Author Topic: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?  (Read 2759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #87 on: January 23, 2014, 08:16:16 AM »
Yet another example of "if X, God; if not x, God" argument
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #88 on: January 23, 2014, 11:07:34 AM »
I will address more points later as I have to run to work in a little bit.

I just wanted to say that many atheists are asking, "Why would people ignore Jesus' miracles if they saw them? it makes no sense."

But, what about all the atheists on here who have said that if Christianity was true, they wouldn't follow it? or the ones who said they would curse God to His face?

If you guys would do that with first hand rock-solid proof, why would you expect the Romans & others to write about it and join it? They have the same hatred for it as you guys do.

Doesn't that make perfect sense?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1282
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #89 on: January 23, 2014, 11:17:07 AM »
But, what about all the atheists on here who have said that if Christianity was true, they wouldn't follow it? or the ones who said they would curse God to His face?

If you guys would do that with first hand rock-solid proof, why would you expect the Romans & others to write about it and join it? They have the same hatred for it as you guys do.


emphasis added--you sure about that?  Why did the Romans hate Xianity?  Why do modern atheists hate it?
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #90 on: January 23, 2014, 12:03:07 PM »
I will address more points later as I have to run to work in a little bit.

I just wanted to say that many atheists are asking, "Why would people ignore Jesus' miracles if they saw them? it makes no sense."

But, what about all the atheists on here who have said that if Christianity was true, they wouldn't follow it? or the ones who said they would curse God to His face?

If you guys would do that with first hand rock-solid proof, why would you expect the Romans & others to write about it and join it? They have the same hatred for it as you guys do.

Doesn't that make perfect sense?

Actually no! Sorry!

The Roman and the Jews of Jesus day lived 2,000 years ago. By comparison with our society they were vastly less knowledgeable about the world and how things work than us and, of course, their medical science was quite limited. The Romans used to look for omensWiki in order to decide the view of the gods on whether to fight a battle or many other things. They were used to the idea that the gods might intervene.

The Roman Army had its own god, Mithras (born of a virgin on 25 Dec, died and was raised again etc) so were used to the ideas of religion in a way we are not these days. If the Romans saw anything out of the ordinary they would want to know more and, indeed, that's how their engineering moved forward. However, one thing they knew, not least because they killed so many people, is that dead people do not rise from the dead - Mithras excepted of course.

Now given their expectations of religion and their interest in what was happening around them I cannot think of a single reason that, should a person come back from the dead, the Romans would not have investigated, their historians wouldn't have written about it and we would have loads of information left for us today. Look at the description of Pliny, for example, of the eruption. He was juts interested in what happened around him. Lots of reasons why the Romans would have recorded such a momentous event as a rising from the dead and none why not. They were the power in the land so they could afford to be interested.

Finally, let's remember the Roman's are supposed to have put Jesus to death. They normally recorded decisions and executions, though Jesus must have slipped through the net of that, and had they put him to death for looking like he was leading an insurrection, surely, if he was seen again in Jerusalem the Romans would want to catch him a second time and would have been sure to write it down then - for the emperor if not just for Vespasian.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1518
  • Darwins +101/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #91 on: January 23, 2014, 12:37:48 PM »
But, what about all the atheists on here who have said that if Christianity was true, they wouldn't follow it? or the ones who said they would curse God to His face?

If you guys would do that with first hand rock-solid proof, why would you expect the Romans & others to write about it and join it? They have the same hatred for it as you guys do.


emphasis added--you sure about that?  Why did the Romans hate Xianity?  Why do modern atheists hate it?

It is my understanding the Romans saw religion as a key to the Pax Romana (The Peace of Rome).  Squabbiling religious groups produce rivalires and wars which interrups commerce and trade plus drains the military of much needed troops. And it may have also been the ego of various emporer's but the bottom line is that Rome felt it was best for a single religion to be applied throughout the empire. 

HOWEVER, one exception was granted and that was to the Jews.  And this is because the Jews politely but firmly asked to have an exception and in return they would continue to help fund the empire.  As I understand history, the Romans said that was OK but they did not like it.  This probably helped fan the flames of anti-semitism for centuries to come but that is only a guess on my part.

So when the Christians began showing up, the Romans were initially tolerant as they were seen as a branch of Judaism.  The Christians, either out of ignorance or being true to their faith, said "Thanks, but no; we are not a branch of Judaism".  To which the Roman authorities said "Well, if you are not part of Judaism, then you must choose between holding on to your faith and dying or abandoning it and joining the Roman religion."  This explains why the Christians met in secret.

