A simple challenge for atheists

[IATIA]

There was a documentary on Discovery or History channel that was dealing with the Roswell incident. (And I believe that was the name of the documentary.) One of the issues dealt with was memory recall. A group of students was taken on a nature hike and were supposed to document their trek. Along the way there was some scattered debris and a couple of guys. Basically there was no interaction. One month later, the students were interviewed about this particular event. Most acknowledged some interaction and one went so far as to state that the men had guns and detained them. The event had been video taped and after the interviews, the students were shown what really happened. This was after 30 days.

[SteelCurtain]

Hey, chainsaw of logic, I would like to know how you explain why the early Christians believed in the actual event of the resurrection. Don't tell me that every early adherents to a religion believe in the religion. These people believed in AN ACTUAL EVENT--not a new philosophy or some written revelation.

You really are dense, aren't you?

How do you know 1) these people believed the event happened, and 2) that there was an ACTUAL EVENT?

[SteveII]

My worldview is open to more options

No, your worldview is about one thing alone.

The claim.

You believe the claim without the evidence to support it. You build arguments around an insupportable claim instead of first substantiating the claim with verifiable evidence that will then support the arguments.

Either you have not read my previous post on the subject in this thread or you are programmed to say the same thing over and over in different ways.

You cannot claim there is no evidence--there is plenty. Four gospels, acts, letters from eyewitnesses John, Peter, and James, add in Paul who knew all these people. You add in the historical EVIDENCE that these people (along with large numbers of other people) acted upon the information in ways that can only be explained by their belief.

While you might not think this evidence is sufficient, that is a matter of opinion (which you apparently abhor). You have not developed an alternative scenario that explains the facts:

1. Why were the gospels written?
2. Why were the letter of Paul, John, Peter and James written?
3. Why did the early church come up with a religion that was so non-jewish as to cause life and death struggle with the jewish establishment?
4. How does a real Jesus fit into these events?

Take as stab at these questions and add something to the debate.

[Foxaèr]

You cannot claim there is no evidence--there is plenty. Four gospels, acts, letters from eyewitnesses John, Peter, and James, add in Paul who knew all these people.

Of course I can claim that there is no evidence.

The bible is no more evidence that its contents are real than a spider-man comic is evidence that its contents are real.

You add in the historical EVIDENCE.

What evidence? You merely using the word evidence does not magically lend credence or power to your unsubstantiated claim.

---

1. Why were the gospels written?
2. Why were the letter of Paul, John, Peter and James written?

I cannot claim why it was written unless there was a note specifically left by the author(s) indicating why it was written. All anyone can conjecture in relation to written works is interpretation of what is available. It would be silly of me to claim that the writer wrote what he did about a blue curtain because he was depressed at the time. I can merely interpret the blue curtain in relation to the fictional piece itself.

3. Why did the early church come up with a religion that was so non-jewish as to cause life and death struggle with the jewish establishment?

Man creates religion for the sole purpose of holding sway over the masses.

4. How does a real Jesus fit into these events?

Jesus never existed except as a fictional character created to be part of a mythology.

[SteveII]

Hey, chainsaw of logic, I would like to know how you explain why the early Christians believed in the actual event of the resurrection. Don't tell me that every early adherents to a religion believe in the religion. These people believed in AN ACTUAL EVENT--not a new philosophy or some written revelation.

You really are dense, aren't you?

How do you know 1) these people believed the event happened, and 2) that there was an ACTUAL EVENT?

It seems like you don't really know anything about Christianity beyond the very clever "prove it" line. Are you going to question whether John, Peter, James, and Paul ever existed? Do you know what they wrote in there widely circulated letters? Are you going to question that Christianity sprung up and spread across the Roman empire (and as far as India) within a couple of decades of Jesus--still well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.

There is no Christianity without AN ACTUAL EVENT of the resurrection. Now faced with the evidence of people believing this event happened--I'll help you out here--you would have to claim that it was all a conspiracy. Is that what your position is? Of do you just want to keep going with the prove it line?

