging the question. The Squid at at least demonstrates one form of consistency.

If people observe a once-dead person alive, how is that not empirical evidence for a dead person coming to life?

Mr. P’s most perplexing argument is the one he assumes: how people can imagine that a loving God would have a hell in his universe in the first place, or why eternal torment could ever be considered justice. Until one faces the moral repulsiveness of that aspect of Christian theology, he has no claim to thinking reasonably, or morally or spiritually.

Mr. P. did not mention hell at all in his pondering from what I can tell. Perhaps the Truth Squid is assuming that Mr. P's argument is assumed?

Will he ever face that fatal problem in his theology? Will our culture ever face or address it? To put the question more simply: Do we, will we ever, have the courage to face the truth; to submit to the reality that is greater than we are instead of proclaiming our desires as the determinants of reality? Will we ever truly believe in God? That is the question in its simplest terms.

Will LaSquid ever break his habit of arguing fallaciously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Crawl back in your hole nonbeliever and spew your hatred somewhere else. There is a hell and you are going there.

Do you have idea the astonishing irony of that pair of statements? Even if the original poster was being hateful, there is no hate an atheist could possibly conjure that is even close to equivalent of a Christian condemning a person to a place of ETERNAL UNENDING TORTURE AND AGONY.

You've got the market cornered on hatred, buddy. Just so you know.

Do not knock peoples religions .

Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone. Christians have never been burned at the stake by atheists, so I suggest you kindly shut your mouth, hypocrite. Nonsense has every right to be ridiculed.

Just because your religion lets you cheat and steal from everybody does not make it alright .

Says the guy who just unwittingly admitted that he would be a cheater and thief if it wasn't for his beliefs. Would you consider someone moral who only doesn't steal because he believes he is being watched? Thanks for admitting that your morality is a farce, and showing the rest of the world how empty Christian "morality" really is.

Meanwhile, atheists are vastly underrepresented in prison populations, especially compared to Christians, and they manage to commit fewer crimes per person while NOT believing that there is an ethereal security camera on them at all times. How ironic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Crawl back in your hole nonbeliever and spew your hatred somewhere else. There is a hell and you are going there. Do not knock peoples religions . Just because your religion lets you cheat and steal from everybody does not make it alright .

"Spew your hatred somewhere else"

immediately followed by

"There is a hell and you are going there."

Oh, irony. ;):lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
Crawl back in your hole nonbeliever and spew your hatred somewhere else. There is a hell and you are going there. Do not knock peoples religions . Just because your religion lets you cheat and steal from everybody does not make it alright .

If heaven is full of people like you then what's the payoff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Melanie
Crawl back in your hole nonbeliever and spew your hatred somewhere else. There is a hell and you are going there. Do not knock peoples religions . Just because your religion lets you cheat and steal from everybody does not make it alright .

Squidward and Studies and Mr. P, wherever you may be:

What you're being asked to do is simple - for an objective and intelligent person. But for a person who has grown up in this culture, perhaps believing that the Christian narrative is literally true, it may be the hardest challenge you will ever face. It is this:

Do you have the courage to confront yourself, to look carefully and honestly at your own beliefs and behaviors, and open yourself to change if change is best? In this case, do you have the intelligence, integrity, courage and honesty to admit that the Jesus story obviously is not true?

The attitude you have expressed is the same attitude of denial and disrespect that has led to the murder of countless millions of people since men invented their theologies. In one form or another, or in several forms, you have beaten down and beaten back people who did not agree with you. We understand what you want. You are supposed to be able to promote your beliefs wherever and whenever you want. We are expected to shut up.

For a long time, that is how it has been, but those days are over. We are going to speak up and speak out. We are going to be respectful of your humanity, but blunt, open and honest about the repulsiveness of certain beliefs. This is not about being hateful. It is about being honest and about convincing our brothers and sisters to abandon a false and harmful theology, and at long last do what is right.

It is not my religion that has led to cheating, stealing, mass murder, enslavement and the like. Your religion is the one that has justified those things, repeatedly, in the name of God. You have hid behind a myth to justify the worst in us, and as long as people continue to do this, the nightmares and the carnage will continue.

It is time for this to end. That is why more and more of us are becoming increasingly vocal about the repugnance of this story, and in particular the repulsiveness of its premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
In David Paszkiewicz’s latest “pondering” on Kevin Canessa’s blog, he argues that Jesus’ resurrection “can be accepted beyond any reasonable doubt.” Since that blog is heavily censored, I’ll comment here.

Mr. P’s argument for literal truth of the resurrection story is as full of holes as the green Swiss cheese the moon isn’t made of. I choose that comparison because of his remarks about Martians and space aliens.

