Debate with a Christian

[*Deidre*]

BIB: why on earth shouldn't we, at least it is testable, demonstrable and real? At least its something, isnt it?

We should use it. I do not know if you saw what I wrote at the beginning of my post from which the above was taken.

We should use empirical means and methods in matters that are subject to observation and experimentation.

We should. I have said this over and over.

But to take verificationism and empiricism and to try and extrapolate it over into other domains and disciplines of research is simply unjustified. That is why the verificationist movement died out years ago. If it had been adopted, it would have compelled us to abandon wide swaths of what most of us take to be fields of human knowledge.

Those who espoused such a limiting and restrictive theory of knowledge did so for various reasons. Many saw it as a way to once and for all silence those who sought to speak about the supernatural or God, or other like topics. But unbeknownst to them at the time was that in their endeavor to eliminate all theological statements, they also rendered many scientific statements as worthless at the same time! They essentially were throwing the baby out with the bath water! For example, contemporary physics is filled with metaphysical statements that cannot be empirically verified. Eminent philosopher of science Bas van Fraassen remarks about these concepts when he states: “Do the concepts of the Trinity [and] the soul…baffle you? They pale beside the unimaginable otherness of closed space-times, event-horizons, EPR correlations, and bootstrap models.” -Bas van Frassen in Images of Science, ed. by P. Churchland and C. Hooker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 258.

Verificationism was abandoned by those in the academy primarily because, and ironically because it was too restrictive a theory of knowledge when it came to science itself!!!

---

Fortunately, most of us don't live in hypotheticals. ;-)

Fortunately, we do not live in a world where empiricism is seen as the "be all and end all."

Fair enough. But, there is a difference between fact and fiction. The problem with your above illustration is ...no secular history books exist to support the Bible's tales. World Religion books etc...yes, but they are like reading Wikipedia. So, your example is almost perfect for this very thread. When it comes to the religiosity of the Gospels, only the Bible contains that. And that is a problem if you wish to debate with people who don't consider the Bible a viable text. The Bible is a religious book that is often the reference point for historians when discussing the history of Jesus, for example.

Anyway!

When you find time, I would be interested to see your responses to my questions in post #414.

[discipulus]

Fair enough. But, there is a difference between fact and fiction.

I agree. The difference is as wide as the sea.

The problem with your above illustration is ...no secular history books exist to support the Bible's tales.

Tacitus' Annals supports the gospel accounts that Jesus was a Jew who lived in first century Palestine who was crucified by the Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate and that Jesus Christ's followers (Christians) were already living in Rome when the great fire in Rome occurred.

Here the historian verifies several key things recorded in the gospels as well as the Acts of the Apostles:

1. Jesus was a man who lived during the reign of Tiberius. This is in the gospels.

2. He was crucified by Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea under Tiberius Caesar. This is in the gospels.

3. Christ's followers were already in Rome when the great fire broke out under Nero. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Paul's final days were lived out in Rome.

This is not the only secular reference that corroborates events recorded in the gospels.

[pocaracas]

Tacitus' Annals supports the gospel accounts that Jesus was a Jew who lived in first century Palestine who was crucified by the Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate and that Jesus Christ's followers (Christians) were already living in Rome when the great fire in Rome occurred.

Here the historian verifies several key things recorded in the gospels as well as the Acts of the Apostles:

1. Jesus was a man who lived during the reign of Tiberius. This is in the gospels.

2. He was crucified by Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea under Tiberius Caesar. This is in the gospels.

3. Christ's followers were already in Rome when the great fire broke out under Nero. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Paul's final days were lived out in Rome.

This is not the only secular reference that corroborates events recorded in the gospels.

Ah, but you see?... I see no extraordinary event corroborated there.
No walking on water.
No rising from the dead.
No bringing the dead back to life.
No curing incurable diseases.
Nothing... just that there was a man with a particular name, who had other people following his teachings.
Big deal... the same happened for Socrates... who, too, "sacrificed himself" because the powers that be went against his thinking.

[Whateverist]

SO DID IT START? ANYONE KNOW WHERE THE DEBATE IS LOCATED? (URL PLEASE)

[psychoslice]

Is it possible to debate with a Christian ??.