It wasn't that the Romans hated Christianity, per se, they were equal opportunity haters of all religions which were not the official Roman religion (with the pragmatic exception of Judaism). 

Turning to the other question, I don't think atheists as a group hate Christianity.  They simply do not believe in the existense of ANY gods and, understandably, resent when well meaning theists come to their door or this website proclaiming the atheists are wrong. 

End of lecture.

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #92 on: January 23, 2014, 12:58:03 PM »

If you guys would do that with first hand rock-solid proof, why would you expect the Romans & others to write about it and join it?

It seems to me that atheists write about Christianity quite a bit, as evidenced by this, and other, websites, with no proof, rock-solid or otherwise. Witnessed miracles would dominate discussions, as well as news outlets.

Joining it, OTOH, would be dependant on many variables.

Quote
They have the same hatred for it as you guys do.

Perhaps they did, if the xians of the time were trying to establish laws and discriminating against people to be in line with their beliefs.

Quote
Doesn't that make perfect sense?

No. Not even a little. If people really saw miracles and such that they'd never seen before (think zombie Jesus and followers here), they'd be writing it down in droves.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #93 on: January 23, 2014, 01:08:56 PM »

The Roman Army had its own god, Mithras (born of a virgin on 25 Dec,

Actually there is no archeological proof they believed born of a virgin on Dec 25th. That is an unfortunate myth passed around in atheist communities based on sloppy scholarship.

Yes Skeptic54768, I even point out flaws in atheist stories. I do not proclaim I love atheism, therefore it is the truth. Rather I love truth, therefore I am an atheist.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #94 on: January 23, 2014, 01:18:55 PM »

It wasn't that the Romans hated Christianity, per se, they were equal opportunity haters of all religions which were not the official Roman religion (with the pragmatic exception of Judaism). 

Turning to the other question, I don't think atheists as a group hate Christianity.  They simply do not believe in the existense of ANY gods and, understandably, resent when well meaning theists come to their door or this website proclaiming the atheists are wrong. 

End of lecture.

OldChurchGuy

You are close, but what they didn't like was exclusionary religions. Being Pagan and cosmopolitan they welcomed many other gods and religions, they were always treated as 'lesser' gods...but gods none the less. This was part and parcel of how Rome thought, from how the provinces were treated, the legal system, how Roman citizenship was granted, their tax farming system....and it extended to their religion. Everything is lesser than Rome Original, but after a hundred years or two when their language, customs, and religious practices took on more and more of a Roman flavor...the second class status lessened or in some cases vanished as well. You only need to look to how the orginal Roman Gods retained their name but grew to be essentially Romanized copies of the Greek Gods to see how this worked.

And this practice is what helped to establish a stable culture. Monotheists however don't fit this system..and that's where your post comes in.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #95 on: January 23, 2014, 01:48:53 PM »
Finally, let's remember the Roman's are supposed to have put Jesus to death. They normally recorded decisions and executions, though Jesus must have slipped through the net of that, and had they put him to death for looking like he was leading an insurrection, surely, if he was seen again in Jerusalem the Romans would want to catch him a second time and would have been sure to write it down then - for the emperor if not just for Vespasian.

Interesting thought.

If Jesus did return to life, I would think that the Romans would want to cover that up.  How embarrassing would that be if people found out that the Romans couldn’t even execute someone properly.

I wonder what would be better action to take as the Romans of the two following options:

1)   The Romans would insure that records existed noting the execution of Jesus, thus confirming yeah he’s dead all right.  If anyone asks “did he come back to life?”, the Romans could respond “nope look at the records, he’s dead”.
OR
2)   The Romans would erase all written records of Jesus’s existence (during his lifetime) in an effort to simply deny he ever existed.  If anyone asks “did he come back to life?”, the Romans could respond “did who come back to life?”

Seeing as how we don’t have any records of his execution, we could conclude that the Romans went with option 2 although there are problems with option 2.  How could the Romans guarantee that they would successfully erase all written records of Jesus’s existence.  I somehow doubt Jesus was the only guy going around proclaiming he was the messiah, so why spend so much effort on just one of many potential leaders of insurrection.  Also, option 2 wouldn’t be the only explanation for why it appears that Jesus never existed, there is the underlying possibility that Jesus indeed never existed.

