Author Topic: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon  (Read 3834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #203 on: May 21, 2013, 05:54:47 PM »
Answer to Anfauglir,
Yes, we should treat them equally and submit each on to the same scholarly critic.

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #204 on: May 21, 2013, 08:38:06 PM »
This may help you atheists.
The following link is to a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman. It is entitled: "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

Notice, they each take turn giving evidence for or against the resurrection. I guess I should backup and state that William Lane Craig has authored over 30 books, has two Master's  degrees and a PhD. Bart Ehrman is probably the most well respected New Testament historian alive today. He also has written several books and has a Phd.

Anyway, they each take turns giving evidence to support their claim.

I invite you to look at the text. Do you see anywhere where Dr. Ehrman talked about Osiris? Or brought up circular reasoning when refuting Dr. Craig? Did Dr. Ehrman say at anytime that the Bible was a lie? Or my favorite- did Dr. Ehrman bring up the Time Cube?

Just FYI for next time.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1993
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #205 on: May 21, 2013, 10:24:55 PM »
This may help you atheists.
The following link is to a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman. It is entitled: "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

Notice, they each take turn giving evidence for or against the resurrection. I guess I should backup and state that William Lane Craig has authored over 30 books, has two Master's  degrees and a PhD. Bart Ehrman is probably the most well respected New Testament historian alive today. He also has written several books and has a Phd.

Anyway, they each take turns giving evidence to support their claim.

I invite you to look at the text. Do you see anywhere where Dr. Ehrman talked about Osiris? Or brought up circular reasoning when refuting Dr. Craig? Did Dr. Ehrman say at anytime that the Bible was a lie? Or my favorite- did Dr. Ehrman bring up the Time Cube?

Just FYI for next time.
Just read the whole thing.

I didn't see mention of Osiris, but Ehrman did mention Apollonius, Honina Ben dosa, Vespasian, and a few others as valid comparisons to the Jesus myth.

He didn't say the bible was a lie, but he did reasonably prove that there is not nearly enough evidence to support the hostorical claim that the resurrection actually happened. 

Mr. Ehrman, however, did not present evidence against the resurrection. He gave reasonable objections to the idea that the bible (the only source there is) is a source from which you can reasonably conclude that the resurrection actually happened.  Not quite the same thing.

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #206 on: May 22, 2013, 01:55:20 AM »
Answer to Anfauglir,
Yes, we should treat them equally and submit each on to the same scholarly critic.

Smashing!

So now you will produce scholarly critiques that prove that the resurrection of Osiris definitely did not happen, yes?  The source you quoted does not mention Osiris either for or against, so - while you may be using it to support your argument for Christ - it does nothing to counter my argument for Osiris.

I look forward to you posting details of any specific rebuttal for the Osiris resurrection myth, as well as the others I mentioned: Hercules, Dionysus, Appolonius of Tyana, and Euridice (Orpheus' wife).

Unless and until you can specifically counter those claims, we must give them equal weight to your claim, do you agree?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #207 on: May 22, 2013, 04:04:43 AM »
Holybuckets,

You use the bible as the basis for your Christianity but why have you chosen the account of Jesus as your choice of religion rather than, say, Islam whose leader met the angel Gabriel and was permitted to see the seven levels of heaven?

I'd like to know why you made your choice.
Muhammad is buried in a grave. According to the Bible Jesus rose from the dead. Here is a link of various religious leaders burial sites. The difference is that there is only one grave that is empty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_places_of_founders_of_world_religions

an empty grave means nothing.
Richard the III's known grave is now empty. Is he divine too?
Richard III body has been found "On 4 February 2013, the University of Leicester confirmed that the skeleton was beyond reasonable doubt that of King Richard III. This conclusion was based on mitochondrial DNA evidence"


source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England

Exactly. The remains are now in a lab at the university of leicester. Thus his known grave is empty.
Do you mind if I use this one? It's good!

Why would you want to use it? I thought you didn't believe in crap like people who are violently killed still being dead centuries later...

