Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[danieldemol]

If you find a bit of information (call it X) that puts Jim and Bob as the only 2 possible suspects.(and X excludes all the other 10 possible murderes) then X would count as evidence against Bob and Jim……. (perhaps not conclusive evidence) but evidence.

If you agree with that statement, then you agree with me, and disagree with TagliatelliMonster

I think you may be paraphrasing @TagliatelliMonster argument and claiming it as your own here, because you have given an example where evidence is distinguishing between 2 groups.

But regardless of whether the argument is your own, saying God did it does not distinguish between competing ideas, as an All-powerful God could just as easily caused any competing idea to occur. So there can be no distinguishing evidence between ideas if we are trying to examine if God did it.

God could have for example miraculously caused Paul to die for a delusion in my view.

 

[Brian2]

You have just acknowledged otherwise:



Emphasis mine.
If what you say there is true, then your faith most definitly has bearing on most subjects. Since you view everything with that base assumption in mind.


I'ld say that your first quote and what I emphasized in the latter, are in direct contradiction.
One of both is thus wrong it seems to me. Which is it?

The third option is that you are wrong. I choose that one.

 

[Brian2]

I don't have any beliefs to force on you.
Furthermore I don't it's even possible to "force" a belief on someone.

I suppose skeptics/atheists deny having faith and so if that is accepted by the forum rule makers then skeptics/atheists can never be in breach of the no proselytyzing rule.
But without beliefs skeptics/atheists certainly have a lot to preach about to those who say they have faith.

Most of the time?
Can you give me a real-world example of when it is not and explain how and why it's not?

I already did that, but you decided to break up my answer (which included that) and get me to answer it again.

Is it?
How so?

Verifiable advice does not exist about some things.

Furthermore, even if that were the case (it's not), why would that be a problem?

I suppose preaching your non existent faith is OK.

 

[Brian2]

I want the same evidence I'd expect of anything else that actually exists. You're the one giving special exceptions for the special things you believe but can't demonstrate. I don't accept that.

If there is a God and the supernatural, a God who created everything keeps everything going and a supernatural that is the basis for life then God is not an exception, the physical universe is the exception.

I could. Or I could ask the person claiming said "supernatural" exists to provide a definition of what it is they're talking about.
What happened when I asked for one, you may wonder? I got an admission that he can't define it. Oh well then. Sorry. I don't know how somebody can claim the existence of something they can't even define.

The existence of God does not need to be verified or proven or even defined.
Nobody knows what the physical universe is, but who wants science to define what gravity for example, is, before believing it exists.
Is it a force, is it waves, what are these things anyway?

 

[Brian2]

It's simply your claim that it's "out of the realm of science." And a convenient one at that. Now you don't have to actually explain anything! It's just true because you believe it.

Supernatural is defined as those things beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
So skeptics want to say they have to be part of nature and have verifiable scientific evidence or they are not true.
That might be true for you and you can believe it if you want,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it is not true just because you believe it to be so.

 

[Brian2]

Nothing real is outside the realm of science. Imaginary things cannot be examined, but everything else - everything real - interacts with nature (the rest of reality). Your proposing the existence of something that cannot be detected in any manner at any place at any time. Think about what you are claiming. You're saying that something exists that is causally disconnected from our reality. Such a statement can never be confirmed or disconfirmed. It's what's called "not even wrong" for that reason. It wouldn't matter if there were such a thing that could not impact our reality.

God has had an impact on me and millions of others. You must be living in a different world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God has had an impact on me and millions of others. You must be living in a different world.

Not a different world, just a different understanding of it. I would say that the idea of God and belief in the reality and existence of that god has had an impact on you, which is the purpose of teaching such things.

 

[Eli G]

Not a different world, just a different understanding of it. I would say that the idea of God and belief in the reality and existence of that god has had an impact on you, which is the purpose of teaching such things.

Evidently the opposite idea has greatly influenced the minds of those who adopt it... The world has become a much worse place to live in since atheists have been trying to promote their philosophy of survival of the fittest.

 

[ppp]

Evidently the opposite idea has greatly influenced the minds of those who adopt it... The world has become a much worse place to live in since atheists have been trying to promote their philosophy of survival of the fittest.

Why are y'all so married to that canard of a stereotype? Is it that you cannot find a legitimate complaint? Really three canards in one: A Trinity, one might say.