In any case I don’t know much about what the motives of the various people would have been back then.  I was just thinking, if I were the Romans, what would I have done.  I personally would have went with option 1.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #96 on: January 23, 2014, 03:42:50 PM »
Finally, let's remember the Roman's are supposed to have put Jesus to death. They normally recorded decisions and executions, though Jesus must have slipped through the net of that, and had they put him to death for looking like he was leading an insurrection, surely, if he was seen again in Jerusalem the Romans would want to catch him a second time and would have been sure to write it down then - for the emperor if not just for Vespasian.

Interesting thought.

If Jesus did return to life, I would think that the Romans would want to cover that up.  How embarrassing would that be if people found out that the Romans couldn’t even execute someone properly.



Or, as is the practice today, they would find one sufficiently high enough in the chain of command to have a known name as not to scare the Pederatti and Foot Soldier from following orders, but not high enough to cause political damage; then lay the blame on them.

 You are ignoring this, the path of least resistance.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #97 on: January 24, 2014, 05:29:31 AM »
Hmm, got quite a lot of responses. Well, from what I am seeing many responses tend to be either an appeal to incredulity or providing an alternative.

I will be straight here, most of what I learned on this subject I got from a book, so I am not necessarily a genius on the subject. However, from the Book I read (Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace) the author brings up many common counter-points often used against the resurrection, such as the stolen body theory. He says that the stolen body does not account for the transformed lives of the apostles. He goes very deep into the subject, but in a nut shell, why would each and every apostle die a martyrs death (a long distance away from each other) for something that they knew to be a lie?

From what we know about these 'minimum facts' we find that there are multiple problems with most theories claiming a false resurrection, but that the only problem with the belief that the resurrection actually did happen was that you had to believe in the supernatural. A disbelief in the supernatural would be an a priori assumption that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence provided. It is an outside influence to the observation of this event. This means that discounting biased outside influence, that the theory that makes most sense is that the disciples accurately described the resurrection of Jesus. Even when I try to say it, I can't get it across as effectively as the author.

I highly suggest reading this book to any skeptics out there. It is very informative and takes an evidential approach to the Bible and to God. Before I read this book even I did not know how overwhelming the evidence for a creator really was.

http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696

In case anyone is interested, and no this is not me trying to sell a product. I genuinely would like every skeptic I meet to read this book, even if it is just to better understand our, a Christians, argument to be able to conduct more thoughtful debate rather than the usual back and forth.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #98 on: January 24, 2014, 06:30:43 AM »
Looks interesting, Spinner, but I still say there is no evidence apart from the bible and that's the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Oh, and as for people dying for the cause - well for many of the apostles there is very little or no external record of their deaths and anyway, look at people such as those who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. They had strong beliefs though I expect you would say those beliefs were wrong ones.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #99 on: January 24, 2014, 06:42:17 AM »
None of these disciples actually witnessed a resurrection though, did they? They weren't with the body when it suddenly sprung back to life. A resurrection is an interpretation of the information the disciples had and isn't a conclusion based on any observation. Their beliefs are no more credible or authentic than anyone today who believes their word, as not only did they not witness any "miracle" here, they were also trapped in nature like everything else.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #100 on: January 24, 2014, 09:25:24 AM »
Doesn't that make perfect sense?
No. And the more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Finally, you come to the conclusion that Jesus either did nothing or did not exist.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1282
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #101 on: January 24, 2014, 12:10:11 PM »
but that the only problem with the belief that the resurrection actually did happen was that you had to believe in the supernatural.

Gee, that's it??

Quote
A disbelief in the supernatural would be an a priori assumption that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence provided.

100% wrong.  A lack of belief in the supernatural is based on current knowledge/observation.  People don't rise from the dead or walk on water without aid or transform water into wine or multiply food.  There aren't any spooks or spectres, vampires or werewolves, pixies or unicorns, dragons or wizards.  Believing in the supernatural for this one instance, with no outside corroboration, is special pleading.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #102 on: January 24, 2014, 12:39:27 PM »
Finally, let's remember the Roman's are supposed to have put Jesus to death. They normally recorded decisions and executions, though Jesus must have slipped through the net of that, and had they put him to death for looking like he was leading an insurrection, surely, if he was seen again in Jerusalem the Romans would want to catch him a second time and would have been sure to write it down then - for the emperor if not just for Vespasian.