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6581
  • Darwins +514/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #208 on: May 22, 2013, 06:51:16 AM »
This may help you atheists.
The following link is to a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman. It is entitled: "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

Notice, they each take turn giving evidence for or against the resurrection. I guess I should backup and state that William Lane Craig has authored over 30 books, has two Master's  degrees and a PhD.

Writing books does not make you scholarly. If you look at William Lane CraigWiki's qualifications and work, you see that he has accepted that there is a god and works from that point - this is called presuppositionalism - you assume there is a god and work from there. This level of potential bias is hard to reconcile with any claim to being scholarly.

Bart EhrmanWiki accepts, on the basis of very slim evidence indeed, that there was an historical Jesus. He is not without his critics on both sides.

The fact is, all that either side, no matter how well-read, is doing is merely giving opinion and there is really nothing "scholarly" about the whole matter at all. Yes, I agree that there are very interesting details but none that are conclusive. There is little that can be substantiated.

Someone here called studying theology "the equivalent of studying Telly-Tubby anatomy". This shows that if we know very little about a subject, nothing stops any of us from having an opinion.

The question then arises, "Upon what basis should I judge whether there are gods?" The entire question then hinges upon, "How likely is the part of the story of that god at the point at which he first appeared/was mentioned?" This is important because everything thereafter, the god's entire biography and  all his feats are based upon his origin. If you do not accept the origin, the rest of the story is fiction. No matter how it is explained, no matter how many "scholars" study, write and pronounce upon the story, the god becomes a character from fiction - a myth.

In assessing the validity of the original story of a particular god, we "non-scholars" are helped by (i) our ability to think critically and (ii) there being thousands of gods, all of whom have a backstory we can compare with a chosen god. If we reject the stories of some of these thousands of gods on the grounds of incredibility, why then should we accept any of them? We need to maintain our standard of proof - no god gets a free pass. I cannot think of any gods[1] who have a believable story.

Thus having disposed of gods, we come back to the point: "studying theology = "the equivalent of studying Telly-Tubby anatomy."" and is therefore not 'scholarly'.
 1. other than those humans who were promoted to godship by other gods - and that, in itself presents problems
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 07:04:41 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #209 on: May 22, 2013, 07:32:01 AM »
Answer to Anfauglir,
Yes, we should treat them equally and submit each on to the same scholarly critic.

Smashing!

So now you will produce scholarly critiques that prove that the resurrection of Osiris definitely did not happen, yes?  The source you quoted does not mention Osiris either for or against, so - while you may be using it to support your argument for Christ - it does nothing to counter my argument for Osiris.

I look forward to you posting details of any specific rebuttal for the Osiris resurrection myth, as well as the others I mentioned: Hercules, Dionysus, Appolonius of Tyana, and Euridice (Orpheus' wife).

Unless and until you can specifically counter those claims, we must give them equal weight to your claim, do you agree?
Very intelligent.
The problem with your argument is that it is a fallacy. Freeley and Steinberg (2000) claim that your argument is a psuedo argument. These are fallacies "created by distortion, confusion, manipulation, or avoidance of matters of the issue" (p. 173).

So to answer your question, yes- they would hold equal weight, but both would prove nothing. So both would be equal at zero.

The logical and ethical way to judge both then, are their scholarly critiques. Certainly you would agree to that wouldn't you?

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #210 on: May 22, 2013, 07:49:27 AM »
Mr Graybeard,
Your interpretation of my post was not the point I attempted to make at all. I did not intend to post an example of a scholarly debate. I posted the debate as an example of how a debate goes. One side gives their evidence, and as one fine poster commented it was not evidence but opinion. Let me correct the fine poster here by stating that Freeley and Steinberg (2000)
stated that evidence consists of "facts, opinions, and objects used to generate proof" (p, 91). How is that for never doing research? Back to my point, it was a controlled debate- where the burden of proof (evidence is  probably a more accurate term) is on both sides. This is a debate. Where both sides contribute.
You made the comment that writing books does not make you scholarly. Again you ignore certain details. Both men have PhD's. Please have some respect for education. Both men worked hard to get where they are at, which is why, when it comes to a debate they can bring up more than ignorant arguments like Osiris or the "time-cube"

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #211 on: May 22, 2013, 07:57:27 AM »
Answer to Anfauglir,
Yes, we should treat them equally and submit each on to the same scholarly critic.