Mr. P is wrong about a great many things, including his assertion that “it is possible” that Martians put snow on the ground. It is not possible because Martians do not exist. We know that because we have observed Mars closely enough to know that no living beings live there.

Mr. P offers us a slight variation on this theme when he tells us that “it is possible” that space aliens walk on “cat stilts.” The reason it is not merely unlikely, but ridiculous, is that there is no evidence that any space aliens exist, much less that they walk on “cat stilts.”

It’s fascinating to watch this most peculiar mind try to wrestle with the daunting concept of reality. Already we have a pretty good idea that we’re dealing with someone fascinated by reality as an ideal, but not really grounded in it. Predictably, his argument about the resurrection story overlooks a key fact.

People do not return to life after they are dead. It makes no sense to offer something that does not happen as the most likely explanation for a myth.

The most likely explanation is the same one that explains all the other myths Mr. P does not believe in, like those of Zeus and Thor. People found comfort in a rumor, so they chose to believe it.

Unfortunately, Mr. P, who does not believe in or understand science, does not understand how the human mind constructs its version of reality. As a result, he lacks the tools to evaluate the question. The mind fills in details all the time, accepting what it likes and rejecting what it does not like. This is just another example of it, and it's no different from all the religious myths Christian fundamentalists call primitive and laugh at. Their notions of what is real are as predictable as 2dim's or Bryan’s defense of whatever W did today.

There is no mystery why the Bible reports Jesus as predicting his own resurrection. Once people accept the idea, based on a rumor, that a dead man arose to live again, they will have little trouble accepting the rumor that he said he would do it. And of course it would serve the purposes of those who were promoting the story to promote it as a prophecy. All of it is easily done after the event is claimed to have occurred.

Most interesting, perhaps, is Mr. P’s attempted refutation of Kirkegaard’s critique of theistic faith as a blind leap of unreason. Of course, this completely ignores John 20:29, but we can leave that for another day. Intellectual consistency is not Mr. P’s strong suit.

In arguing for an empirical approach to faith, Mr. P offers us the slightest glimpse of hope that he may one day be redeemed into a life of reason. However, in arguing the case for a fantasy, he sets himself a standard he cannot meet. One cannot argue for empiricism and in the same breath argue that a man arose from the dead. There is no empirical basis for it.

Mr. P’s most perplexing argument is the one he assumes: how people can imagine that a loving God would have a hell in his universe in the first place, or why eternal torment could ever be considered justice. Until one faces the moral repulsiveness of that aspect of Christian theology, he has no claim to thinking reasonably, or morally or spiritually.

Will he ever face that fatal problem in his theology? Will our culture ever face or address it? To put the question more simply: Do we, will we ever, have the courage to face the truth; to submit to the reality that is greater than we are instead of proclaiming our desires as the determinants of reality? Will we ever truly believe in God? That is the question in its simplest terms.

Mr. P was right. God is real and those that don't accept him will never see him. I urge you to go to church, pray that you will find salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Mr. P was right. God is real and those that don't accept him will never see him. I urge you to go to church, pray that you will find salvation.

Mr. P is not right, and you do not understand the spiritual dimension of the divine. If there is a loving God, then all will be "saved." In fact, if there is a loving God, there's nothing to be saved from. A God who loves us would not care what story we believe. Your belief means nothing.

If there is no God, or a God who does not love us, then your belief still means nothing. Either way, your belief does not change what will happen to you after you die. All it does is condition to believe in things that are not true, and that harms the world.

So here is the question, if you have the courage to face it:

Do you have the courage to confront yourself, to look carefully and honestly at your own beliefs and behaviors, and open yourself to change if change is best? In this case, do you have the intelligence, integrity, courage and honesty to admit that the Jesus story obviously is not true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Christians have never been burned at the stake by atheists, so I suggest you kindly shut your mouth, hypocrite.

I have to disagree here. Christians have been persecuted, too, though not in the United States.

We have to look at two things to make sense of this.

First, people should be free to believe in whatever religion they like, even if it's ridiculous. Truth Squad is right, but that doesn't mean Christians should be tormented or killed, and he/she is not suggesting that they should be.

Second, respecting a person's right to believe nonsense doesn't mean that we should respect the nonsense. We should still call it nonsense, and speak out against it, especially when it promotes things that are repulsive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the full text of Paszkiewicz's remarks. Citing the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible reflects a complete lack of objectivity. It's scary to think that someone like this is "teaching" our kids.

Where in Mr. P's presentation did you perceive him to recommend the conclusion that the Bible is true based on citations of the Bible?

If anything, Mr. P took the basics of the Gospel story as true; if he had simply assumed it to be true as written there would only be one possibility as to what happened (the outcome that was reported).

If you can't find Mr. P arguing that the Bible is true based on the Bible, just think how scary it would be for someone who would do such a thing to teach our kids.