Interesting thought.

If Jesus did return to life, I would think that the Romans would want to cover that up.  How embarrassing would that be if people found out that the Romans couldn’t even execute someone properly.



Or, as is the practice today, they would find one sufficiently high enough in the chain of command to have a known name as not to scare the Pederatti and Foot Soldier from following orders, but not high enough to cause political damage; then lay the blame on them.

 You are ignoring this, the path of least resistance.

I wouldn't say I was ignoring that, just didn't think of it.

Still, if those who were likely to receive the blame, knew about what happened, they themselves might try to cover it up or insure there was no confusion about what happened just so they wouldn't be blamed.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1963
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #103 on: January 24, 2014, 01:22:48 PM »
A disbelief in the supernatural would be an a priori assumption that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence provided.

Define supernatural.  Give a description of 'supernatural' that can help distinguish natural phenomenon and supernatural phenomenon.  Give a description of 'supernatural' that can help distinguish supernatural phenomenon from non-existent phenomenon.
"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 Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #104 on: January 24, 2014, 01:37:23 PM »
but that the only problem with the belief that the resurrection actually did happen was that you had to believe in the supernatural. A disbelief in the supernatural would be an a priori assumption that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence provided.

What evidence is that?

What reason is there to believe a priori that the supernatural exists?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #105 on: January 24, 2014, 05:36:41 PM »
Looks interesting, Spinner, but I still say there is no evidence apart from the bible and that's the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Oh, and as for people dying for the cause - well for many of the apostles there is very little or no external record of their deaths and anyway, look at people such as those who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. They had strong beliefs though I expect you would say those beliefs were wrong ones.
He also tackles this problem in the book. The difference between the faith of those who were told about their faith by others, and the faith of those who would have witnessed their beliefs being fulfilled firsthand, like the apostles did. The apostles either observed the truth or made up a lie, and if it was a lie then they would have no faith.

None of these disciples actually witnessed a resurrection though, did they? They weren't with the body when it suddenly sprung back to life. A resurrection is an interpretation of the information the disciples had and isn't a conclusion based on any observation. Their beliefs are no more credible or authentic than anyone today who believes their word, as not only did they not witness any "miracle" here, they were also trapped in nature like everything else.
I would say that it is a safe bet, that if somebody was confirmed dead and buried 3 days ago and now they are alive and perfectly well, that they resurrected. What would be the alternative after all?

but that the only problem with the belief that the resurrection actually did happen was that you had to believe in the supernatural.

Gee, that's it??

Quote
A disbelief in the supernatural would be an a priori assumption that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence provided.

100% wrong.  A lack of belief in the supernatural is based on current knowledge/observation.  People don't rise from the dead or walk on water without aid or transform water into wine or multiply food.  There aren't any spooks or spectres, vampires or werewolves, pixies or unicorns, dragons or wizards.  Believing in the supernatural for this one instance, with no outside corroboration, is special pleading.
How is a lack of belief in the supernatural based upon knowledge and observations? By definition the supernatural is beyond our knowledge and observations. Although we can't understand it, we are still told about it, in the Bible. Assuming there is no supernatural is, at best, your own leap of faith. In this situation, an unfounded personal disbelief in something doesn't change the evidence observed.

A disbelief in the supernatural would be an a priori assumption that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence provided.

Define supernatural.  Give a description of 'supernatural' that can help distinguish natural phenomenon and supernatural phenomenon.  Give a description of 'supernatural' that can help distinguish supernatural phenomenon from non-existent phenomenon.
If we think of the supernatural as in the 'real world' then it makes sense really. The 'natural' world is not something less than the supernatural, rather the natural world is limited by laws, dimensions, etc. it is the supernatural plus limitations, like laws, dimensions, etc.

We can't just start flying through the air because it defies the laws of physics. The supernatural doesn't merely break the laws of physics, it just isn't limited by the laws of physics to begin with.

The natural world exists within the supernatural world, but with limitations that simply don't exist for the supernatural. The natural world is the supernatural plus restrictions that makes it into what we define as the natural world. The supernatural doesn't simply break these restrictions, rather the restrictions weren't there to begin with.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 05:46:27 PM by Spinner198 »

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6502
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #106 on: January 24, 2014, 06:29:34 PM »
I'm not even going to touch on your extended defense of the supernatural on the grounds that my brains will melt and leak out onto the keyboard.