So now you will produce scholarly critiques that prove that the resurrection of Osiris definitely did not happen, yes?  The source you quoted does not mention Osiris either for or against, so - while you may be using it to support your argument for Christ - it does nothing to counter my argument for Osiris.

Unless and until you can specifically counter those claims, we must give them equal weight to your claim, do you agree?
The logical and ethical way to judge both then, are their scholarly critiques. Certainly you would agree to that wouldn't you?

Waiting for you to provide them, as I asked before.  If you CAN'T provide them, then I see no reason why I should treat those claims any differently.

The problem with your argument is that it is a fallacy. Freeley and Steinberg (2000) claim that your argument is a psuedo argument. These are fallacies "created by distortion, confusion, manipulation, or avoidance of matters of the issue" (p. 173).

Sorry - don't understand.  I thought your point was that a claim, once made, must stand unless evidence to the contrary is provided.  And that if no evidence to the contrary can or will be put forwards, then that claim must be accepted.  Or have I misconstrued your position?

- - - - -

Side issue: I'm also not entirely sure why you would pick "returned from the dead" as your primary consideration for godly abilities.  Once you are saying that your god has abilities that are impossible or unattainable for mortal man, then surely one such miracle is as good as another?  Why does "return from death" trump (for example) "fed thousands from nothing", or "transfomed into a swan" or "starts wars by casting down his spear".  All, frankly, seem equally sufficient evidence of godhood, so I'm not entirely clear why "came back from death" should be the deciding factor. 

After all, all we are talking about is continuity of consciousness following cessation of life signs (which apparently we will ALL be able to do), plus the ability to transfer consciousness into a non-living receptacle (which is a pretty standard godly ability).  So can you explain what exactly it is about "returning to life" you feel is the most obvious criteria for divinity?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11903
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #212 on: May 22, 2013, 08:07:51 AM »
Quote from: holybuckets link=topic=24917.msg554918#msg554918
Besides, I could give you proof, but you would deny it.

The stupid Christian's response.

Also, as I am sure it's been mentioned; and one should note your wording: no one here, that I know of is trying to say Christians or Christianity doesn't exist . We know it exists. There's evidence it and they exist. What we're saying is some of the things they state exists do not actually exist because there's no evidence for them.

The evidence you have:

1. Christians exist

because they belong to the religion of

2. Christianity

which exists based on the teachings of

3. The Bible

However, this doesn't mean that what is written in the Bible is true just because the Bible, Christianity, and Christians exist. The evidence of those three things does not give evidence for what is written in the Bible nor that any of it is true based on such perception.

Get it?

Of course not.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #213 on: May 22, 2013, 08:11:39 AM »
Can you please show me my post to anfuaglir, or anfauglir's post to me concerning strawman.. I am sorry, but I could not find it.

I apologize, I was mistaken.  It was jaimehlers, first paragraph of this post: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24917.msg555359.html#msg555359

Possibly also Aaron123 here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24917.msg555367.html#msg555367
but I'm not sure, since I cannot view the video he posted.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #214 on: May 22, 2013, 08:14:39 AM »
Anfauglir,

You wrote: "So can you explain what exactly it is about "returning to life" you feel is the most obvious criteria for divinity?"

This is the essence of Christianity. If Jesus rose form the dead, it's game over! If Jesus did not rise form the dead, then Christianity is just another religion.

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #215 on: May 22, 2013, 08:15:43 AM »
Can you please show me my post to anfuaglir, or anfauglir's post to me concerning strawman.. I am sorry, but I could not find it.