Obviously, Mr. P neglects to mention a fifth possibility: It never happened.

What is "it"? Jesus-myther, are you? No person named Jesus who was crucified?

Here is why that is the most likely explanation. It is as likely as no Martians and no space aliens, and essentially for the same reasons.

Throughout history people have been making up stories and believing them. We have stories about rain gods, thunder gods and other gods of nature; Hindu gods; Greek gods; and gods of hundreds of indigenous peoples. Contained within those stories are tales of events that we recognize today as fanciful.

In the past couple of millennia, we have had stories of witches and demons and other supernatural events, not one of which has ever been substantiated sufficiently to earn scientific or historical credence. We have seen entire civilizations give themselves license to believe that slavery was freedom and that they were entitled to invade and take over land someone else had inhabited for centuries. In our time, we have seen stories told, and believed, about someone who is not O. J. Simpson leaving his DNA at the crime scene, and about WMDs that never existed. People tell stories to their spouses, their parents and their business contacts every day, and other people believe them. There are probably trillions of examples of people believing things that are not true.

Human gullibility is a known phenomenon, far more common than some of us may wish to believe. We know that it happens and we know quite a bit about why it happens.

By contrast, there is not one substantiated account of a living being, human or non-human, returning to life after being dead for several days. Such a story is contrary to everything we know about the means and mechanisms of life.

Mr. P already accounted for that type of thing with the "swoon" theory and the "Jews took the body" theory.

In addition, the story of Jesus' supposed resurrection contains an account of his supposed appearance to five hundred people. The mere claim that he did so does not prove the story, but if we accept the story as true, it does prove that Jesus could appear to each of us without violating our free will. Just as he supposedly appeared to Thomas, who would not believe in his supposed resurrection without proof, why would he not appear to every non-Christian today? Does it really make sense to you that a God who loves us would rather allow us to suffer in eternal torment than make this simple effort to save our souls?

I thought you were going to explain why it is most likely that it never happened? Is this theological argument supposed to support that point?

The true explanation is not difficult at all. It fits perfectly with what we know about the world and ourselves, and it does not require us to engage in fancy. We can believe in a story that makes no sense morally and spiritually, which is contrary to everything we know about how things work. Or we can accept the fact that people make up and believe stories all the time, and this is just another example of it.

Sounds like you're just making up a story. :)

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You either account for the historical Jesus (overwhelmingly accepted by historians) or you sign on with the non-serious fringe who claim that Jesus was a non-historical myth. If you accept the general historical details then you need a better alternative explantion than "it never happened" where you can't even seem to pin down what "it" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Squidward and Studies and Mr. P, wherever you may be:

What you're being asked to do is simple - for an objective and intelligent person. But for a person who has grown up in this culture, perhaps believing that the Christian narrative is literally true, it may be the hardest challenge you will ever face. It is this:

Do you have the courage to confront yourself, to look carefully and honestly at your own beliefs and behaviors, and open yourself to change if change is best? In this case, do you have the intelligence, integrity, courage and honesty to admit that the Jesus story obviously is not true?

With all due respect, Melanie you little liar, Mr. P produced a respectable version of the argument for the resurrection. You can quibble with the probabilities, but it's a solid argument. The Truth Squid arguing against Mr. P committed obvious fallacies, on the other hand.

On what basis, given the argument so far, is somebody supposed to admit "that the Jesus story obviously is not true"? Blind faith?

It is not my religion that has led to cheating, stealing, mass murder, enslavement and the like.

Well, since you brought it up, what is responsible for you lying about my knowledge of evolution? Just felt like it and good is what feels right to you at any given moment? Or what?

Your religion is the one that has justified those things, repeatedly, in the name of God.

Well, maybe if you share your religion, Melanie, we can do a side-by-side comparison. If you keep your religion secret it's not really fair, is it?

You have hid behind a myth to justify the worst in us, and as long as people continue to do this, the nightmares and the carnage will continue.

It is time for this to end. That is why more and more of us are becoming increasingly vocal about the repugnance of this story, and in particular the repulsiveness of its premises.

If only you could abandon the ugliness of transparently fallacious arguments when you go on the attack.

Better luck next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I have to disagree here. Christians have been persecuted, too, though not in the United States.

Atheists have never done anything to Christians even resembling the level of atrocities directed at them by Christians. Therefore, Christians have absolutely no business crying persecution (in a country where the PRESIDENT, the highest leader of the whole freaking country, can be Christian, there is just no way I'm going to accept labeling Christians as a "persecuted" group overall, okay? Do you think an atheist could get elected to the Presidency?) when an atheist criticizes their assertions, ESPECIALLY when they act like they're facts instead of beliefs.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Christian Right
Mr. P is not right, and you do not understand the spiritual dimension of the divine. If there is a loving God, then all will be "saved." In fact, if there is a loving God, there's nothing to be saved from. A God who loves us would not care what story we believe. Your belief means nothing.