But I will point out that there must be a few other reasons why most people don't accept the rebirth of Jesus as fact.

Many, if not most of the people who have lived on the planet since the supposed time of Jesus have believed in the supernatural. Yet, they have still overwhelmingly rejected Christianity in favor of other religions. Of the 7 billion people alive today, 5 billion are not Christians, although most probably agree with the existence of the supernatural.  (Unfortunately, in my opinion, unfounded, but that is the case.)

Many cultures have impossible miracles and magical stories of death and rebirth. It could be that most people who don't buy into the Jesus myth just prefer to believe in the made-up crap of their own cultures. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #107 on: January 24, 2014, 08:15:40 PM »
The apostles either observed the truth or made up a lie, and if it was a lie then they would have no faith.

You are making the assumption that the apostles needed "faith" - whatever that is. The early religion was different.

The early "Christian" religion appears to have been a revision of Judaism, where a sagely Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the way things were done, and showed the Jews how to follow the laws better, so that they could enter "The Kingdom" in this lifetime. He imparted understanding, not blind faith in him - rather like a Buddhist teacher, who extolls "right thinking". It would be unthinkable for a Buddhist teacher to go around saying "I am God. Have faith in me, and I'll give to a free pass to Nirvana". Sounds idiotic, and it is. Parts of the gospel hint at this, esp the part where Jesus says he is not good. Also, we have the gospel of Thomas to show us an attitude to the Kingdom.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #108 on: January 24, 2014, 09:13:57 PM »
Looks interesting, Spinner, but I still say there is no evidence apart from the bible and that's the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Oh, and as for people dying for the cause - well for many of the apostles there is very little or no external record of their deaths and anyway, look at people such as those who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. They had strong beliefs though I expect you would say those beliefs were wrong ones.
He also tackles this problem in the book. The difference between the faith of those who were told about their faith by others, and the faith of those who would have witnessed their beliefs being fulfilled firsthand, like the apostles did. The apostles either observed the truth or made up a lie, and if it was a lie then they would have no faith.

None of these disciples actually witnessed a resurrection though, did they? They weren't with the body when it suddenly sprung back to life. A resurrection is an interpretation of the information the disciples had and isn't a conclusion based on any observation. Their beliefs are no more credible or authentic than anyone today who believes their word, as not only did they not witness any "miracle" here, they were also trapped in nature like everything else.
I would say that it is a safe bet, that if somebody was confirmed dead and buried 3 days ago and now they are alive and perfectly well, that they resurrected. What would be the alternative after all?

but that the only problem with the belief that the resurrection actually did happen was that you had to believe in the supernatural.

Gee, that's it??

Quote
A disbelief in the supernatural would be an a priori assumption that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence provided.

100% wrong.  A lack of belief in the supernatural is based on current knowledge/observation.  People don't rise from the dead or walk on water without aid or transform water into wine or multiply food.  There aren't any spooks or spectres, vampires or werewolves, pixies or unicorns, dragons or wizards.  Believing in the supernatural for this one instance, with no outside corroboration, is special pleading.
How is a lack of belief in the supernatural based upon knowledge and observations? By definition the supernatural is beyond our knowledge and observations. Although we can't understand it, we are still told about it, in the Bible. Assuming there is no supernatural is, at best, your own leap of faith. In this situation, an unfounded personal disbelief in something doesn't change the evidence observed.

A disbelief in the supernatural would be an a priori assumption that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence provided.

Define supernatural.  Give a description of 'supernatural' that can help distinguish natural phenomenon and supernatural phenomenon.  Give a description of 'supernatural' that can help distinguish supernatural phenomenon from non-existent phenomenon.
If we think of the supernatural as in the 'real world' then it makes sense really. The 'natural' world is not something less than the supernatural, rather the natural world is limited by laws, dimensions, etc. it is the supernatural plus limitations, like laws, dimensions, etc.

We can't just start flying through the air because it defies the laws of physics. The supernatural doesn't merely break the laws of physics, it just isn't limited by the laws of physics to begin with.

The natural world exists within the supernatural world, but with limitations that simply don't exist for the supernatural. The natural world is the supernatural plus restrictions that makes it into what we define as the natural world. The supernatural doesn't simply break these restrictions, rather the restrictions weren't there to begin with.