I would also point out that your notion of survival of the fittest equates to might makes right; which is a historically theistic philosophy from the beginning of recorded civilization, continuing through all of the Abrahamic religions and into this forum.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidently the opposite idea has greatly influenced the minds of those who adopt it... The world has become a much worse place to live in since atheists have been trying to promote their philosophy of survival of the fittest.

In my opinion, the opposite is correct. Humanism and the move from magical thinking and faith have reshaped the world for the better and dramatically improved the human condition for billions. Humanism has gifted the world with science and the modern, liberal, democratic, secular state, where free, autonomous citizens live longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, and more interesting lives in pursuit of happiness as they understand it.

And atheism has no philosophy. Most atheists are also agnostic humanists. That's their worldview. That defines their values and approach to life.

The problem the world has is that man has evolved and will continue to evolve intellectually much faster than morally. Too many are stuck in an Abrahamic worldview that sees the world as expendable and controlled by a good, protective god that loves them more than everything else in creation, and will take them to heaven. This is obviously a dangerous idea if incorrect.

I'm sure that you're familiar with (and may be one) the believer who sees matter and flesh as base, human society unfit to be a part of, the universe expendable in fiery apocalypse (some rejoice over this), and who are just waiting for death to get a prize and to go somewhere better than our cosmos. These people have removed the sacred from our world and exported it to an imagined spirit in an imagined supernatural realm.

This is the most violence one can possibly do to the idea that the world itself is our mother and deserves our attention and admiration, which is where I say authentic spirituality resides - in the sense of connection to and belonging in this sacred world. Our earth is sacred, not a trash can or a waiting room to be endured as some of these religions that have removed the sacred from the profane depict it.

Here's a typical expression of that attitude from James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan, whose job was to protect America's natural resources. No humanists think like this: "We don't have to protect the environment. The Second Coming is at hand."

 

[Eli G]

Is there anyone who believes that human society is advancing at this time?
Com'on ... watch the news.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is there anyone who believes that human society is advancing at this time?
Com'on ... watch the news.

From

(SOUNDBITE OF TED TALK)

STEPHEN PINKER: Many people face the news each morning with trepidation and dread. Every day, we read of shootings, inequality, pollution, dictatorship, war and the spread of nuclear weapons. These are some of the reasons that 2016 was called the worst year ever until 2017 claimed that record and left many people longing for earlier decades when the world seemed safer, cleaner and more equal. But is this a sensible way to understand the human condition in the 21st century? As Franklin Pierce Adams pointed out, nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.

You can always fool yourself into seeing it decline if you compare leading headlines of the present with rose-tinted images of the past. What does the trajectory of the world look like when we measure well-being overtime using a constant yardstick? Let's compare the most recent data on the present with the same measures 30 years ago. Last year, Americans killed each other at a rate of 5.3 per 100,000, had 7 percent of their citizens in poverty and admitted 21 million tons of particulate matter and 4 million tons of sulfur dioxide. But 30 years ago, the homicide rate was 8.5 per 100,000, poverty rate was 12 percent, and we emitted 35 million tons of particulate matter and 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide.

What about the world as a whole? Last year, the world had 12 ongoing wars, 60 autocracies, 10 percent of the world population in extreme poverty and more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. But 30 years ago, there were 23 wars, 85 autocracies, 37 percent of the world population in extreme poverty and more than 60,000 nuclear weapons. True, last year was a terrible year for terrorism in Western Europe with 238 deaths. But 1988 was worse with 440 deaths. What's going on? Was 1988 a particularly bad year? Or are these improvements a sign that the world, for all its troubles, gets better overtime?

===========

The Abrahamic religion trade in nihilism and pessimism for man and claim to offer the only remedy for all of this gloom and doom - their god. I recently was visited by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The visit began by assuming that the world was a terrible place, getting worse, and that I probably agreed with that. I did not. I explained that although many live difficult lives, the world is also a wonderful place for many, and that I was happy being in it. That was literally the end of the discussion. They said thank you and moved along. That surprised me. It had never been that brief before. Were they unprepared for and stymied by my answer? That didn't seem possible, but what else could it be? My point is that if I didn't see the world as going to hell in a bucket, it seems that they thought they had nothing to say to me.

