Okay here is some context, me and my cousin debate a lot. He is a dual major into his 4th year of philosophy and mathematics...and hes a Christian...(~drum roll smash~).

I asked him what is his reason being a theist and, why choose christianty over any other religion and here is what he said:

"the main two reasons I will give that I am a theist are:

1. I think belief in God is properly basic.
2. The likelihood of my cognitive structure structure retaining true beliefs is greater than on theism, than given atheism).

And for Christian theism in particularly:
3. Argument that God is not a unitarian God.
4. The Resurrection as the best explanation of certain facts about the historical Jesus.
5. Religious experience.
"

now i do not have the knowledge to refute these except the 5th one, so i need some help to understand and perhaps refute this.

Also Hello! this is my first post

He hasn't said a thing that's provable, just his opinions. (The resurrection stories contradict each other.)

Before he can say "god is great, so I'm under his care" he needs to prove a god exists. Don't let him skip that step or you're conceding the game up front.

How do you define religious experience and how does he handle scientific studies that provoke these experiences with certain stimuli?

4. There is no evidence for a 'historical' jesus, at all....and the "resurrection stories" are ripped straight from pagan mythology.

You're allowing him to skip the step of showing that there is any evidence for 'god' period.

(April 23, 2011 at 3:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote: 4. There is no evidence for a 'historical' jesus, at all....and the "resurrection stories" are ripped straight from pagan mythology.

You're allowing him to skip the step of showing that there is any evidence for 'god' period.

He says practically all scholars agree with this,

"1.The Empty Tomb.
2. The disciples having appearances of Jesus.
3. The origin of the belief in Jesus resurrection."

i asked for sources and waiting for a response

Also are you guys saying that i should disregard any arguments from philosophy? thats what point number 1,2 seems to be.

Quote:i asked for sources and waiting for a response

Don't hold your breath.


Seriously, they can always trot out another bible-thumping moron to cite as evidence. That's irrelevant. The mantra "one lies and the other swears to it" comes to mind.

There is no historical evidence from the first century AD that any one ever heard of any fucking jesus. The fact that later xtians went back and forged some ( Josephus, most notably) suggests that they were embarrassed by this.

here is what i said

"These mainly cover all three:

John Alsup: “The Post Resurrection Appearances of the Gospel Tradition.”

Edward L. Bode: The First Easter Morning.

C.H. Dode: “the Appearances of the Risen Christ: A Study in the Form Criticism of the Gospels.”

Craig A. Evans “Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology.”



Robert Gundry: “Soma in Biblical Theology.”

Whatever William Lane Craig has written on the issue.

Whatever N.T. Wright has written on the issue.

-------------
And that practically all scholars agree on the three fact above, I guess the only way I can show you this is to use the information that I came to know this, namely, scholars in the field that mention that.

“Mark Allen Powell: "The dominant view is that the passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony" (Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68 [2000]: 171).”

Paula Frederickson: "The disciples' conviction that they had seen the Risen Christ . . . [is] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting" (Jesus of Nazareth [New York: Vintage, 1999], 264).

Geza Vermes, "When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that . . . the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb" (Jesus the Jew, p. 41).

Jacob Kremer: "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" (Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 49-50)."




And are you sure i should call him out on that, no "primary source" that confirms the existence of Jesus.



EDIT ~>
LOL i just noticed these are mere quotes and still no empirical evidence XD

As I said, they can always trot out some asshole with a theology degree ( I agree with Dawkins - there is nothing more worthless than a theology degree ) to tell them what they want to hear.

There are no primary sources. They usually respond to this with the Great Xtian Paradox. On the one hand, Jesus was so insignificant that no one in authority took the slightest notice of him BUT, on the other hand, he was so dangerous and had so many followers that the High Priest had to break every rule in his fucking book to hold a trial on Passover so this insignificant ( yet dangerous ) anomaly could be killed by a method which the Romans reserved for rebels or slaves.

After that, they usually resort to special pleading.... "but this was the son of GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or some such shit.

No I almost got him cornered now, He says
"Heh. They may seem to be my opinion, but I have arguments cogent arguments for them. "

I asked for these arguments and am waiting for a response.

And then i again said does he have any emperical evidence to support any of his arguments because so far nothing has been presented.


secondly he did mention the gospel of thomas being used as a primary source, to which i said

"
~>wiki tells me
Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE ~~~~~ 30–36 AD/CE) <~ If you disagree tell a replacement time range and source

~>Thomas ~> Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 60 or as late as AD 140

this is not a primary source.

"

lol I love debating

Oh, I forgot to tell you. He'll probably trot out Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus ( although that is a forgery) and maybe Pliny the younger.


These are all second century writers.

Philo of Alexandria d c 50 AD was a commentator on Jewish affairs and living during the very period that xtians claimed their boy was marching around performing miracles. Philo never heard of him, although he did hear of Pontius Pilate and wrote a letter to the Emperor Gaius ( Caligula) in which he detailed Pilate's crimes but somehow killing the "messiahh" did not make the list. Perhaps Philo considered that "padding?"

Pliny the Elder wrote a Natural History in which he recounts loads of mythical bullshit from all across the Empire but somehow never heard about a criminal executed by a Roman magistrate who came back from the fucking dead. Pliny died in 79 AD at the eruption of Veusius having lived through the whole xtian period.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca ( 1 BC - 65 AD) was later the victim of certain forged letters between himself and the so-called Paul. Nonetheless, in his authentic writings Seneca does not seem to know who the fuck jesus was.