(January 4, 2017 at 2:57 pm)21stCenturyIconoclast Wrote:(January 4, 2017 at 2:26 am)Astonished Wrote: These kinds of debate topics bother the shit out of me. I mentioned this before in another thread, but it's only by the grace of skeptics humoring the theists (occupying the moral high ground from the start by being congenial in this way) that you can even get to this step. "Do humans ever rise from the dead?" "No." "Did this one particular person do this?" I mean, there's at least half a dozen other debates you'd have to lose to the theists (fat fucking chance) before you could even reasonably approach this one for it to have any point. Because resurrection (or the pretense or any similar act that could be a mistake but seemingly miraculous - miraculous just meaning in defiance of nature as it is understood) in and of itself doesn't have any further implications that can be inferred according to any supernatural-based belief system. You'd be attaching tons of unwarranted, unnecessary contingencies to it. So the lead-up to this debate would have to prove tons of other stuff ahead of time or the entire purpose falls flat on its face. I can't help but wonder if some of the skeptics who engage in debates like this don't realize that, because it seems like a waste of time going through with it unless you make it clear from the start, and your theist opponent acknowledges all of this and agrees not to start attaching all of the conditions that would have required them to win a bunch of other debates beforehand as 'evidence', either for the resurrection or as results of the resurrection.
If that sounded incoherent, I've been awake for almost 24 hours and I'm barely able to keep my eyes open.
Astonished,
Its called the preponderance of the evidence, lack of historicity to prove a point, actual written history to derail an alleged truth, and only relying
upon "faith" which is not an absolute. When the dust settles, 99.999% of the time, there was no BIBLE Jesus.
When this topic comes up, and as shown, the pseudo-christian runs away from it as fast as they can.
Again, Carl Sagan said it best relative to pseudo-christians, to wit: “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on
evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.” -Carl Sagan (1934-1996)
m
Has there been any attempt to explain why anyone should respect that?
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