I apologize, I was mistaken.  It was jaimehlers, first paragraph of this post: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24917.msg555359.html#msg555359

Possibly also Aaron123 here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24917.msg555367.html#msg555367
but I'm not sure, since I cannot view the video he posted.
Thank you,
I believe Graybeard owes an apology as well.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1930
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #216 on: May 22, 2013, 08:17:04 AM »

(in case you missed it, the line of reasoning here is that you are citing writings in the bible as the sole piece of evidence for the resurrection of a man-god named Jesus, and now you've got to provide evidence that the writings in the bible are true before it is accepted as evidence that the resurrection of a man-god named Jesus is true.)

In case you missed it, this is your opinion. According to Freely and Stienberg (2000) a circular argument "occurs when one assumes as the premise for the argument the very conclusion one intends to prove" (p. 173). I am stating that Jesus rose form the dead and using Biblical testimony as evidence. It is your opinion that because Jesus resurrection is found in the Bible that it is circular argument. Keep in mind that the Bible are a collection of sources from writings and testimony from that era. Your argument would be like saying that something we read in the newspaper is circular. Why, because it is in the newspaper. It makes no sense- but it is one of those atheist game playing things.
I take it then that you've spent some time on the look out for Bat Boy[1].

I'm starting from the position that the bible is this book with words in it.  Could you now please provide some evidence that I should believe the words in it?
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character)
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #217 on: May 22, 2013, 08:23:10 AM »
You wrote: "So can you explain what exactly it is about "returning to life" you feel is the most obvious criteria for divinity?"

This is the essence of Christianity. If Jesus rose form the dead, it's game over! If Jesus did not rise form the dead, then Christianity is just another religion.

Hmm.  Not sure that logically follows.  After all, pretty much all religions say "this is the true faith - all the others are false".  So if you are unable to prove that Osiris / Dionysus / or any of the others did NOT rise from the dead - or, even, unable to prove any one "miracle" carried out by any one other god - then (by your argument) you would have to accept that religion as being the correct one, surely?

For example, Zeus, Poseidon and Hades drew lots for dominion over Sky, Water, and Underworld.  This is a principle claim of that belief system.  If they did NOT draw lots, then its game over.

Can you point me to the scholarly rebuttal of the claim that those three deities drew those lots?  Because if you can't, that would (by your argument) presumably prove that religion true.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6581
  • Darwins +514/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #218 on: May 22, 2013, 08:58:28 AM »
Mr Graybeard,
[...]
Again you ignore certain details. Both men have PhD's.

Again you avoid reading my posts (or at least the details that disturb you) I gave links to both characters, I have read the links myself and in both their educational qualifications are given.

Quote
Please have some respect for education.

You will find few who have more respect for education than I, however, and if you had read my post, I make the point that what you study is all-important.

I think neither of us will deny that a PhD in, say, mathematics is unassailable. It is unassailable because if you are wrong, someone can show that to be the case. The whole subject is based upon a solid foundation. This is scholarship. This is where if the theorem can prove a 3,4,5, triangle on a 2D plane surface to be right-angled, then the same logic is applied to triangles of different dimensions and it works.

Where many theologians depart from this is in three ways, 1. To be a theologian of note, you have to have your own theory - you cannot name two who agree completely. 2. As you and your source accept the argument for Christ rising, you both, on the same grounds, reject the case for Osiris rising. (This alone, for me, removes the "scholarly" aspect.) 3. Whereas a proof cannot make assumptions about whether certain lengths have behaviours and meanings different from other lengths, a theologian can make assumptions about the meaning or significance of a word, passage or action.

Quote
Both men worked hard to get where they are at,

This, of course and conveniently, does not state if "where they are at" is a good or bad place or any description of the place whatsoever. Fame itself is not proof of anything other than fame (see Justin Bieber), nor does it account for their, nevertheless, holding opposing views.

The disinterested observer with critical thinking skills must ask, 1. "Which, if either, is correct?"  2. "Does it matter if one worked harder than the other? Is it not equally possible to work hard towards what turns out to be a false conclusion?"

Quote
which is why, when it comes to a debate they can bring up more than ignorant arguments like Osiris or the "time-cube"

You see what you did? To dismiss Osiris as an historical figure, you have given an obscure reference from two men whose agenda we do not know and you have failed to expound or explain. You have no real useful knowledge about Osiris, nothing that would dismiss their claim to historicity.