If there is no God, or a God who does not love us, then your belief still means nothing. Either way, your belief does not change what will happen to you after you die. All it does is condition to believe in things that are not true, and that harms the world.

So here is the question, if you have the courage to face it:

Do you have the courage to confront yourself, to look carefully and honestly at your own beliefs and behaviors, and open yourself to change if change is best? In this case, do you have the intelligence, integrity, courage and honesty to admit that the Jesus story obviously is not true?

Do YOU have the courage to admit you don't have a clue as to whether or not the "Jesus story" is real?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Realist
Do YOU have the courage to admit you don't have a clue as to whether or not the "Jesus story" is real?

Do you have the courage to admit that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that since the latter is conspicuously missing, that it's perfectly logical to assume that it, like so many other myths, does not describe actual events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
With all due respect, Melanie you little liar, Mr. P produced a respectable version of the argument for the resurrection. You can quibble with the probabilities, but it's a solid argument.

LOL, Bryan thinks using the Bible as proof of the Bible's claims is a solid argument. Add one to his tally of idiotic claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Atheists have never done anything to Christians even resembling the level of atrocities directed at them by Christians. Therefore, Christians have absolutely no business crying persecution (in a country where the PRESIDENT, the highest leader of the whole freaking country, can be Christian, there is just no way I'm going to accept labeling Christians as a "persecuted" group overall, okay? Do you think an atheist could get elected to the Presidency?) when an atheist criticizes their assertions, ESPECIALLY when they act like they're facts instead of beliefs.

I agree with the rest of your post.

And I agree with you, too, but look at my post again. I noted your point, which is that this has not happened in the United States.

What we want to build here is a more sane and rational world. That means that we must all stay on guard against our own biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. P is not right, and you do not understand the spiritual dimension of the divine. If there is a loving God, then all will be "saved." In fact, if there is a loving God, there's nothing to be saved from. A God who loves us would not care what story we believe. Your belief means nothing.

What if lovingkindness is not the only attribute of God? Did you ever think about that while not contemplating ways to lie about others?

If there is no God, or a God who does not love us, then your belief still means nothing.

That's not the way (many) atheists argue after failing to establish a metaphysical basis for morality, in my experience.

Either way, your belief does not change what will happen to you after you die. All it does is condition to believe in things that are not true, and that harms the world.

So here is the question, if you have the courage to face it:

Do you have the courage to confront yourself, to look carefully and honestly at your own beliefs and behaviors, and open yourself to change if change is best? In this case, do you have the intelligence, integrity, courage and honesty to admit that the Jesus story obviously is not true?

Did you copy that from Melanie or did Melanie copy that from you?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=84118

I wonder how many people really post at KOTW if we used Occam's razor? Maybe three different people posting as "Guest" and another six who account for everybody else. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thumper Bolt
Do YOU have the courage to admit you don't have a clue as to whether or not the "Jesus story" is real?

Oh, but I do. The Jesus story is obviously not true, for many reasons, including:

1. It proposes an event that is contrary to all of nature. People do not return to life after being dead for several days.

2. It is premised on the existence of hell, which is an absurdity. A loving God wouldn't create a hell in the first place, so there would be no reason to send his Son to save us from it. Hell is imaginary, and so is the Jesus story. For that matter, so is this idea of God.

3. If the story was true, God would have made sure everyone on Earth heard it, so that everyone could be saved. We know that did not happen.

4. You can't argue that God can't appear to people personally to tell them, because he supposedly appeared as Jesus to five hundred people, plus Thomas, who doubted him. God would appear to anyone who doubted if that is what it took to save the person. You can't explain that away, and the pathetic excuse that if God appeared to us that would rob us of our free will just shows how desperate people are to believe in a story that makes no sense.

Those are just four reasons that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the story is false. It is imaginary, just like all the other imaginary religious and quasi-religious myths you probably laugh at and think are silly.

Feel free to discuss any or all of these reasons if you can.

Or, have the courage to admit that you might be wrong. That our entire culture might be wrong. That one of the reasons our culture is so sick, is that we've trained ourselves and our children to hide behind ridiculous stories instead of doing the hard work that an ethical life and a life in the spirit demands.

Or, just think about it. Maybe you'll be really thinking about this story for the first time in your life. I don't know. But I do know that the story is false. It is obvious to anyone who thinks it through. It will be obvious to you, too, if you just have the courage to step out of the box you've been trained to live in long enough to really and truly look at the story.

If you're going to challenge any of these points, have the courage to say why. And be honest. Don't just play silly little games like Bryan does. Be honest. That's the only place you're ever going to find God, whatever that means to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...