Man is headed for a rough patch, and will drag the beasts into it with him. Global warming will reshape society with a great and terrible correction, but he will emerge from it wiser and do better as he rebuilds the world. The climate deniers will have been silenced permanently and recognized for the hazards they had always been.

Authoritarianism will get worse before it eventually is replaced by a trend back to democracy following the failures of authoritarian states and Abrahamic anti-human, anti-reason, and anti-nature doctrines. Short-term prospects are grim regarding both of these trends, but the long-term outlook is optimistic in my opinion. The surviving remnant will know what to do and be greatly motivated to do it. Humanistic values will continue to replace Abrahamic values as they have since the Enlightenment.

 

[Eli G]

Nobody needs a conference to know how bad the world is and how worse is becoming ... We have eyes.

 

[Sargonski]

Evidently the opposite idea has greatly influenced the minds of those who adopt it... The world has become a much worse place to live in since atheists have been trying to promote their philosophy of survival of the fittest.

In my opinion, the opposite is correct. Humanism and the move from magical thinking and faith have reshaped the world for the better and dramatically improved the human condition for billions. Humanism has gifted the world with science and the modern, liberal, democratic, secular state, where free, autonomous citizens live longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, and more interesting lives in pursuit of happiness as they understand it.

And atheism has no philosophy. Most atheists are also agnostic humanists. That's their worldview. That defines their values and approach to life.

The problem the world has is that man has evolved and will continue to evolve intellectually much faster than morally. Too many are stuck in an Abrahamic worldview that sees the world as expendable and controlled by a good, protective god that loves them more than everything else in creation, and will take them to heaven. This is obviously a dangerous idea if incorrect.

I'm sure that you're familiar with (and may be one) the believer who sees matter and flesh as base, human society unfit to be a part of, the universe expendable in fiery apocalypse (some rejoice over this), and who are just waiting for death to get a prize and to go somewhere better than our cosmos. These people have removed the sacred from our world and exported it to an imagined spirit in an imagined supernatural realm.

This is the most violence one can possibly do to the idea that the world itself is our mother and deserves our attention and admiration, which is where I say authentic spirituality resides - in the sense of connection to and belonging in this sacred world. Our earth is sacred, not a trash can or a waiting room to be endured as some of these religions that have removed the sacred from the profane depict it.

Here's a typical expression of that attitude from James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan, whose job was to protect America's natural resources. No humanists think like this: "We don't have to protect the environment. The Second Coming is at hand."

ELI --- Non Sequitur Fallacy Atheists were/are not the big "Survival of the Fittest" promotors --- and certainly not in the Eugenics sense .. where you are conflating two different concepts together perhaps -- Evolution and Eugenics

Christians were on the Eugenics Bandwagon ... and folks of other Religions ... probably more so than Atheists .. and in fact most Atheists .. least these days .. are no longer on the Eugenics Bandwagon know known as "Biological Determinism" .. funny that Rotten Ronnie was brought up as he was a big Eugenics Adherent .. along with Maggie Thatcher .. and as is the case with most of the "Blue Bloods" -- Donald Trump and backers included. .. you don't really get into the club if you are not sfar as I know.

Societal advancement is held up due to a number of forces ... the lack of advancement driven primarily by the Donor Class in the USA .. the dumbing down aided by Religion but, also by secular ideology ... Woke - ism for example and the various collectivist ideologies ... utilitarianism --- those which are an anathama to individual liberty .. and the founding principle.

.

 

[Eli G]

The bad condition of human society is an objective reality everyone can see ... No one needs a conference about that.
Evidently one of the causes of that deterioration of the world is on atheists and their proclaim of selfishness, the NoGods philosophy, the no fear attitude and the vulgarity we can see everywhere ... Atheists act as if not believing in God is removing from human beings all the spiritual heritage that humanity has acquired through all the centuries. It is shameful how vulgar the human guidelines endorsed by atheists have reached.

That is why I am more convinced than ever that the Bible is not wrong. Almost 2 thousand years ago this was written:

2 Tim. 3:1 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. (...) 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The bad condition of human society is an objective reality everyone can see

Objective reality? You see what your faith-based confirmation bias allows you to see.

That is why I am more convinced than ever that the Bible is not wrong. Almost 2 thousand years ago this was written:

2 Tim. 3:1 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. (...) 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.

