Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Apologiaphoenix]

Fundy atheist talking point, inevitable progress of history. Drink!

"God is dead," or so He was in 1966. That generation would be the last to see religion as a part of culture. We're now nearly 50 years later. Religion is alive and well.

Exactly how many times has the demise of religion been predicted?

And they accuse us of false prophecy.

And if Gary wants to say something about Jesus being wrong about His prophecies....
http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...eDeeWarren.mp3

[Mikeenders]

Exodus 21:20-21 permit slave owners to beat their slaves so that they are unconscious for 2-3 days!

[Gary]

Hey Gary. See if you can read this without mentally collapsing. (Well collapsing further.)
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sommer01.php

Dear Readers:

I nor any other skeptic will ever "stump" Christian apologists. No matter what discrepancy or error I or anyone else points out in the Christian holy book, Christians will have a ready resolution or "harmonization" for why there is no real contradiction or discrepancy. Why? Answer: Because they have had two thousand years sitting around in monasteries or seminary study halls to come up with them! For instance, any sixth grader can read the first two chapters of Genesis and see that the two chapters describe two completely different creation stories. Only someone for whom the Bible MUST be true, will not see this. In addition, once science and medicine discover that the literal interpretation of a particular Bible passage is false, Christians suddenly take the position that they never believed the literal interpretation to have been true from the beginning.

Dear people, PLEASE look past the smoke and mirrors of Christians "experts" and see Christianity for what it is: one big, supernatural, fairy tale written by ancient, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant people.

You don't need to read even ONE book by a Christian expert to know that virgins do not have babies, that ghosts do not impregnate virgins, that ghosts do not exist, and that dead bodies cannot be reanimated. You only need to use common sense and a sixth grade education: This tale is silly, silly nonsense! Don't fall for the "spin" that you can't know anything without reading "experts" books on this tall tale. Tall tales are tall tales. They are not real. You do not need to study tall tales.

From my opening statement in my debate with Nick, I have repeatedly stated that it is unnecessary for skeptics to read dozens of books by Christian "apologists". Why: Because the Christian story is a fairy tale, and fairy tales are not real.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Yep. So we Christians must read everything Gary wants us to.

Gary will not read anything that challenges his worldview.

What a pathetic coward.

[Gary]

Yep. So we Christians must read everything Gary wants us to.

Gary will not read anything that challenges his worldview.

What a pathetic coward.

I have read plenty regarding early Church history and early Christian beliefs, but there is no more need for me to read about virgin births, virgin-impregnating ghosts, or dead body reanimations than there is to read about the reality of unicorns and leprechauns. They are stupid, superstitious assertions that don't warrant one SECOND of my time or that of any other skeptic.

[Mikeenders]

You don't need to read even ONE book by a Christian expert to know that virgins do not have babies, that ghosts do not impregnate virgins, that ghosts do not exist, and that dead bodies cannot be reanimated.

or that everything comes out of nothing, or there are multiverses outside our own, or complex biological life assembles itself or energy and matter just exist because they exist and have no precursor, or that chance or accidents are real.

Just thought I would round out claims of supernatural events that skeptics appeal to as well. Thank me later ;)

You only need to use common sense and a sixth grade education: This tale is silly, silly nonsense!

and yet all of the things that are the alternatives of skeptics are of the same essence. resistance is futile

You do not need to study tall tales.

Thank you I have been telling people that for years about abiogenesis, multiverses to escape the implication of fine tuning and appealing to infinities without intelligence.

In short - some version of the supernatural is inescapable to the thinking person. You probably are not aware of that because you haven't thought much.

[Christianbookworm]

Hey Gary. See if you can read this without mentally collapsing. (Well collapsing further.)
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sommer01.php

It's too long for him to read. And he might think it's okay for him to argue by weblink.

[Christianbookworm]

I have read plenty regarding early Church history and early Christian beliefs, but there is no more need for me to read about virgin births, virgin-impregnating ghosts, or dead body reanimations than there is to read about the reality of unicorns and leprechauns. They are stupid, superstitious assertions that don't warrant one SECOND of my time or that of any other skeptic.

And your wordview is just as ridiculous to us as your strawman view of our worldview is to you! Silly hominid!

[Gary]

or that everything comes out of nothing, or there are multiverses outside our own, or complex biological life assembles itself or energy and matter just exist because they exist and have no precursor, or that chance or accidents are real.