[discipulus]

Tacitus' Annals supports the gospel accounts that Jesus was a Jew who lived in first century Palestine who was crucified by the Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate and that Jesus Christ's followers (Christians) were already living in Rome when the great fire in Rome occurred.

Here the historian verifies several key things recorded in the gospels as well as the Acts of the Apostles:

1. Jesus was a man who lived during the reign of Tiberius. This is in the gospels.

2. He was crucified by Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea under Tiberius Caesar. This is in the gospels.

3. Christ's followers were already in Rome when the great fire broke out under Nero. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Paul's final days were lived out in Rome.

This is not the only secular reference that corroborates events recorded in the gospels.

Ah, but you see?... I see no extraordinary event corroborated there.
No walking on water.
No rising from the dead.
No bringing the dead back to life.
No curing incurable diseases.
Nothing... just that there was a man with a particular name, who had other people following his teachings.
Big deal... the same happened for Socrates... who, too, "sacrificed himself" because the powers that be went against his thinking.

Look into what he says closely, something extraordinary is indeed present. He states that an immense multitude of Christians were convicted by Nero for starting the fire that burned a great deal of Rome in 64A.D.

Now, if Jesus, who we know was crucified, had died and indeed remained dead, then it becomes inexplicable as to how His immediate disciples (all of which were Jews), who were despondent, fearful of their lives and forced into hiding, could have somehow been the cause of there being an immense multitude of Christians in Rome which is roughly 2,000 miles a way in a mere thirty years!

The presence of so many Christians in Rome at this particular time roughly 2,000 miles away from where Christ was crucified and buried leaving behind a rag tag group of Galileans who were forced into hiding and despondent at the death of their Rabbi, cries out for an explanation.

Both Suetonius, the Chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian and the Roman Historian Tacitus mention a "superstition" when speaking of Christians and many historians see this as an allusion to the claim of the disciples that Jesus had been resurrected.

Are we really to believe that these twelve Galileans would:

A. Be able to somehow steal Jesus' body guarded by Roman soldiers....

B. Hide the body in such a way as for it to never be found...

C. Fabricate a lie (Jesus rising from the dead)

D. Go out and proclaim that He did indeed rise from the dead (something they knew was a lie)

E. Boldy proclaim the remission of sins in His name in a Second-Temple Judaistic culture which would have earned them immediate ostracism

F. Be so effective in their proclamation of this lie that Christianity spread so rapidly as to have an immense multitude of followers 2,000 miles away in the capital city of a pagan empire...

G. Be willing to die and suffer some of the most extreme forms of torture, and persecution and ultimately death for something they knew was a lie.

H. Inspire an immense multitude to also die and suffer the most extreme forms of torture

And accomplish all of the above by basing their new religion on a complete lie?

Overnight they go from despondent, leaderless, cowardly, fearful men, to men who literally turned the world upside down so that today in 2014 nearly a third of the world's population (over 2,000,000,000) people worship Christ as God!

To say that this is extraordinary would be a gross understatement. Not only that but the sheer improbability of this happening and all of it happening while Jesus lay dead somewhere is so staggering as to make one's mind reel when thinking of the improbability of it.

Zealous men will oftentimes die for what they believe to be true, but I am aware of no one who would die for something they knew to be a lie. This is exactly what we have to believe if we are to believe that Christianity is based on some colossal lie.

Is it not more probable and in accordance with Occam's Razor( i.e the principle of parsimony or succinctness) that Jesus Rose from the Dead in accordance with scripture and that Christ was and is alive and well and building His Church as He said He would?

[Angrboda]

[MindForgedManacle]

Look into what he says closely, something extraordinary is indeed present. He states that an immense multitude of Christians were convicted by Nero for starting the fire that burned a great deal of Rome in 64A.D.

Now, if Jesus, who we know was crucified, had died and indeed remained dead, then it becomes inexplicable as to how His immediate disciples (all of which were Jews), who were despondent, fearful of their lives and forced into hiding, could have somehow been the cause of there being an immense multitude of Christians in Rome which is roughly 2,000 miles a way in a mere thirty years!