I am quite willing to be impartial in the question of whether the Christ/Osiris myths are parallel or not. But you should realises that a mere statement (i) by you devoid of context and (ii) from persons whose background we do not know, is unlikely to be of much probative value here. If you are able to supply the basis of your argument that the Osiris parallel is a fallacy, please do.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 10:06:17 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1930
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #219 on: May 22, 2013, 09:07:45 AM »
holybuckets -
I thought your point was that a claim, once made, must stand unless evidence to the contrary is provided.  And that if no evidence to the contrary can or will be put forwards, then that claim must be accepted.  Or have I misconstrued your position?
Please don't miss answering this question.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #220 on: May 22, 2013, 09:35:11 AM »
holybuckets -
I thought your point was that a claim, once made, must stand unless evidence to the contrary is provided.  And that if no evidence to the contrary can or will be put forwards, then that claim must be accepted.  Or have I misconstrued your position?
Please don't miss answering this question.
Yes, again you have misconstrued and continue to argue in fallacy.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1930
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #221 on: May 22, 2013, 09:41:47 AM »
holybuckets -
I thought your point was that a claim, once made, must stand unless evidence to the contrary is provided.  And that if no evidence to the contrary can or will be put forwards, then that claim must be accepted.  Or have I misconstrued your position?
Please don't miss answering this question.
Yes, again you have misconstrued and continue to argue in fallacy.
So...about that 'evidence that the bible is true' thing...
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #222 on: May 22, 2013, 09:44:27 AM »
I will have to admit, I use some of the material here to use in Bible studies.
I am going to include in the atheists rebuttal to the resurrection: osiris, batboy, and the time-cube.
Is this the best you got?

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1930
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #223 on: May 22, 2013, 10:03:54 AM »
I will have to admit, I use some of the material here to use in Bible studies.
I am going to include in the atheists rebuttal to the resurrection: osiris, batboy, and the time-cube.
Is this the best you got?
Ok...the whole 'time-cube' thing...that is a rebuttal to your claim of the truth value of the bible.

You keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how your claim is that Jesus was resurrected, and that the information in the bible is your evidence.

The point of contention is the value of the bible as evidence for your claim.  You expect everyone to default to 'yes, it is valid evidence' without backing that up.  That's the point of my use of Time Cube.  My claim is that the bible is a lie; my evidence is Time Cube.  Is it valid to start at a position of 'the information contained in Time Cube is correct until otherwise proven false'?  If not, then why do you keep insisting that it is valid for the bible?  And if that isn't what you are insisting, and that you indeed have evidence to suggest the veracity of the claims of the bible, then out with it already!!!!!!!!

If it is valid to assume claims are true until otherwise proven false, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2972
  • Darwins +256/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #224 on: May 22, 2013, 10:16:02 AM »
I will have to admit, I use some of the material here to use in Bible studies.
I am going to include in the atheists rebuttal to the resurrection: osiris, batboy, and the time-cube.
Is this the best you got?

What is this, Argumentum ad Weekly World News:o

Actually, HB, I do have a little something.

A first-generation original manuscript written by a god (Me) in which it clearly states that I'm a god, as therein I refer to Myself as such.  I don't know if it meets all the criteria for a primary historical document, but in combination with My blog and with people addressing Me as "O Goddess" elsewhere on the 'Net, I've got something at least as good as the Bible.

It's currently at home, tucked safely away in what Granny Weatherwax would call a "grimmer."  I have a gig tonight and won't be back till late evening, but would be only too happy to scan and post My original holy book for your edification.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #225 on: May 22, 2013, 10:19:19 AM »
I will have to admit, I use some of the material here to use in Bible studies.
I am going to include in the atheists rebuttal to the resurrection: osiris, batboy, and the time-cube.
Is this the best you got?

this forum is rife with rebuttals to the resurrection and even the existence of jesus. The debate area has an old debate between xian member Fran and kcrady wherein Fran attempted to use Craig's 4 minimal facts argument.  Try the search function.

the problem in this thread is your approach has been:

jesus resurrected because the bible!  Prove I'm wrong!!