Just thought I would round out claims of supernatural events that skeptics appeal to as well. Thank me later ;)





and yet all of the things that are the alternatives of skeptics are of the same essence. resistance is futile



Thank you I have been telling people that for years about abiogenesis, multiverses to escape the implication of fine tuning and appealing to infinities without intelligence.

In short - some version of the supernatural is inescapable to the thinking person. You probably are not aware of that because you haven't thought much.

"In short - some version of the supernatural is inescapable to the thinking person."

No. Ask the overwhelming majority of scientists: There is no need to assume the supernatural is the cause of anything. There is no need to jump to the conclusion that a "ghost god done it" just because we do not yet know the answer to all of life's mysteries. We simply say, "We don't know the answer...yet" and leave it at that.

At one time thunder, lightning, and comets were deemed to be the acts of a God simply because humans didn't have enough information to know that there are natural causes for these events. We may one day learn the answer to "where did everything come from" but until we do, we do NOT need to assume that there is a supernatural cause. Time and time again in human history we have discovered that what we thought are supernatural events are simply natural acts of nature.

[Gary]

And your wordview is just as ridiculous to us as your strawman view of our worldview is to you! Silly hominid!

Your fundamentalist, literalist world view is a minority. Even a large segment of Christianity has abandoned the belief in a bodily resurrection and a virgin birth. Your positions are considered by most educated people to be silly nonsense.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Drink!

[Christianbookworm]

Your fundamentalist, literalist world view is a minority. Even a large segment of Christianity has abandoned the belief in a bodily resurrection and a virgin birth. Your positions are considered by most educated people to be silly nonsense.

A belief in the bodily Resurrection is ontologically necessary to be a Christian, you dimwit.

[tabibito]

You don't need to read even ONE book by a Christian expert to know that virgins do not have babies, that ghosts do not impregnate virgins, that ghosts do not exist, and that dead bodies cannot be reanimated. You only need to use common sense and a sixth grade education: This tale is silly, silly nonsense! Don't fall for the "spin" that you can't know anything without reading "experts" books on this tall tale. Tall tales are tall tales. They are not real. You do not need to study tall tales.

You have a couple of problems with this assertion.
First and foremost - the people of that time were as much aware of these matters as anyone today is.
Second - the unbelieving people of that time found the claims as ludicrous as you yourself do.
Third - It only takes the acceptance of one miracle as verified beyond reasonable doubt to know that the natural order can be circumvented.
Fourth - There is a preponderance of evidence in support of the claim that miracles, beyond reasonable doubt, do occur.
Fifth - The nature of the miracle is irrelevant: if the natural order can be suborned, that is sufficient supporting evidence for the occurrence of other miracles, however outlandish those miracles might seem. It remains however, that claims of miracles cannot be accepted just because the claim is made.
Sixth - Once it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that miracles occur, no number of scholars declaiming the fact will have any influence on a reasonable person: the scholars are known to be arguing from a position of ignorance.

You haven't made anything like a good case for the idea that miracles don't occur, though you have gone a little way toward demonstrating that there are some who will fake the capacity to perform them. There are fake doctors, police, and researchers of all sorts. Their existence has no bearing on the possibility of real doctors, police, and researchers.

[Gary]

A belief in the bodily Resurrection is ontologically necessary to be a Christian, you dimwit.

Only to a fundamentalist.

[Gary]

You have a couple of problems with this assertion.
First and foremost - the people of that time were as much aware of these matters as anyone today is.
Second - the unbelieving people of that time found the claims as ludicrous as you yourself do.
Third - It only takes the acceptance of one miracle as verified beyond reasonable doubt to know that the natural order can be circumvented.
Fourth - There is a preponderance of evidence in support of the claim that miracles, beyond reasonable doubt, do occur.
Fifth - The nature of the miracle is irrelevant: if the natural order can be suborned, that is sufficient supporting evidence for the occurrence of other miracles, however outlandish those miracles might seem. It remains however, that claims of miracles cannot be accepted just because the claim is made.
Sixth - Once it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that miracles occur, no number of scholars declaiming the fact will have any influence on a reasonable person: the scholars are known to be arguing from a position of ignorance.

You haven't made anything like a good case for the idea that miracles don't occur, though you have gone a little way toward demonstrating that there are some who will fake the capacity to perform them. There are fake doctors, police, and researchers of all sorts. Their existence has no bearing on the possibility of real doctors, police, and researchers.

You are delusional, Tabby.