Dear Theists....Why?

[Minimalist]

Perhaps this is what you are looking for:

http://www.holycross.edu/assets/pdfs/res...debate.pdf

I have just started reading it. It is between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman...

And Craig loses it in point #1.

(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical
hypothesis:
o Jesus’ burial
o the discovery of his empty tomb
o his post-mortem appearances
o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

He asserts "facts" which are not in evidence. He equates xtian dogma with reality. There is no evidence that jesus ever lived let alone that he was "buried," "had an empty tomb," "appeared to anyone," or that he had "disciples" who believed anything.

These legends grew up over the intervening 2-3 centuries. They are not "facts."[/code]

[DeistPaladin]

And Craig loses it in point #1.

(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical
hypothesis:
o Jesus’ burial
o the discovery of his empty tomb
o his post-mortem appearances
o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

He asserts "facts" which are not in evidence. He equates xtian dogma with reality. There is no evidence that jesus ever lived let alone that he was "buried," "had an empty tomb," "appeared to anyone," or that he had "disciples" who believed anything.

These legends grew up over the intervening 2-3 centuries. They are not "facts."[/code]

Even if we're generous and give that a historical Jesus on whom the mythology is based really existed, there are numerous problems:

Burial and empty tomb (actually, that's just one fact): There are three "empty tombs", all of whom claim to be the real deal, none provide any evidence.

His post-mortem appearance: Even today, there are "Elvis sightings" with just as much evidence to back them up. 2,000 years ago was a much more superstitious time.

The beliefs about his resurrection: We've got four contradictory accounts, none of whom can even get basic facts straight. How many angels were there? Was the stone moved before or during Mary's visit? Did Jesus go up into Heaven that day, 8 days later or 40 days later? And this is only the cannonical accounts. There are many different Christianities that existed at that time, some of whom denied Jesus had come in the flesh (see 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7).

[Minimalist]

I never feel "generous" with these people, DP.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I never feel "generous" with these people, DP.

Oh? I do.Why I can't remember the last time I set fire to a fundy dropkick. (we have them here too).Considering their irirritating level of willful ignorance and my level of cranky-old-cuntishness, I'd call that restraint downright magnanimous.

[ABierman1986]

If I may retort, why do you guys, or you yourself, dis-believe? Why do you choose to believe that this world, this universe, this experience, these mysteries, the micro verse, all that we know now, is just random. Big bang, first cause, expanding universe... To me believing in atheism is to scream (at differing volumes) 'I believe in the million monkey paradox, taken to an illogical extreme'. Why, pray tell, do you believe this is all random? Is it because the bible is stupid, because a lot of us figured that out and moved on years ago. I have come to kind of appreciate it for what it is...

It isn't a belief that it's all random. Probabilities are very small, but we've got trillions and trillions of chances, the odds are actually great that intelligent life would evolve in at least one place given what we know about the conditions needed for life. The complicated nature of the universe fits itself together in elegant symmetries and patterns that are explained and derived through a completely non-random, complex, elegant evolutionary process.

It's just a disbelief that a super-powerful, supernatural, force outside explanation and operating in ways that violate the principles of the universe is necessary for life to exist. If the evidence said that one did, and atheists were openly shunning factual, empirical evidence, then you'd have a stronger case. It's a belief in the evidence around us, without needing an assumed God for all the questions that haven't been reasoned out yet.

The universe is wondrous, and the explanations behind them have been driven by an underlying search for truth. The cause of the big bang and a concrete, evidence founded explanation of the spacetime experience prior to it will no doubt be no less incredible! If God exists we'll all figure it out when we die, until then, there is absolutely no observable or rational reason for belief.

[Minimalist]

I never feel "generous" with these people, DP.

Oh? I do.Why I can't remember the last time I set fire to a fundy dropkick. (we have them here too).Considering their irirritating level of willful ignorance and my level of cranky-old-cuntishness, I'd call that restraint downright magnanimous.

You are a prince among men, Pad.

[DeistPaladin]

I never feel "generous" with these people, DP.

Oh? I do.Why I can't remember the last time I set fire to a fundy dropkick. (we have them here too).Considering their irirritating level of willful ignorance and my level of cranky-old-cuntishness, I'd call that restraint downright magnanimous.

It adds a certain satisfaction giving your query a sporting chance. Like a cat playing with it's food before killing it.

"Oh sure, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that..."
"And what the heck, let's overlook..."
"And while we're at it, assuming that..."
"aaaaannnnd (pause) you still lose and here's why..."

[solja247]

You can't be serious, Sol? The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry? This is your fucking source!

Let's look at their mission statement and see if even you can detect a certain built in bias.


"
General Information about Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

by Matt Slick

Who/What is CARM? - CARM is several people who help keep it running. Matt Slick who is the founder and president; Ryan Turner a researcher and writer; Diane Sellner who runs the discussion boards and chat room.

Why this site? - To equip Christians with the truth, to expose the error of false religious systems, evolution, to teach apologetics, help Christians defend the faith, and to glorify the Lord Jesus."



Yeah - a load of shit from the top down. You people are so funny.

Did you read the article though? Dont worry about the site, it makes a good point. Thats what I was getting at...

I'm sorry but literally every time I hear a Christian hold up his book of mythology as a collection of "historical documents", I laugh out loud. It gets me every time. I just can't get used to it no matter how often it happens.

Any texts dealing with God or gods is mythological. However, the Bible should be taken as a historical book, according to the Jews. However, Paul and the synoptic gosphels should be regarded as history. Here is a small list of scholars who believe so:

Rudolf Pesch
William lane Craig
N.T. Wright
Raymond Brown
John A. T. Robinson
Will Durant
Jacob Kremer
Gerd Lüdemann
James D. G. Dunn
Robert Yarbrough
John P. Meier
Ben Witherington III

---

And Craig loses it in point #1.

Did you even read it?

It was a great debate...Of course you are not going to agree with Craig, you have a different world view!!!

These legends grew up over the intervening 2-3 centuries. They are not "facts."[/code]

What about Paul? You should read 1 Corinthians 15

[Minimalist]

Did you read the article though? Dont worry about the site, it makes a good point. Thats what I was getting at...

No, it doesn't. It's fucking bullshit.

Did you even read it?

The whole thing? Of course not. I couldn't get past point #1 without gagging. If that is his premise then the logic which flows from it is hopelessly flawed. People who are desperate to believe in bullshit will simply close their eyes and go " hallelujah" but I cannot do that. If he can't start from a reasonable premise he goes nowhere.

Period.

---

What about Paul? You should read 1 Corinthians 15 Wink

Just as concocted as fucking jesus is. There are an awful lot of holes in the "saul/paul" story. If you knew anything about history this wouldn't be news to you.


When was old "paul" in Corinth, btw?

[solja247]

No, it doesn't. It's fucking bullshit.

lol. Are you sure you werent a creationist in one life time?

The whole thing? Of course not. I couldn't get past point #1 without gagging. If that is his premise then the logic which flows from it is hopelessly flawed. People who are desperate to believe in bullshit will simply close their eyes and go " hallelujah" but I cannot do that. If he can't start from a reasonable premise he goes nowhere.

Ignorance is bliss they say. It was a great debate, if you were open minded you would of enjoyed that debate.

Just as concocted as fucking jesus is. There are an awful lot of holes in the "saul/paul" story. If you knew anything about history this wouldn't be news to you.

What holes would that be exactly?