A five page thread like this makes me lament that we don't live in a more rational society where topics like this wouldn't need to be discussed any more than "naturalistic explanations for the labors of Hercules".
In a rational society, the Bible will be placed next to the Iliad and Odyssey in the mythology section. Anyone who puts forward this mythology as "historical documentation" would be simply laughed out of the room with no time-wasting discussion required. Speculations about the "historicity of the resurrection of Jesus" would be consigned to the tabloid articles along side Batboy interviews and UFO abduction accounts. Academic assumptions would be in favor of a natural universe that is governed by predictable laws best understood by science and reason, the so-called "bias for naturalism" that theists whine about (also known as a "bias for reality"). Any claims that there ever were any miraculous events would require the massive proportional evidence to even merit consideration (see Carl Sagan's ECREE doctrine). Any discussion of how people could believe in a resurrection or why they would "be willing to die for a lie" would be shrugged off by pointing out how unreliable folklore is and that people once believed all kinds of crazy things.
I'm not saying we're wrong for discussing this topic. I'm saying I lament that we still have to.
In a rational society, the Bible will be placed next to the Iliad and Odyssey in the mythology section. Anyone who puts forward this mythology as "historical documentation" would be simply laughed out of the room with no time-wasting discussion required. Speculations about the "historicity of the resurrection of Jesus" would be consigned to the tabloid articles along side Batboy interviews and UFO abduction accounts. Academic assumptions would be in favor of a natural universe that is governed by predictable laws best understood by science and reason, the so-called "bias for naturalism" that theists whine about (also known as a "bias for reality"). Any claims that there ever were any miraculous events would require the massive proportional evidence to even merit consideration (see Carl Sagan's ECREE doctrine). Any discussion of how people could believe in a resurrection or why they would "be willing to die for a lie" would be shrugged off by pointing out how unreliable folklore is and that people once believed all kinds of crazy things.
I'm not saying we're wrong for discussing this topic. I'm saying I lament that we still have to.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