[Foxaèr]

There is no Christianity without AN ACTUAL EVENT of the resurrection.

And you can prove there was an ACTUAL EVENT?

If you cannot provide evidence for an ACTUAL EVENT, there is no logical reason to accept that the event happened.

Theists can get by stating outrageous, unverifiable things to one another, but do not expect a reasonable individual to take you seriously just because you ignorantly and superstitiously invoke the name of god.

[SteveII]

You cannot claim there is no evidence--there is plenty. Four gospels, acts, letters from eyewitnesses John, Peter, and James, add in Paul who knew all these people.

Of course I can claim that there is no evidence.

The bible is no more evidence that its contents are real than a spider-man comic is evidence that its contents are real.

You add in the historical EVIDENCE.

What evidence? You merely using the word evidence does not magically lend credence or power to your unsubstantiated claim.

---

1. Why were the gospels written?
2. Why were the letter of Paul, John, Peter and James written?

I cannot claim why it was written unless there was a note specifically left by the author(s) indicating why it was written. All anyone can conjecture in relation to written works is interpretation of what is available. It would be silly of me to claim that the writer wrote what he did about a blue curtain because he was depressed at the time. I can merely interpret the blue curtain in relation to the fictional piece itself.

3. Why did the early church come up with a religion that was so non-jewish as to cause life and death struggle with the jewish establishment?

Man creates religion for the sole purpose of holding sway over the masses.

4. How does a real Jesus fit into these events?

Jesus never existed except as a fictional character created to be part of a mythology.

So with a nickname like "Faith's Nightmare" you are going to say:

1. There is no evidence and a good parallel is spiderman
2. I am avoiding your question about how to explain what we do know to be true--the existence of the 27 books, that are not evidence, by saying you don't know why they were written even though they all individually say why they were written.
3. Man creates religion for the sole purpose to hold sway...what? Talk about assertions.
4. and finally, you are going to part with the majority of SECULAR scholars who think that Jesus actually existed and the actual events of his baptism and death by crucifixion are even likely.

[IATIA]

The jesus story is older than christianity. Other religions have lasted longer than christianity. Christianity is just the 'new guy' on the block without any new information. They just changed the names, but the events are the same.

People were telling this story almost four thousand years before the death and resurrection of Jesus.

[Foxaèr]

So with a nickname like "Faith's Nightmare" you are going to say:

1. There is no evidence and a good parallel is spiderman
2. I am avoiding your question about how to explain what we do know to be true--the existence of the 27 books, that are not evidence, by saying you don't know why they were written even though they all individually say why they were written.
3. Man creates religion for the sole purpose to hold sway...what? Talk about assertions.
4. and finally, you are going to part with the majority of SECULAR scholars who think that Jesus actually existed and the actual events of his baptism and death by crucifixion are even likely.

1. All you have to do is provide the evidence for your claim. After all, you are not going to read a spider-man comic and immediately assume, make the claim, that spider-man is real based on the comic and the fictional character witnesses in the comic who can vouch for spider-man's existence, are you?

2. An existence of a book is not evidence that what is contained within is veritably true. Furthermore, the four gospels are an account of one man's life. The authors do not inject side notes explaining their reasoning for writing what they did. Man read the accounts and immediately assumed that the claims within must be true.

3. The history and evolution of religion shows that its power over the masses has always been its goal. The creation of new religions we witness to this day prove this; Mormonism and Scientology, the goal being to recruit gullible adherents in order to control what they think and believe.

4. There are plenty of credible, unbiased sources indicating that Jesus was most likely never a real person.

[Dystopia]

And if Jesus was a person, he was most likely an average crazy Jew that lived in the middle east. Not exactly the son of god. And don't forget to add how many people were born at that time with the name "Jesus" with parents named "José" and "Maria"