Your argument takes a lot for granted.  Add to that you demanding we provide evidence for a non-event.  It's like demanding evidence that I don't have a dog.  What evidence would there be of jesus' non-resurrection?

I suggest you try a different approach.  Imagine you were trying to convince aliens from another planet. They've never hear of jesus.  They haven't read the bible.  They are very scientifically oriented and ask you "how do you know?" every time you make a claim.  What would your argument look like?

I'm not trying to shoot you down.  I'm trying to help you articulate your position better.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1711
  • Darwins +181/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #226 on: May 22, 2013, 10:19:27 AM »
Is now a good time to ask what the hell any of this has to do with no atheist president anytime soon?

Doesn't the OP'er already have several threads on this topic going already?

My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11903
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #227 on: May 22, 2013, 10:27:00 AM »
I'm trying to help you articulate your position better.

lol![1]

-Nam
 1. he's been here how long? Funny.
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #228 on: May 22, 2013, 10:29:04 AM »
If you're going to use those, then in order to avoid bearing false witness, you also have to use the objections I voiced, namely that the authors of most of the New Testament books are unknown and thus unreliable at best.  Furthermore, Paul's account of the resurrection (in 1 Corinthians 15) was anything but firsthand.  He never states who actually told him about the resurrection - all he really states is that it happened, and that Jesus subsequently appeared to a bunch of people[1], and lastly, Paul himself.  In other words, he wasn't a witness of the resurrection -  not that anyone actually witnessed Jesus rise from the dead - and he never says word one about who actually told him about it.  In other words, it's also unreliable as an account of the resurrection.

So, what will it be, holybuckets?  Will you stay on the straight and narrow and present every argument against the resurrection that people have presented here, even if those arguments weaken your case, or will you commit a "pious fraud", only taking the low-hanging fruit so you can deceive other Christians by ignoring the stronger arguments that other people presented?

Oh, and let's not forget your constant attempts to use evidence from the Bible to prove a claim that comes from the Bible.  That's another argument against the resurrection, since it demonstrates that your argument in favor of the resurrection is essentially circular and thus cannot be validated.  So will you present that too, or will you dodge the issue so you can try to keep your faith intact?
 1. Cephas (Peter?), the Twelve (including Judas?), 500 "brothers and sisters", James (wasn't James already included in the Twelve?), then all of the apostles (so...all of the Christians at that time?  The Twelve...err, Eleven?  Them plus new apostles?)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1930
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #229 on: May 22, 2013, 10:44:05 AM »
Is now a good time to ask what the hell any of this has to do with no atheist president anytime soon?

Doesn't the OP'er already have several threads on this topic going already?
Cause there's eight wheels on them and four people, and four plus eight is twelve, and twelve is a foot and a foot is a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was also a ship, and the ship sails the sea and in the sea is fish and fish have fins, and the Finns fought the Russians and the Russians were red and that's why there will be no atheist president anytime soon.

Yeah I dunno.  I just want to see how far down the rabbit hole holybuckets' thought process goes.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2972
  • Darwins +256/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #230 on: May 22, 2013, 12:28:45 PM »
I just want to see how far down the rabbit hole holybuckets' thought process goes.

I heard a rumour that the rabbit just rented a U-Haul and is seeking alternate accommodations.   ;D
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #231 on: May 22, 2013, 10:49:04 PM »

the problem in this thread is your approach has been:
jesus resurrected because the bible!  Prove I'm wrong!!
This is why I call atheists hypocrites. Tell me (and be honest) if I am wrong.
I post: There is a God
You will post: show me your proof

I will say because of Jesus
You will post: that proves nothing.

I will say: He claimed to be God
You will say: Where is your proof

I will say: It says so in the Bible
You will laugh and say: That means nothing

I will say: But He has eye witnesses
You will say: Prove it

Then I will post: OK prove that it is wrong
You will post: "the problem in this thread is your approach has been:
jesus resurrected because the bible!  Prove I'm wrong!!"