If you think it's inexplicable, you have a shit imagination and little to know experience of how humans act.

Firstly, the fact that Nero convicted a bunch of Christians for setting Rome ablaze (assuming it is a fact) says nothing about what actually happened. After all, political leaders aren't exactly shy about blaming some minority for horrible shit. Just ask a Jew, eh?

Secondly, some religions spread, and quickly given the right cultural traditions, and here you demonstrate your ignorance of Christian history. "Christianity" didn't spread to Rome, "Christianities" spread to Rome. Yes, one triumphed over the others, but because it was the one that Roman culture was more suited to. Marcionite Christianity didn't appeal to them because it didn't have pedigree and tradition. The proto-orthodox Christianity had those things by being an extension of another ancient religion, so it could at least catch on.

The presence of so many Christians in Rome at this particular time roughly 2,000 miles away from where Christ was crucified and buried leaving behind a rag tag group of Galileans who were forced into hiding and despondent at the death of their Rabbi, cries out for an explanation.

1) Exaggeration of the number of Christians. Christians like to do this, and the Bible itself makes lies akin to this about Jesus, something historically not borne out.

2) Aggressive proselytization, which was actually done by folk like St. Paul.

3) You're acting like these guys just lost the will to live despite having apparently been with God made flesh. We humans manage to inspire people better than ypu make out Jesus' influence on his disciples to have been.

Both Suetonius, the Chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian and the Roman Historian Tacitus mention a "superstition" when speaking of Christians and many historians see this as an allusion to the claim of the disciples that Jesus had been resurrected.

Or they were talking about beliefs they thought were bullshit? 'Tis what most people mean when thet refer to something as superstitious.

Are we really to believe that these twelve Galileans would:

A. Be able to somehow steal Jesus' body guarded by Roman soldiers....

How do we know it was guarded by Roman soldiers? That's not something the Romans did to criminals they executed. Mass graves were the norm.

B. Hide the body in such a way as for it to never be found...

Mass grave? And how do you know they never found it? And we certainly wouldn't know if we'd found Jesus' body.

[truthBtold]

Look into what he says closely, something extraordinary is indeed present. He states that an immense multitude of Christians were convicted by Nero for starting the fire that burned a great deal of Rome in 64A.D.

Now, if Jesus, who we know was crucified, had died and indeed remained dead, then it becomes inexplicable as to how His immediate disciples (all of which were Jews), who were despondent, fearful of their lives and forced into hiding, could have somehow been the cause of there being an immense multitude of Christians in Rome which is roughly 2,000 miles a way in a mere thirty years!

If you think it's inexplicable, you have a shit imagination and little to know experience of how humans act.

Firstly, the fact that Nero convicted a bunch of Christians for setting Rome ablaze (assuming it is a fact) says nothing about what actually happened. After all, political leaders aren't exactly shy about blaming some minority for horrible shit. Just ask a Jew, eh?

Secondly, some religions spread, and quickly given the right cultural traditions, and here you demonstrate your ignorance of Christian history. "Christianity" didn't spread to Rome, "Christianities" spread to Rome. Yes, one triumphed over the others, but because it was the one that Roman culture was more suited to. Marcionite Christianity didn't appeal to them because it didn't have pedigree and tradition. The proto-orthodox Christianity had those things by being an extension of another ancient religion, so it could at least catch on.

The presence of so many Christians in Rome at this particular time roughly 2,000 miles away from where Christ was crucified and buried leaving behind a rag tag group of Galileans who were forced into hiding and despondent at the death of their Rabbi, cries out for an explanation.

1) Exaggeration of the number of Christians. Christians like to do this, and the Bible itself makes lies akin to this about Jesus, something historically not borne out.

2) Aggressive proselytization, which was actually done by folk like St. Paul.

3) You're acting like these guys just lost the will to live despite having apparently been with God made flesh. We humans manage to inspire people better than ypu make out Jesus' influence on his disciples to have been.

Both Suetonius, the Chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian and the Roman Historian Tacitus mention a "superstition" when speaking of Christians and many historians see this as an allusion to the claim of the disciples that Jesus had been resurrected.

Or they were talking about beliefs they thought were bullshit? 'Tis what most people mean when thet refer to something as superstitious.

Are we really to believe that these twelve Galileans would:

A. Be able to somehow steal Jesus' body guarded by Roman soldiers....

How do we know it was guarded by Roman soldiers? That's not something the Romans did to criminals they executed. Mass graves were the norm.

B. Hide the body in such a way as for it to never be found...

Mass grave? And how do you know they never found it? And we certainly wouldn't know if we'd found Jesus' body.

U r the cats ass, nuts and all.... that was awesomely done bravo.. bravo.. u.. u ur good..

[Crossless2.0]

Look into what he says closely, something extraordinary is indeed present. He states that an immense multitude of Christians were convicted by Nero for starting the fire that burned a great deal of Rome in 64A.D.

Now, if Jesus, who we know was crucified, had died and indeed remained dead, then it becomes inexplicable as to how His immediate disciples (all of which were Jews), who were despondent, fearful of their lives and forced into hiding, could have somehow been the cause of there being an immense multitude of Christians in Rome which is roughly 2,000 miles a way in a mere thirty years!

The presence of so many Christians in Rome at this particular time roughly 2,000 miles away from where Christ was crucified and buried leaving behind a rag tag group of Galileans who were forced into hiding and despondent at the death of their Rabbi, cries out for an explanation.

Both Suetonius, the Chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian and the Roman Historian Tacitus mention a "superstition" when speaking of Christians and many historians see this as an allusion to the claim of the disciples that Jesus had been resurrected.

Are we really to believe that these twelve Galileans would:

A. Be able to somehow steal Jesus' body guarded by Roman soldiers....

B. Hide the body in such a way as for it to never be found...

C. Fabricate a lie (Jesus rising from the dead)

D. Go out and proclaim that He did indeed rise from the dead (something they knew was a lie)

E. Boldy proclaim the remission of sins in His name in a Second-Temple Judaistic culture which would have earned them immediate ostracism

F. Be so effective in their proclamation of this lie that Christianity spread so rapidly as to have an immense multitude of followers 2,000 miles away in the capital city of a pagan empire...

G. Be willing to die and suffer some of the most extreme forms of torture, and persecution and ultimately death for something they knew was a lie.

H. Inspire an immense multitude to also die and suffer the most extreme forms of torture

And accomplish all of the above by basing their new religion on a complete lie?

Overnight they go from despondent, leaderless, cowardly, fearful men, to men who literally turned the world upside down so that today in 2014 nearly a third of the world's population (over 2,000,000,000) people worship Christ as God!

To say that this is extraordinary would be a gross understatement. Not only that but the sheer improbability of this happening and all of it happening while Jesus lay dead somewhere is so staggering as to make one's mind reel when thinking of the improbability of it.

Zealous men will oftentimes die for what they believe to be true, but I am aware of no one who would die for something they knew to be a lie. This is exactly what we have to believe if we are to believe that Christianity is based on some colossal lie.

Is it not more probable and in accordance with Occam's Razor( i.e the principle of parsimony or succinctness) that Jesus Rose from the Dead in accordance with scripture and that Christ was and is alive and well and building His Church as He said He would?

No, it's not more probable that Jesus rose from the dead, etc. If you apply Occam's Razor properly, you end up with a fairly mundane and uncontroversial conclusion: Paul and his cohorts were remarkably successful at proselytizing Gentiles -- hence the presence of Christians in Rome circa 64. A successful salesman -- big fucking deal. We're still no closer to having good reasons for believing any of the supernatural hokum in the Gospels or believing that Jesus was anything other than a person who had a following and met a very bad end.

Also, this isn't necessarily about whether Jesus's followers lied (though it can't be ruled out). Good god, man! As much as you like to hector everyone else about logic and philosophy, you really can't think of another (or several other) possibilities aside from a spin on Lewis's "Lord, lunatic, or liar" spiel? There were Christians in Rome about thirty years after the execution and therefore, according to the principle of parsimony (according to you anyway), Jesus rose from the dead? Sorry, it doesn't follow.