And this is what you've been taught to see. How dreary and dreadful. You should come visit the head of a humanist, who understands man's capacity for nobility, who understands that whatever solutions and progress may come will come from man, and promotes virtues like reason and compassion. Where I see hope and light after a time with climate catastrophe and battling authoritarianism, you see worsening dystopia without resolution. That's what you've been taught. You've been taught man's weakness and inadequacy, his sinful nature and his inability to help himself from himself, and you have accepted that. Now you get to live in that world.

I'm anticipating another ten to thirty years of love, beauty, comfort, and leisure. I may not get it, but barring unforeseeable circumstances, it's a reasonable expectation. How about you? You live in the world described in that scripture, feeling surrounded by wickedness. Evil and wickedness continually pepper your thoughts.

But that's by design. That's how the church convinces you that you need it and its cure for this dystopic world. It's how it keeps you clutching to it for protection from all that evil it tells you about. But we don't have sin or hell in my world. We don't have to fear or loathe "abortionists" or "evolutionists." Those things are for Abrahamic believers to worry about. Keep an eye on all of that, will you please, because I'm not?

In the secular world, this is same manipulation is done by convincing people that Communists and Marxists and pedophiles in the basements of pizza restaurants are everywhere, and that elections have been stolen from them. Evil world knocking at your door again. And it works. People get very wealthy repeating these kinds of threats.

 

[Eli G]

My eyes were not taught to see

If they can't even contain their hatred for believers... what humanism are atheists talking about?

 

[danieldemol]

My eyes were not taught to see

If they can't even contain their hatred for believers... what humanism are atheists talking about?

What hatred? Talk about a persecution complex in my opinion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My eyes were not taught to see

If they can't even contain their hatred for believers... what humanism are atheists talking about?

I just left this on another thread. Maybe you should see this, too:

He: as long as you don't perform heinous acts or pass harmful legislation because of your anti-God and anti-religion beliefs

Me: I'm a humanist. My personal ethics and vision for society are based in the Golden Rule. We embrace freedom, tolerance, equity, and enabling and developing people. In that kind of a society, you are free to be a Christian and I and others who want to be are free of the influence of its moral values.

The one your church envisions is the opposite. It would impose piety as it understands it, including oppressing "abominations" like atheists and gays and constricting sexual and reproductive freedoms. That's for volunteers to live under, not free, autonomous citizens who have no interest in living life under such rules. Sin is for believers to worry about, as is hell. Forced pregnancy is for volunteers.​

Regarding gods and religions, I have no anti-God beliefs, and I have no gods including the one most in the West call God - the god of Abraham, which is the one I assume you mean when you capitalize God. But I am antitheistic in the limited sense that I object to organized, politicized religion invading government and the lives where it is unwelcome and write against it often. Here I go twice more:​

He: Nobelist Stephen Weinberg's hateful verbal attack against religion not withstanding.

Me: Hateful? Attack? It's a valid observation ['religion makes good people do bad']. Abrahamic religion and its divine command theory of right and wrong makes good people do bad, and I don't know anything else that does that. Did you want to try to rebut that? I'd say that you're an example of that. You're on the Internet promoting harmful religious values. Without your religion, you'd think like me in terms of freedoms and enabling people to live fullest lives possible. You'd agree with Weinberg. Those are humanist values, and they arise naturally from the application reason to an evolved intuition interested in human potential.

That's why it's called humanism. It's by humans for humans and sees humanity as potentially noble and the only source for answers and progress possible. I say potentially noble, because there are other isms people might get caught up in that degrade humanity, degrade "the flesh," degrade human society and warn against being part of it ("the world"), degrade human aspiration as hubris and futile, and degrade reason and human knowledge. There is nothing noble there.​

You no doubt consider this a hateful attack against your religion, but in my opinion, these are valid observations. If you think can show that they're wrong, you should. If you merely don't like them but can't rebut them, then that's fine, too. This is what sharing ideas in the marketplace of ideas looks like. You offer yours and I offer mine, and we let the "market" decide what resonates most with it. There's nothing hateful or attacklike about it unless you choose to frame it that way, and of course, church doctrine with its persecution fetish does exactly that.​

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And what if this spirit, God, can still exist when there is no time?

If there is no time, God can’t say let there be light because there is before He said it, while He said it, and after He said it.