The natural world was also created by God though. A tree growing form a seed is a miracle in the same way that Jesus feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and two fish. I feel that when people "ask for a miracle," they are indirectly admitting that the natural world is not a miracle. For example, "I want to see god defy gravity!" would be indirectly admitting that gravity itself is not a miracle, but natural. But if we view gravity itself as the miracle, there's no point to ask God to defy it.

Once you realize life itself is a miracle, you won't ask for any other silly proofs.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 09:15:42 PM by skeptic54768 »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #109 on: January 24, 2014, 09:35:50 PM »


The natural world was also created by God though. A tree growing form a seed is a miracle in the same way that Jesus feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and two fish.


Except the tree thing happens daily. We know a great deal of the properties and properties involved. It does not require a suspension of known physical laws.

I feel that when people "ask for a miracle," they are indirectly admitting that the natural world is not a miracle.


Because it isn't It is regular, repeating, observable, and seems to obey known laws.

A miracle by definition, does not.

For example, "I want to see god defy gravity!" would be indirectly admitting that gravity itself is not a miracle, but natural. But if we view gravity itself as the miracle, there's no point to ask God to defy it.

Once you realize life itself is a miracle, you won't ask for any other silly proofs.

Which is to say, you have nothing  but hot wind and bullcrap.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #110 on: January 25, 2014, 12:38:05 AM »

Once you realize life itself is a miracle, you won't ask for any other silly proofs.

How convenient.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #111 on: January 25, 2014, 01:44:13 AM »
Once you realize life itself is a miracle, you won't ask for any other silly proofs.


Little more than a backhanded acknowledgement that miracles do not occur.

Can't show a miracle?  Just make something mundane a miracle!
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #112 on: January 25, 2014, 02:36:38 AM »
Once you realize life itself is a miracle, you won't ask for any other silly proofs.


Little more than a backhanded acknowledgement that miracles do not occur.

Can't show a miracle?  Just make something mundane a miracle!

You guys want proof right in front of your faces, right? That's what life is: proof.

How is life not a miracle? Childbirth certainly couldn't evolve in steps, nor could it evolve all at once.

Think about how petty this sounds: "Hey God, I know you created the universe and all, but can you defy gravity for me please?"
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #113 on: January 25, 2014, 03:02:48 AM »
The natural world was also created by God though. A tree growing form a seed is a miracle in the same way that Jesus feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and two fish. I feel that when people "ask for a miracle," they are indirectly admitting that the natural world is not a miracle. For example, "I want to see god defy gravity!" would be indirectly admitting that gravity itself is not a miracle, but natural. But if we view gravity itself as the miracle, there's no point to ask God to defy it.

Once you realize life itself is a miracle, you won't ask for any other silly proofs.

Except, as you keep ignoring, the resurrection is NOT part of the normal process of life.  It is exactly the kind of extra-normal "miracle" that you don't want to discuss.

Conversely, if EVERYTHING is a miracle, then the resurrection is just another "so what?"  No more or less interesting or significant than a tree, or grass, or a pencil. Is that the point you wanted to make?
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 Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #114 on: January 25, 2014, 03:38:42 AM »
None of these disciples actually witnessed a resurrection though, did they? They weren't with the body when it suddenly sprung back to life. A resurrection is an interpretation of the information the disciples had and isn't a conclusion based on any observation. Their beliefs are no more credible or authentic than anyone today who believes their word, as not only did they not witness any "miracle" here, they were also trapped in nature like everything else.
I would say that it is a safe bet, that if somebody was confirmed dead and buried 3 days ago and now they are alive and perfectly well, that they resurrected. What would be the alternative after all?

Er, how about they weren't actually dead in the first place.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1282
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #115 on: January 25, 2014, 09:26:29 AM »

You guys want proof right in front of your faces, right? That's what life is: proof.

Lie is proof that life exists, nothing more.  Unless you can show otherwise...

Quote
How is life not a miracle?

Because it happens millions of times every single day, across every species that procreates sexually and doesn't lay eggs.

Quote
Childbirth certainly couldn't evolve in steps, nor could it evolve all at once.

Argument from ignorance.  Reworded: "I can't imagine how childbirth could have evolved, therefore god."

Quote
Think about how petty this sounds: "Hey God, I know you created the universe and all, but can you defy gravity for me please?"

Two incorrect assumptions:
1) I believe your god exists
2) I believe he created the universe

three, actually.
3) that he'd ever answer you or anyone
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces